The Problem with RCA Prenups
RCA
Prenups are promises the husband makes to his wife that if she demands a GET
from him for whatever reason he will either honor her request and give a
willing GET to her, or he will pay her the sum of $150 a day until he gives the
GET. We combine here two things. One is the claim of the RCA that their Prenups
are crucial for family, and the other is my refutation of what the RCA claims.
The text of the RCA is here in regular text and my comments are italic and
bold. Text that I single out from the RCA text to comment upon is underlined in
the original and in my comments. (In some situations where all text had to be
equal this does not apply.)
Another
issue is the claim some make that the Gaon Rav Ovadiah Yosef had a document
that was like the RCA prenup and that he accepted the RCA prenup. That is
wrong, as I will point out. The document of Rav Ovadiah Yosef is not about
forcing a husband to give a GET, but about making Shalom Bayis. Also, the RCA
prenup gives all power to the woman to force her husband to give her a GET, and
the document of Rav Ovadiah Yosef has all power in the issue in the hands of
the husband, who selects how much money he will pay her until they are united
once again by the Beth Din, and crucially, the husband picks the Beth Din. This
is completely different than the RCA prenup that assigns all power to the wife.
Furthermore, there is a clear Mishneh in Nedorim 90b that a woman must not have
the power to force a GET on her husband because we fear that she will use the
power to find another husband.
This
Mishneh is quoted by Rabbeinu Tam in Kesubose 63B in Tosfose. It is the source
of the law that a woman who claims that her husband is distressing to her
cannot force a GET, because we fear that she will have the power to divorce her
husband because she likes another man. The RCA insists that all married woman
have a prenup and the ability to force the husband to divorce her anytime she
wants, which is direct contradiction to this Mishneh and the basic laws of
limiting the power of a woman to force a GET.
RCA and Its Teaching about Prenups
followed by Dovid Eidensohn’s comments.
RCA Says
Jewish Divorce and the Role of The Prenup
The Torah views marriage as a vital institution in Jewish life. But
the Torah also recognizes that in some cases marriages do not work out and need
to be ended. In order to do so, the husband must willingly give, and the wife
must willingly receive, a Jewish bill of divorce, known as a Get. In the
absence of a Get, the husband and wife are both precluded from remarrying.
Later offspring of the wife may bear the stigma of mamzerut (illegitimacy).
Dovid Eidensohn comments: Later offspring of the wife may bear
the stigma of mamzerut (illegitimacy). I feel it is important to be more specific
about what makes mamzerut from a married woman. Mamzerut from a married woman
comes about if she sleeps with another man not her husband. A woman who hates
her husband may be easily tempted to sleep with another man not her husband.
But what is happening today is that many “rabbis” have invented a new law, that
a husband who does not give a GET willingly when the wife demands it, may be
forced to give a GET. A forced GET is invalid and if the woman remarries with an
invalid GET her children from the new husband are mamzerim. The sin of forcing
a GET is a Rashbo in VII:414 and it quoted by all five poskim in the Shulchan
Aruch Even Hoezer Laws of Kesubose 77 par 2 and 3. The Vilna Gaon there says
that everybody agrees to this. Everybody, except the RCA and its “Gedolim.” But
what I just said is really a bit old fashioned. The new style, pioneered by a
certain Rosh Yeshiva in Philadelphia, is to tell a woman she doesn’t need a
GET, but she can just leave her husband. That surely makes mamzerim. But we
have a case in Philadelphia where the woman who left without a GET is living
with a strange man and both of them have bought an ad on the Yeshiva Kollel
dinner. This shows you where the world is going when you invent the new Torah.
This is also something
done by Rabbi Gedaliah Schwartz and I spoke to him about it and he said that he
allowed two Orthodox spouses to leave when they wanted a GET because they
didn’t need a GET. I asked him why they didn’t need a GET when they were
Orthodox, the witnesses were Orthodox, the woman got a ring from the husband
and they lived together for a month. He replied “Because there was no Biah.”
The halacha clearly taught in Tur Shulchan Aruch and Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer
Chapter 26 laws of Kiddushin is that a woman can be obtained in marriage in
three ways, each one of the three ways independently of the other. That is, a
ring without a marital document and without Biah creates a full marriage. But Gedaliah
Schwartz didn’t know that. There is tremendous ignorance of halacha among
people who have very high positions. That is how to make mamzerim. The woman
who was let off with no GET, if she remarries, will make mamzerim.
But somebody suggested that a husband who cannot have marital
relations for physical or emotional reasons may lose the entire Kiddushin made
between him and his wife. If so perhaps the husband who was not with his wife
for thirty days caused the Kiddushin made with the ring to disappear. But we
find in Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer chapter 76 paragraph 13 that a husband who
refuses to ever have relations with his wife must divorce her and give her a
Kesubo. A Kesubo is only given when there is Kiddushin, and the statement that
the wife is given the right to leave him means there was a GET. If so, in all
cases of Kiddushin where the man has a problem physically or emotionally or
just decides he wants no more intimacy, the husband must free his wife with a
GET and pay her a Kesubo. Not as Rabbi Schwartz did to let husband and wife go
without a GET and probably also no Kesubo. Both were errors.
Furthermore, the Shulchan
Aruch there Even Hoezer chapter 76 paragraph 11 says that one who is unable for
reasons of health or medical issues to be with his wife at least once in six
months must divorce his wife and give her a Kesubo. The husband with Rabbi Schwartz was with his
wife only one month. But even if he could be with her six months he must give
her a GET and a Kesubo. But Rabbi Schwartz simply told husband and wife to
leave without a GET. When a prominent scholar in Yeshiva University heard about
the woman just leaving he screamed at me, “Where is the woman?” I told him to
ask Rabbi Schwartz. But wherever she is, if she remarries for sure the child is
a mamzer, and the children’s children, for all generations.
RCA Says
In some cases, spouses have purposely withheld
a get even where their marriages have functionally ended. Some spouses have
refused to participate in the get process in order to extract concessions in
divorce negotiations, in order to extort money, or simply out of spite.
Dovid Eidensohn: It is true that not all husbands willingly give
a GET because the wife demands one. The above comment is true, but we are left
with the question of why the author did not write a bit longer to explain two
things. One, that the halacha in Even Hoezer 77 par 2 and 3 as taught by all
five poskim there, the Shulchan Aruch, the Ramo, the Gro, the Beis Shmuel and
the Chelkas Mechokake say clearly that a husband must not be pressured to give
a GET. If the GET is pressured, it is very possible it would be invalid, and
the woman using it to remarry would have a problem if her children are kosher
children. The Gro there has a very long discussion of this and says that
everyone agrees with this not to force the husband to give a GET. The PRENUP,
of course, is simply a device to force a GET from the husband. The RCA wants to
make it standard so that all woman can force their husband to give a GET
whenever they want out. This is forbidden by a Mishneh Nedorim 90B that
although originally, we believed women in their stories that required a Beth
Din to force the husband to give a GET, this practice stopped when it became a
problem because a woman could possibly use her stories not because they were
true but because she found a cute fellow she wants to marry. This is the
halacha and the basis for not believing women who demand a GET from their
husband because he is disgusting to them, as taught by Rabbeinu Tam in Tosfose
Kesubose 63b.
If the husband loves
his children and the wife wants to take them to a distant place, why should he
just fork over the GET? Is he a human being or a creature for the woman to
control? But let us keep to the point. The halacha is that a husband may not be
forced to give a GET and may not be pressured. The Shita in Kesubose says that
one may not tell the husband it would be a proper thing to give a GET.
RCA Says
Traditionally,
rabbinical courts (batei din) have been charged with the responsibility of
overseeing the process of Jewish divorce, and ensuring that a get is not
improperly withheld.
Dovid Eidensohn: The Chazon Ish says (Even Hoezer Noshim Gittin
99:2) that any force on the husband can ruin the GET. He says that a Beth Din
that requires the husband to give a GET and the husband is not one of those
very few people in Shulchan Aruch required to give a GET, then the GET is
invalid for two reasons. One, it is a GET given by the husband with force,
because a Beth Din that forces has the status of ONESS, unless the Shulchan
Aruch says clearly that it is a mitsvah to force the GET. Secondly, if the
husband would know that the Beth Din made a mistake to force him because the
Shulchan Aruch does not consider him to be a person who may be forced to give a
GET, he never would have given the GET. Therefore, the GET is invalid for two
reasons, ONESS and error, and is on both counts botel min haTorah.
To show just how delicate all of this is. The Shulchan Aruch has a
discussion about a husband who is a MUMAR, he changed his religion and no
longer believes in the Torah or practices Judaism. Can he be forced to give a
GET? The Yam Shel Shlomo discusses this (in the sefer of teshuvose of
Maharshal, Ramo, and Maharam Lublin: See Maharshal teshuvo 41.) If the Mumar
can maintain marital relations with the wife שאר כסות
ואונאה even if he has changed religions and doesn’t keep the Torah, we
don’t force him to give a GET. Maybe the wife will influence him to change back
to being a Jew. The Maharam is quoted by Maharshal that we don’t force a
Meshumed to give a GET. In Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer 154:1 we have an argument
if a Mumar can be forced to give a GET. Maharshal (above) also says that it
depends on how removed the Mumar is from Judaism and if he continues to
maintain proper marital requirements with his wife.
The idea that Beth Din can
just order husbands to give a GET or suffer is not based on the Shulchan Aruch
and it ignores the Chazon Ish. Again, the statement by the RCA that a Beth Din
of the RCA can control whether a GET should be given is completely wrong.
RCA Says
However, in modern society batei din frequently
lack the authority to do so. The Prenup is a document entered into by a man and
woman prior to their marriage. It provides that in the unfortunate event of
divorce, the beit din will have the proper authority to ensure that the get is
not used as a bargaining chip. Rabbo Eidensohn says, “This is completely
wrong. A Beth Din has no right to force a husband to give his wife a GET
against his will. See Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer chapter 77 paragraphs 2 and 3:
All commentators (Shulchan Aruch, Ramo, Vilna Gaon, Beis Shmuel, Chelkas
Mechokake) say clearly that it is forbidden to force a GET, and the Chazon Ish mentioned
above( Even Hoezer Noshim Gittin 99:2) says that a Beth Din has no power to
order a GET unless the husband is clearly listed in Shulchan Aruch as one who must
be forced to give a GET. Otherwise, the GET is botel from the Torah.
Prenup essentially contains two
provisions:
1.
Each
spouse agrees to appear before a panel of Jewish law judges (dayanim) arranged
by the Beth Din of America, if the other spouse demands it, and to abide by the
decision of the Beth Din with respect to the get.
Dovid Eidensohn: The RCA wants
everyone to sign a prenup and this would require everyone to come to the RCA
Beth Din. But the RCA Beth Din has members who are not great believers in the
Shulchan Aruch and Poskim especially when it comes to demonizing husbands and
protecting women. Therefore, no husband should ever sign a prenup that forces
him to go to a RCA Beth Din.
RCA Says
2.
If the
couple separates, the Jewish law obligation of the husband to support his wife
is formalized, so that he is obligated to pay $150 per day (indexed to
inflation), from the date he receives notice from her of her intention to
collect that sum, until the date a Jewish divorce is obtained. This support obligation ends if the wife fails to
appear at the Beth Din of America or to abide by a decision of the Beth Din of
America.
Dovid Eidensohn - If the couple separates, the Jewish law obligation of the husband to support his wife is formalized, so that he is obligated to pay $150 per day (indexed to inflation), from the date he receives notice from her of her intention to collect that sum, until the date a Jewish divorce is obtained. If the couple separates means that the wife walks out of the house. If so, the husband is obligated immediately to start paying her $150 a day. This is called by the RCA “the Jewish law obligation of the husband to support his wife.” Where does it say in Jewish law that the wife who walks out on the husband must be paid $150 a day or anything? See Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer 70 the obligation of the husband to feed his wife and children. The sums there are about a wife who lives in the house not one who ran away. And the sums there are nothing like $150 a day. This prenup is pure blackmail to force a GET whenever the wife wants it. And that, specifically is forbidden by the Mishneh in Nedorim 90B, because if a woman has the power to force a GET she can just decide to remarry and find somebody cuter than her husband. Therefore, the Mishneh clearly says that we don’t allow a woman the power to force a GET, ever. If Beth Din or proper witnesses can testify that the husband is somebody who must be forced to give a GET, that is one thing. But the wife herself cannot force a GET, period. This is because we fear she wants to change husbands. חיישינן שמא עיניה נתנה באחר. This is also quoted in Tosfose Kesubose 63b by Rabbeinu Tam.
RCA Says
3. Each of these provisions is important to ensure that a get is given by the husband to his wife in a timely manner following the functional end of a marriage. The first obligation grants authority to the rabbinical court to oversee the get process. The second obligation provides an incentive for the husband to abide by decisions of the rabbinical court, and give a get to his wife once the marriage is over and there is no hope of reconciliation.
Dovid Eidensohn: there is no hope of
reconciliation. On my brother Daniel’s blog daattorah, there was, a year or
two ago, a war between husband and wife and everyone thought that it would
surely end quickly. Well, one day we had a picture of the two lovie dovies and
to my knowledge that is the latest status. Anyone who says that “the marriage
is over” is probably a feminist who wants to demonize men and support women.
Incidentally, the horrible war against Aharon Friedman had the RCA ORA people
in full throat to demonize him, and have him thrown out of the Washington
shulls, but the wife, who ran away with their baby, is ignored. Now she left
the husband with no GET, remarried a strange man, and by the RCA and its
feminists, that is fine. She and her new boyfriend recently both signed up an
ad for a Yeshiva affair in Philadelphia.
So the Washington rabbis and other RCA and feminist people hate Aharon
Friedman, a person who followed exactly the instructions of the Baltimore Beth
Din, and they love Tamar Epstein, who ran away with their baby and then left
her husband and shacked up with a strange man with no GET. She is a zona but
the Washington rabbis and the RCA and the feminists never criticize her. Her
mother spent a large sum to have Aharon Friedman beaten and kidnapped after he
delivered the baby to his wife in Philadelphia. That is just fine with the
feminists. When did the RCA protest this?
RCA Says
There are at least four reasons to sign The Prenup:
1.
It is an act of kindness to prevent suffering.
2.
People
follow the examples of others. Even if you are sure that the plight of the
agunah (a woman whose marriage is functionally over, but whose husband refuses
to give her a get) will never be your own, you should sign The Prenup as part
of an effort to make The Prenup a standard part of every Jewish wedding. If our
collective actions can bring that about, we will have played an important role
in solving one of the great crises of Jewish life in modern times, and we will
prevent other people from suffering.
Dovid Eidensohn – Does the Prenup
present kindness and prevents suffering? Is the man who must divorce his wife
and leave his children and maybe get kicked out of his house suffer? Well, that
doesn’t count. RCA are feminists.
RCA Says
3.
It is a pragmatic document.
4.
Aside from the inherent emotional trauma of a
divorce, divorces often result in prolonged and expensive battles over finances
and custody. In some cases, adding the issue of the get, and when and whether
it will be given, can serve to add mistrust and emotional upheaval to a process
that is already very painful. By signing The Prenup, couples ensure that if the
tragedy of divorce ever befalls them, the get will not become an issue of
contention.
Dovid Eidensohn- As we mentioned
earlier, the RCA neglects to mention that a clear Mishneh in the Talmud, 90b in
Nedorim, clearly forbids a woman to be able to say something and force a GET.
But who cares about a Mishneh if you are a feminist? And incidentally, the
teaching of the Mishneh, that when a woman demands a GET with the strongest
reasoning in the world she can’t get it, because we suspect her of saying
things to get rid of her husband so she can marry somebody else שמא עיניה נתנה באחר is also mentioned in Tosfose Kesubose 63B.
But the RCA is so busy inventing a new Torah it has no time for Mishnehs and
Tosfose.
RCA Says
3. It is an opportunity for a
couple, on the eve of their wedding, to demonstrate their respect for each
other.
The Prenup is a commitment
between husband and wife that even in the very worst scenario, even if their
relationship falters unimaginably, they will not harm each other and will treat
one another with respect and basic dignity. There is no better way to start off
a marriage than to say to your partner: Even in the very worst circumstance,
even if this union should end, Heaven forbid, I will not allow myself to act
indecently toward you.
Dovid Eidensohn – A wife who
forces a husband who is struggling financially to fork over every day $150 is
concerned about respect for each other?
RCA Says
5.
To protect yourself.
6.
Marriage
is an act of trust. Most often we trust that our marriage will be successful,
and that the person we are marrying would never do anything to harm us. There are no guarantees in life, and it is important to take
safeguards to protect ourselves from harm in the future.
Dovid Eidensohn – Yes, the RCA has revealed to
us that when the husband signs over his life to his wife who threatens to rip
his pants off financially, and she then takes the GET and kicks him out of the
house, this is because the RCA has declared that “marriage is an act of trust.”
RCA Says
The Prenup was drafted by Rabbi Mordechai Willig, Sgan Av Beth Din of the Beth Din of America, and a Rosh Yeshiva at the Rabbi Isaac Elchanan Theological Seminary of Yeshiva University, in consultation with halachic and legal experts. The concepts contained in The Prenup predate 1994, when it was introduced. In 1664, Rabbi Shmuel Ben David Moshe Halevi, the rabbi of Bamberg, Germany, published a compilation of Jewish legal forms called the Nachalas Shiva. One of the forms in that book is a version of the tana’im, a Jewish wedding document, with a provision that is very similar to The Prenup. In a footnote to that provision, the Nachalas Shiva cites some authorities who held that the provision dates back to the Takanos Shum, the authoritative communal enactments adopted in the early Middle Ages by the leaders of the German communities of Speyer, Worms and Mayence.
Dovid
Eidensohn: The concepts contained in The Prenup predate 1994, when it was
introduced. In 1664, Rabbi Shmuel Ben David Moshe Halevi, the rabbi of Bamberg,
Germany, published a compilation of Jewish legal forms called the Nachalas
Shiva. One of the forms in that book is a version of the tana’im, a Jewish
wedding document, with a provision that is very similar to The Prenup.
When I
heard once that the source of the prenup was the work Nachalas Shiva I found in
chapter nine the first document whereby a wife was mistreated by her husband
and she fled to her father’s house. The Beth Din was summoned but it will take
time for it to get organized to hear the case. Therefore, on the document
prepared for just such a problem, it says that when the wife flees the house of
the husband and stays with her father, the husband must pay for her food on a
regular basis until the Beth Din will deal with the case and hopefully restore
the marriage. This is not a prenup. A prenup is about breaking a marriage and
forcing the husband to pay money until he gives a GET. The case in Nachalas
Shiva is about a husband who probably caused the wife to leave the house and he
has to pay her for her food until the Beth Din meets, and the Beth Din will
make sure that the husband learns to behave in the house. If so, this is not a
prenup that breaks up a marriage, but a sum of money to keep the wife in food
until the Beth Din can restore the marriage when the husband is told how
to behave in the house with his wife. Also, the RCA prenup is designed to break
the husband financially to pay $150 a day until he gives her the GET. This is
about fifty thousand dollars a year. The story of the woman who fled her house
has the husband paying once a month for her food, nothing more. How can Rabbi Willig compare these two things
and say that the story of feeding his wife for a month or so is the same as his
prenup that forces every husband to spend fifty thousand dollars a year or give
a GET? I also checked out his claim that the Nachalas Shiva presents something
like a prenup calling it similar to Takanas Shume. Well, Rabbi Willig is
perfectly safe saying these things because if he found a proof for prenups in
the story of the woman who fled the house and gets paid for her food why can’t
he just stretch things a bit more and say more baloney? Who is going to check
him out besides me? Takanas Shume is mentioned many times in Nachalas Shiva and
it talks about people making agreements, signing them, and then somebody dies.
Does the money promised get cancelled or just what happens?
Bottom
line: The RCA is doing a terrible sin by presenting Prenups. The Mishneh in
Nedorim 90B clearly forbids giving a woman the power to force a GET on her
husband in any circumstances. We fear that she merely wants to find a new
husband. This is repeated in Kesubose 63b in Tosofse. The incredible amounts of
money the husband has to pay, about fifty thousand dollars a year, have
absolutely no source anywhere in the Torah. The halacha of how much a husband
has to pay for his wife’s food is a tiny, tiny fraction of that. See Even
Hoezer chapter 70. This is a pure fine to force a GET from the husband. Forcing
the GET is invalid and the children from the woman from her next husband are
mamzerim. The Chazon Ish we mention above says that a Beth Din that orders a
husband to give his wife a divorce and the husband is not one of the very few
people that the Shulchan Aruch says must give a GET to his wife, that the GET
is invalid by the Torah because the Beth Din ordered it which is in the
category of ONESS or force, and the GET is botel min haTorah. Also, if the
husband would have known that the Beth Din is mistaken and has no right to
order him to give a GET, he never would have done it. Two reasons why the GET
is botel by the Torah.
I feel I
have presented effective reasons why I oppose Prenups. The question is only
when the RCA succeeds in making many men write prenups, and they divorce their
wives as per her request, and then the wife remarries, and people like me think
it is a question of mamzeruth for her new children, what happens then?
Question:
If the husband knew his wife would live with him a few years, have a few
children, and then kick him out of the house, would he have signed the prenup?
Of course not. If so, the entire signing is asmachto.
But for
now I want Rabbi Willig to explain to me why his Prenup is permitted based upon
the Mishneh in Nedorim 90B. And does he dismiss the Tosfose in Kesubose 63b
that we suspect a woman of saying something to get a GET so she can remarry
with a new husband? And is he sure that the Chazon Ish is wrong when he says
that a Beth Din that demands a GET from a husband who is not a candidate for a
forced GET produces a GET that is בטל מדאורייתא
for two reasons?
And can
Rabbi Willig tell me exactly where he found proof for the RCA Prenup in Nachalas
Shiva and where he found in Takanas Shume any hint about the RCA Prenup and its
obligation to pay the wife $150 a day until the husband gives a GET.
RCA Says
|
|||||||||||||
Below is an article
by Harry Maryles that Israeli rabbis have strongly attacked the RCA Prenup. He
also writes that the Gaon Rav Ovadiah Yosef zt”l approves the RCA Prenup, which
is a false statement. I have studied the RCA prenup and the document of HaGaon
Rav Ovadiah Yosef, and one has nothing to do with the other. The RCA prenup is
a terrible document, it violates a Mishneh in Nedorim 90b and many other
things. It is a terrible sin for somebody to sign that prenup. Rav Ovadiah
Yosef has a totally different approach and it is not a prenup. Number one, the
RCA prenup gives all power to the woman and she can force the husband to pay
fifty thousand dollars a year for not giving her a GET. Rav Ovadiah Yosef’s
document is not a prenup. It is a document perhaps similar to the Nachalas
Shiva chapter nine, first document, where a husband had a falling out with his
wife and she fled the house and went to her father. The law is that the husband
must pay 12 gold coins a month to the wife to pay for her food in her father’s
house. Beth Din is summoned and they will straighten out the husband for the
way he treated his wife and get the wife to return to the house and the couple
will find Shalom Bayis.
The document of the
Gaon Rav Ovadiah Yosef is the opposite of the RCA prenup because it is the
husband’s document through and through where the wife is invisible for most of
it. The husband has the power to summon the Beth Din that he wants. He writes
in the amount of money he will pay the wife until the Beth Din settles things.
The Beth Din will rule between the husband and wife and if the wife defies the
Beth Din, then the husband has no more obligations in the matter. There is no
question about violating the Mishneh in Nedorim 90b because the wife has no
power period. She is only able to accept or reject the Beth Din, and if she
rejects the Beth Din, the husband owes her nothing.
Again, the RCA
prenup is completely treifeh and makes mamzerim. The document of the Gaon Rav
Ovadiah is the husband’s summoning the Beth Din that he chooses and they will
make peace in the house and hopefully the wife will return and find Shalom
Bayis. How can anyone think that the Tsadik and Gaon Rav Ovadiah backs the
treifeh RCA Beth Din? Note below the many prominent Israeli rabbis who claimed
that the RCA prenup is completely treifeh and makes mamzerim.
|
Rabbi Eidensohn says: Below is an
article by Harry Maryles that Israeli rabbis have strongly attacked the RCA
Prenup. The article claims that Rav Ovadiah Yosef approves the RCA Prenup,
which is a false statement.
Again, the RCA prenup is completely
treifeh and makes mamzerim. The document of the Gaon Rav Ovadiah is the
husband’s summoning the Beth Din that he chooses and they will make peace in
the house and hopefully the wife will return and find Shalom Bayis. How can
anyone think that the Tsadik and Gaon Rav Ovadiah backs the treifeh RCA Beth
Din? Note below the many prominent Israeli rabbis who claimed that the RCA
prenup is completely treifeh and makes mamzerim.
One
prominent Israeli rabbi wrote: Are RCA Rabbis Orthodox?
In
what can only be called a shocking development, YWN reports that 44 rabbinic
leaders in Israel have declared invalid the RCA prenuptial agreement. That
document requires a recalcitrant husband to pay a hefty support payment in
cases of unresolved divorce. And if used the Get (Halachic divorce) is
void. It is considered a get Me’usa – a forced divorce. Halacha dictates that
for a divorce to be valid, it must be given willingly by the husband. If he
is forced to give it – then he obviously is not doing it willingly. Which
voids the Get
The RCA
prenup as I understand it requires that in
cases of a divorce, if the husband refuses to give his wife a Get, he is
required to pay her support payments of $150 per day. That would make most
recalcitrant husbands more than likely to grant their wives a Get.
This
prenup takes seriously the plight of Agunos - women who cannot remarry
because they are still considered married. No matter whether there is a civil
divorce; No matter how long they have been separated. The RCA does not
consider it a Get Me’usa because the husband, if he chooses, can pay her the
fine and not give the Get. If used extensively - the incidence of chained
women will be dramatically reduced.
The
RCA prenup has
its detractors here in America. Some rabbis have objected to this and
consider the hefty fine a form of force that might make the Get void. But I
have never heard any of them make the kind of hard core declaration the
Israeli leaders have. Not to mention the fact that the Prenup has its share
of legitimate supporters.
Respected Poskim of high stature are listed that include
Rav Ovadia Yosef, Rav Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg, Rav Gedalia Dov
Schwartz, and Rav Asher Weiss. The RCA now requires all of its members that
officiate at marriage ceremonies to use the prenup. Crafted 25 years ago by
Rabbi Mordechai Willig. Rabbi Eidensohn says that this is not true. The
document of the RCA is completely different than the document of the Gaon Rav
Ovadiah Yosef zt”l. The document of the Gaon Rav Ovadiah Yosef zt”l is not a
prenup, it is a settlement between the husband and wife who had a fight, and
then the Beth Din makes Shalom Bayis. The RCA prenup destroys the family by
forcing a GET on the husband. How can anyone compare a treifeh thing that
makes mamzerim with the kedusho of the Gaon Gadol HaDor Rav Ovadiah? End D.E.
Now the comments of the writer above continue.
And
yet the declaration signed by these prominent Israeli rabbinic leaders is
sharp in its rejection. They say that children of those women that remarry
based on it are Mamzerim. Which according to Halacha may not marry into Klal
Yisroel. And whose offspring for all time may not do so either.
Those
who signed this declaration include respected rabbinic leaders of both
Charedi and Religious Zionist camps. They were not reticent in their
condemnation. From YWN:
In
a document obtained by the Srugim website, signed by dozens of rabbonim,
including chareidim such as Eida Chareidis Ravaad HaGaon HaRav Moshe
Sternbuch Shlita, Rabbi Avraham Auerbach and Rabbi Shlomo Yosef Machpud, they
attack the agreement and write about it among other things: “The truth is
that this marriage agreement represents the destruction of religion truly,
and leads to a fear of ‘eishes ish’ and mamzerus”.
HaGaon HaRav Avigdor Nebenzahl Shlita has also penned his
objections, citing a rav who permits signing such an agreement is not an
Orthodox rav and one should (not) rely upon his halachic
rulings.
Former
Chief Rabbi of Hebron and Kiryat Arba Rabbi Dov Lior Shlita concurs, stating
the document negates halacha and may chas v’sholom lead to serious issues of
‘get me’usa’, mamzerus, and the destruction of the kedusha of the family. He
adds Chief Rabbis have and remain opposed to it and a document was released
during the tenure of HaGaon HaRav Avraham Kahana Shapira ZT”L and HaGaon
HaRav Mordechai Eliyahu ZT”L.
I
have to wonder what the motivation behind this was to come out with this
declaration now. Where were they years ago when the RCA first adopted it? Why
now? I also have to wonder why the widely respected (from right to left) Rav
Nebenzahl has virtually declared the entire RCA membership not Orthodox?
Especially after the Charedi controlled Chief Rabbinate were so willing to
accept their converts? This is quite the contradiction! You can’t be
denied your Orthodox status and right to Paskin and then be told your
converts are legitimate.
I
am not making any accusations here. The Israeli rabbinic leaders do not make
frivolous declarations. They are sincere Poskim. Sincere Poskim make
declarations based on Halacha. Not politics. And if there is one thing that
is known about Rav Nebenzahl - it is that he is 100% L’Shma.
(I removed two paragraphs that were just thoughts not
necessary for us now.) D.E. We now continue
with the above speaker or commentator.
The
question is where do we go from here? What if anything is the RCA going to do
about this? How will they respond? And what happens to all the women that got
divorced using this prenup and remarried and had children. These are serious
questions that demand answers.
*New Update
Upon further research it has become apparent to me that Rav Ovadia Yosef does indeed support the RCA prenup. His signature on a Hebrew version of the prenup - is legitimate. Sorry for the confusion
Rav
Dovid Eidensohn says that the above comments are wrong. Rav Ovadiah never
approved the RCA prenup. See above explanations.
|
|||
