It seems like a good place to point out that a couple of years ago Kestenbaum was auctioning a revised Kesuvah written by the Rizhiner rebbe. Apparently he had married at 13 or so. When he was an adult he decided to rewrite the Kesuvah for her with a much higher amount as a token of his affection. Although this does not show that the Kesuvah was taken more seriously, I thought it was interesting. Rebbesche romantic gestures.

Moreover, you must realize what Rabbi Shafran doesnt say, but what everyone knows is the undercurrent: that it’s common knowledge that the secular court system favors the woman. Thus, it is felt, the Get is the only card the man has. Why should he give up that one card, when she’s not giving up hers?

As I acknowledge in the post, I’m perfectly willing to accept serious arguments against pre-nups, and there’s definitely some merit to the above. But if this is the real reason, then he should have said so, and not hidden behind what I consider, even if you and he do not, a flimsy and unpersuasive pretext.

Furthermore, you cannot bring proofs from the old teshuvos as evidence that they didnt objet to pre-nups. By that logic you might also bring a proof from the kesubah itself. The elementary difference is that these documents were all written in hebrew, which the girls barely knew, and many of the guys barely knew either. They lloked upon these documents as ritual obligations to get over with as part of the many religious ceremonies associated with marriage. Thus, no one thought twice about these documents once they were over and done with. A legal document written in English is markedly different.

You need to reread the כתובה – believe it or not, the contemporary text contains no overt reference to death or divorce (except for the note that the שיעבוד is בחיים ובמותא)! The husband’s financial commitments are enumerated, but not the conditions under which they are payable.

And I believe that your claim that these documents were looked upon as mere ritual obligations is quite mistaken. That is probably true today, when they are but traditional relics of the past, but in the medieval period, the situation was exactly the reverse. Remember that these are not Talmudic forms, but rather medieval creations intended to ensure that the parties would fulfill certain financial commitments by some pre-arranged date, and indeed, weddings were sometimes postponed, or even canceled, if one party could not or would not do so!

You are doubtless correct that the young couple, who were often underage, frequently did not understand the contents of the תנאים – but the contracting parties, the מחותנים, probably generally did.

Still further, the concept of a pre-nuptial agreement is urt by its association with modern orthodoxy. The rabbinic leadership of that segment of society is best knows for its obsession with women’s issues. Promoting bat mitzvah, talmud for girls, women’s hakafos, and more. Thus, the fact that it is again some modern orthodox rabbis pushing for prenups makes this just another women’s issue. Has caving to feminism been such a great idea, either for religious Jews, or for society generally? I dont think so, and neither do the majority of orthodox Jews.

What happened to שמע האמת ממי שאמרו?

Moreover, I remind you that it is well known that Rav Zalman Nehemiah Goldberg, widely acknowledged as one of the preeminent authorities on חושן משפט ואבן העזר of our generation, is a staunch advocate of pre-nups. Indeed, in a personal conversation (about the question of the continued relevance of the principle of טב למיתב טן דו today) he once exclaimed to me [rough paraphrase] “Why are they invoking such dubious ideas? There’s a great and entirely unexceptionable alternative to counter the Agunah problem – the pre-nup that I designed with R. Willig!” Neither RZNG nor R. Willig are “obsessed with women’s issues” or guilty of “[p]romoting bat mitzvah, talmud for girls, women’s hakafos, and more”.

Finally, and still further, the so-called “agunah problem” has been vastly exaggerated and over-stated. In some cases women’s groups employe people – that is, they pay people – to go about trumpeting agunah issues. These people are as self-interested in having you believe the “agunah problem” is widespread, as the ADL is in interested in preaching that there are neo-nazis all over America that can only be stopped if you send them money. This is the big problem with all these claims of “agunah” problems – these activists claims its a huge, widespread problem, but they themselves dont even know how numbers they claim.

I have heard this charge before, from various sources including the legendary R. Nota Greenblatt, who ought to know, if anyone does. But this is only relevant insofar as a proposed solution involves some considerable price, in which case a cost-benefit analysis (הפסד מצוה כנגד שכרה, ושכר עברה כנגד הפסדה) needs to be performed. As long as there’s no serious downside (and once again, I disagree with you and R. Shafran about the seriousness of the stated concern), why not do whatever we can?

Finally further, as related to the last point, what exactly is an “agunah”? In classical halacha an agunah was someone whose husband is missing. By contrast, nearly all of the agunah probelms dealt with here involve legal problems, as described in paragaph 2 above. The woman is not an “agunah” – typically she is using her card – the American legal system – to get more money or custody than the halahca would otherwise permit, and he is using his card – the get – to balance hers. In truth we should not even call these “agunahs” at all. We should call them “litigants”, becasue in 49 out of 50 cases, that is exactly what they are.

Perfectly correct, and I’ve often made the same point myself. I have little sympathy with anyone utilizing the secular legal system to obtain more than he or she is entitled to according to Halachah. Indeed, one who initiates a civil action instead of proceeding in Beis Din is a רשע and is considered “as though he has been חירף והרים ידו בתורת משה”. But why is this relevant? As far as I know, the pre-nup advocated by Rabbanim Goldberg and Willig is merely designed to force the parties to adjudicate any eventual disputes in front of (a specific) Beis Din in a timely fashion. Why would you or R. Shafran object to that?

One last finally – dont think them men have no problems, either. As Rabbi Chaim Malinowitz has written, there are many man whose wives refuse to grant them gets, making them agunos to no less an extent than the women. While in theory there is still the avenue of a hetter meah rabbonim, these documents are not that simple to get, and require much hardship and expense.

Certainly – but this is completely irrelevant – how will the sort of pre-nup we’re discussing worsen their position?

Throughout your comment, I detect an undercurrent of suspicion that I have a nefarious feminist agenda. I do have an anti-anti-feminist agenda, in that I believe that the instinctive rejection of anything that the feminists want, merely due to the fact that they want it, is simplistic and wrong-headed, but my only real motive in advocating for pre-nups is the minimization of human suffering insofar as this can be done in a manner consistent with the Torah (Halachah and Hashkafah). Feminism is wrong and must be firmly rejected when it conflicts with the Torah – but the same goes for anti-feminism.

All discussion here in the spirit of debate, of course! I think your blog is great. If I dont speak to you beforehand, R’ __________, a kesivah vachasimah tovah!

Back at you (both the beginning and end of the paragraph)!

Moreover, you must realize what Rabbi Shafran doesnt say, but what everyone knows is the undercurrent: that it’s common knowledge that the secular court system favors the woman. Thus, it is felt, the Get is the only card the man has. Why should he give up that one card, when she’s not giving up hers?

Furthermore, you cannot bring proofs from the old teshuvos as evidence that they didnt objet to pre-nups. By that logic you might also bring a proof from the kesubah itself. The elementary difference is that these documents were all written in hebrew, which the girls barely knew, and many of the guys barely knew either. They lloked upon these documents as ritual obligations to get over with as part of the many religious ceremonies associated with marriage. Thus, no one thought twice about these documents once they were over and done with. A legal document written in English is markedly different.

Still further, the concept of a pre-nuptial agreement is urt by its association with modern orthodoxy. The rabbinic leadership of that segment of society is best knows for its obsession with women’s issues. Promoting bat mitzvah, talmud for girls, women’s hakafos, and more. Thus, the fact that it is again some modern orthodox rabbis pushing for prenups makes this just another women’s issue. Has caving to feminism been such a great idea, either for religious Jews, or for society generally? I dont think so, and neither do the majority of orthodox Jews.

Finally, and still further, the so-called “agunah problem” has been vastly exaggerated and over-stated. In some cases women’s groups employe people – that is, they pay people – to go about trumpeting agunah issues. These people are as self-interested in having you believe the “agunah problem” is widespread, as the ADL is in interested in preaching that there are neo-nazis all over America that can only be stopped if you send them money. This is the big problem with all these claims of “agunah” problems – these activists claims its a huge, widespread problem, but they themselves dont even know how numbers they claim.

Finally further, as related to the last point, what exactly is an “agunah”? In classical halacha an agunah was someone whose husband is missing. By contrast, nearly all of the agunah probelms dealt with here involve legal problems, as described in paragaph 2 above. The woman is not an “agunah” – typically she is using her card – the American legal system – to get more money or custody than the halahca would otherwise permit, and he is using his card – the get – to balance hers. In truth we should not even call these “agunahs” at all. We should call them “litigants”, becasue in 49 out of 50 cases, that is exactly what they are.

One last finally – dont think them men have no problems, either. As Rabbi Chaim Malinowitz has written, there are many man whose wives refuse to grant them gets, making them agunos to no less an extent than the women. While in theory there is still the avenue of a hetter meah rabbonim, these documents are not that simple to get, and require much hardship and expense.

All discussion here in the spirit of debate, of course! I think your blog is great. If I dont speak to you beforehand, R’ __________, a kesivah vachasimah tovah!

DF

DF

Since he is making “rings, bracelets, etc.” its makes a good deal of sense that Nofech would refer to an additional gem.