tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49081706263352833362024-03-14T08:22:50.033+02:00VaTashar DevoraA blog about halakha, women and Judaism, Jewish family law, agunotDevorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14579018807634647530noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4908170626335283336.post-39171929855222960852017-02-05T17:24:00.000+02:002017-02-05T17:36:28.737+02:00S'rara again??It's been a long hiatus. But, given the latest ruling from the OU on the matter of women clergy, I figured I'd use this platform - it's as good as any - to upload a piece that I wrote a bunch of years ago, commissioned by an "Orthodox Feminist" organization, to respond to the RCA's prohibition of having women serve as synagogue presidents. After I completed it, the organization decided not to use it - too provocative, not diplomatic enough, whatever.<br />
<br />
I didn't bother to change it now for the purpose of "women as clergy" (rather than lay leaders). It is not an identical matter, though not much less obvious as to why it is not problematic, but interestingly, the OU chose to raise the matter of <i>s'rara</i> - positions of authority - as a reason to prohibit women from serving as clergy (just as they did to prohibit women lay leaders).<br />
<br />
Therefore, my examination of the matter of <i>s'rara</i>, and, in particular, a careful discussion of the approach of the Tosafot, in contrast to Maimonides' ruling, is totally relevant, and I have not seen anyone explain the approach of the Tosafot completely, as I believe I do (while keeping it short).<br />
<br />
<h1 style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;">Women as Lay Leaders in the Jewish Community</span><o:p></o:p></h1>
<div class="MsoNormal">
Debby Koren<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
When Eldad and Meidad began
prophesying in the Israelite camp, Joshua saw this as a threat to authority,
and suggested to Moshe: “restrain them! (<i>k’la’em</i>)” (Numbers 11:28).
Rashi explains that by the word <i>k’la’em</i>, Joshua is suggesting to burden
them with community service, and they will cease (<i>kalim</i>, thereby
proposing a shared etymology) by themselves.
Rashi’s commentary is drawn from Tractate <i>Sanhedrin</i> 17a, and the
Tosafot (ad loc. at the incipit <i>v’hem kalim me’aleihem</i>) explain that
they will cease prophesying because the <i>Sh’khina</i> does not rest upon
someone in sadness, but only out of joy.
Perhaps the community service that Joshua had in mind was the position
of synagogue president, certainly a burden and responsibility that one does not
agree to do for the joy that it brings those who hold this position.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
Considering the thankless burden that is any such communal
position, one must wonder why many people are not amenable to enlarge the
“camp” of those special individuals who are nevertheless willing and able to
take such tasks upon themselves, by including women as potential lay leaders. In fact, their inclusion could bring
innovative perspectives.<span style="font-family: "tahoma" , sans-serif; font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
Several quite thorough articles have appeared since the
question of women as lay leaders first arose a number of decades ago. The articles cite rabbis who find no halakhic
objection to women serving in positions on synagogue boards, or as synagogue
president, and rabbis who find hakakhic objection. And then there are rabbis cited who admit
that there is no technical halakhic objection, but, nevertheless, state that
for public policy reasons they oppose the idea.
This short article would be superfluous if its intent were to reiterate
what has already been written; neither is its short format suitable for that
task.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Rather, the goal of this brief
article is to point out some ideas to consider, while studying the issue in
greater depth; clarifications, if you will, that shed perspective on the
halakhic discourse and on the non-halakhic public policy concerns.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Before the question of women
serving in lay leadership positions arose, two related issues were extensively
debated in responsa literature in the first half of the twentieth century: women’s suffrage in the Jewish <i>yishuv</i>
in Palestine, and, later, the matter of women serving in public positions, such
as (civil) judge, Knesset member, police commander, etc. in the State of
Israel. Often, these responsa are
presented as precedent in discussions of the question of female laity. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
However, if the question of
women’s suffrage or their assuming public positions were precedent, then I
could conclude this article now. In the
Modern Orthodox community, I do not believe that there is anyone who would
refuse to make <i>aliya</i> because there are Jewish women serving in the
Knesset, because they might have to face a female traffic judge, or because the
president of the Supreme Court in Israel is a woman. (Outside of Israel, one could claim that s/he
is subject to <i>dina d’malkhuta</i>, the prevailing government law.) Nor do I believe that the Modern Orthodox
community would agree with R. Moshe Feinstein’s declaration (<i>Igrot Moshe
Yo-re De’a 2:45</i>) that the Israeli government is in the hands of heretics and
apostates (<i>kof’rim u-mumarim</i>), who are responsible for the presence of
women in government positions of authority.<span style="background: #CCCCCC;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
In fact, even the <i>hareidi</i>
community has apparently accepted the presence of women in public leadership
positions, and though they do not permit women on their own party lists, they
will enter coalitions with parties who do.
And if the Speaker of the Knesset is a woman and she orders a disorderly
<i>hareidi</i> Knesset member to leave, he would obey, rather than resign his
seat.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Therefore, notwithstanding the
commonality of the primary sources that are used in both discussions - that of
women’s suffrage or women holding public positions, and that of women as laity
– it stands to reason that there must be some distinction. The opinion of those decisors who permitted
women’s suffrage and participation in public life has prevailed, hands down, in
no small measure due to the desire on the part of the religious community to be
part of a modern state rather than to withdraw into a self-imposed ghetto, as
did the Neturei Karta.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
What, then, <b>is</b> different
about the synagogue setting that cultivates a more conservative attitude? Before offering a response to this question,
let us consider the primary sources that are at the core of every discussion on
suffrage and the inclusion of women in positions of leadership, public or
religious.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
The source that is invariably
presented as the primary limiting halakhic factor is Maimonides’ ruling: “One
does not appoint a woman as a monarch, as it states ‘[you may set] over
yourself a king’ - but not queen.
Similarly, with all assignments in [the nation of] Israel, only a man is
appointed to them.” (Laws of Kings, 1:5)
Maimonides’ commentators point to the <i>Sifrei</i>’s halalkhic <i>midrash</i>
on Deuteronomy 17:15 as the source for his ruling, as we do not find this
ruling in either the Babylonian or the Jerusalem Talmud.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
However, a number of questions
about Maimonides’ ruling immediately arise.
The <i>midrash</i> only refers to a monarch. On what basis does Maimonides extend this
restriction to other positions? Further,
the <i>midrash</i> continues its exegesis on the portion of the verse that
states “one chosen by the Lord your God”, and explains “by the word of a prophet”. Even if the intent of this Tannaitic <i>midrash</i>
is to include all positions that are appointed by the word of the prophet,
received from God, what positions would this include, other than a king?<span style="background: #CCCCCC;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
A variety of solutions to these
questions are found in the literature.
Possible explanations for Maimonides’ extension of the restriction to
all assignments include a reasonable suggestion that Maimonides had a different
version of the <i>Sifrei</i> (e.g., a different version is found in M. Y.
Kahana, <i>Kit’ei Midrashei Halakha min HaGniza</i>, Jerusalem, 2004, p. 375),
or that Maimonides’ ruling regarding women is parallel to another, similar
ruling about gentiles and converts (Laws of Kings 1:4), for which textual basis
<b>is</b> found in the Talmud (<i>Y’vamot</i> 45b).<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
We also find a range of
interpretations regarding the types of assignments that Maimonides had in
mind. In his ruling on gentiles and
converts, he uses the term <i>s’rara</i>, which refers to positions of
authority, and this has become the term that is used in the halakhic
discussions about women, as well. But
exactly what types of positions are considered <i>s’rara</i> and how they are
appointed are subjects of debate. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
We find <i>poskim</i> who rely on
Maimonides’ ruling to prohibit women from assuming leadership positions, and
those who maintain that Maimonides’ ruling is irrelevant to positions that
people attain via a democratic process, rather than via appointment by a king
or by a Sanhedrin, or by inheritance, and irrelevant to positions where the
appointee does not have the ultimate authority.
A synagogue president or board member answers to a congregational rabbi
and to the synagogue membership, and, in some cases, even the synagogue rabbi
does not have the ultimate authority in his congregation, but rather is
answerable to a national organization, of which the synagogue is a member, by
choice. And, of course, he is answerable
to the board, which might not renew his contract.<span style="background: #CCCCCC;">
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
In addition to the claims that Maimonides’ ruling does not
apply to appointments to public positions in our time, all discussions on the
question of women in leadership positions present the view of the Tosafot as a
dissenting view. It is essential,
therefore, to clarify the view of the Tosafot and its implications. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
The arguments that are offered in the name of the Tosafot
in opposition to Maimonides’ ruling include commonly known rationalizations of
the fact that Deborah was a judge. Bear
in mind that Deborah was not just a “judge” like those others in the Book of
Judges who functioned as rulers and military leaders – <i>Targum Yonatan</i>
uses the word <i>nagoda</i>, i.e., ruler, in those cases. Rather, she was, in addition to that, a real
judge, as in court or a <i>beit din</i>, as we are told in Judges 4:5 that <i>B’nei
Yisrael</i> came to her for <i>mishpat</i>, for judgment – <i>Targum Yonatan</i>
uses the word <i>dina</i>, and the word <i>dayna</i> to translate verse 4:4,
“she was judging Israel at that time.” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
Therefore, Deborah’s position, both as a judge and as a
leader, would appear to be problematic in light of Maimonides’ ruling. The explanations that are based on the
Tosafot’s commentary (from several places in the Talmud) that are typically
presented include the suggestions that Deborah was a judge in the sense that
the people accepted her authority, or that Deborah was not really a judge, but
taught the laws, or that Deborah was a judge by some kind of divine word, or
because she was a prophet. However, none
of these explanations actually contradict Maimonides’ ruling, because they all
function as qualifications to our initial understanding of Deborah’s
position. She wasn’t really like a male
judge, after all, either because of how she functioned or because of how she
was appointed.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="mso-layout-grid-align: none; text-align: justify; text-autospace: none;">
It happens to be that these qualifications work as
arguments for the case of public positions today, but if this is all we learn
from the Tosafot, then we are missing some essential points. The above qualifications are actually stated
by the Tosafot from a perspective of acceptance of women in leadership
roles. It does
not occur to them that there is a problem with women holding positions of <i>s'rara</i>;
only, perhaps, with her holding a position as a judge. That is why all of the
explanations relate to Deborah’s position as a judge, i.e., a judicial figure,
but not to her functioning as a military leader. In fact, it becomes quite clear, when
examining the Tosafot in five locations in the Talmud, that not only didn’t the
Tosafot have a problem with women holding positions of <i>s’rara</i>; it didn’t
even occur to them that anyone had such a problem. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
Rather, the Tosafot are trying to grapple with whether
women are disqualified specifically from being a judge. A <i>mishna</i> in <i>Nidda</i> (49b) states
that “whoever is qualified to judge is qualified to be a witness”. Now, it is known from <i>midr’shei halakha</i>
that appear in several places in the Talmud (<i>Sh’vuot</i> 30a, et al.), that
a woman is generally disqualified as a witness. Using the deductive reasoning of “A implies
B, therefore not-B implies not-A” (called the rule of “transposition”), it
follows that since women are disqualified as witnesses, they must also be
disqualified as judges. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
In <i>Nidda</i> (50a at the incipit<i> kol hakasher ladun
kasher l’ha’id</i>) the Tosafot raise the problem of the contradiction between
the logical conclusion of that <i>mishna</i> and the fact that Deborah was a
judge. But they also raise another
contradiction with that <i>mishna</i>.
In <i>Bava Kama</i> (15a) we learn, from scriptural exegesis, that men
and women are equal before the law, and the Tosafot point out that, according
to another <i>midrash halakha</i>, the verse refers to both the litigants and
the judges, implying that <b>women should also be permitted to be judges</b>! Not only does the case of Deborah have to be
reconciled with the <i>mishna</i> in <i>Nidda</i>; what is learned in <i>Bava
Kama</i> also needs to be reconciled with that <i>mishna</i> in <i>Nidda</i>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
The Tosafot suggest something remarkable, and yet, it is
not what we most frequently see cited in their name in response to Maimonides’
ruling. In <i>Nidda</i> (ad loc.), after
presenting the above question, the Tosafot write <i>v’yesh lomar</i>, “it
should be said that this is what it [the <i>mishna</i>] states: “any <b>man</b>
that is qualified to judge is qualified to be a witness”, so that this
statement in the <i>mishna</i> is referring only to men – the rule of
transposition can therefore be applied only to men. Women may be judges, even though they are
disqualified as witnesses. The Tosafot
offer the same explanation of that <i>mishna</i> in two other places (<i>Bava
Kama</i> 15a at the incipit <i>asher tasim lifneihem</i> and <i>Gittin</i> 88b at
the incipit <i>v’lo lifnei hedyotot</i>). <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
As we know, the Tosafot frequently offer several solutions
and opinions to reconcile contradictions.
The qualifications of Deborah’s judgeship that were mentioned above are
offered as alternative suggestions to reconcile Deborah’s case, according to a
view that equality before the law only refers to the litigants, but not to the
judges. (Tosafot <i>Y’vamot</i> 45b at
the incipit <i>mi lo tavla</i> and <i>Sh’vuot</i> 29b at the incipit <i>sh’vu’at
ha-edut</i> also suggest the qualifications of Deborah’s judgeship, in somewhat
different scenarios.) <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
The Tosafot’s proposal that the <i>mishna</i> in <i>Nidda</i>
does not disqualify women as judges implies that the Tosafot did not even
consider it problematic to appoint women to leadership roles. If they gave any weight to the source from
the <i>Sifrei</i> that Maimonides apparently relies on, it would not be
possible to suggest that the <i>mishna</i> permits women to be judges. In fact, if they even considered the source
from the <i>Sifrei</i> something worthy of a response, they would have cited
it. It does not enter into the
discussion in any of the five citations above.
Given that it does not appear in either the Babylonian or the Jerusalem
Talmud, they did not see a need to cite it where the question of women as
judges, or Deborah as a judge, arises.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
The fact that the source from the <i>Sifrei</i> does not
appear in either Talmud is significant.
Portions of that very same paragraph from the <i>Sifrei</i> are cited in
both Talmuds, in more locations than is reasonable to list here, to teach
several points, but not the point that Maimonides deduces regarding women. Had the <i>gemara</i> wanted to cite a <i>midrash</i>
that would disqualify women in positions of leadership, or to question the role
of women who were leaders, there are more than ample places that this could
have been done.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
It is anyone’s guess, then, as to
why Maimonides chose to incorporate a <i>halakha</i> based on this <i>midrash</i>
from the <i>Sifrei</i> into his corpus, even though Sages in the Talmudic
discussions and the <i>s’tama</i> (or
the redactors of the Talmud) ignored it.
After all, there are many other <i>midrashim</i> in the <i>midrash
halakha</i> that were not included in the Talmud, nor did they make it into the
halakhic codes. Likewise, we can’t know
for certain why the Tosafot ignored this <i>midrash</i>, though this is more in
accordance with usual halakhic methods.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
What is of note, though, is that
Maimonides’ codification of this <i>midrash</i> is quite compatible with the
social order in Muslim Egypt of his time, while the Tosafot’s greater
open-mindedness about possible roles for women is more in keeping with some of
the positive changes in the role of the Jewish woman that occurred in Europe
during the High Middle Ages, 1000 - 1300 C. E., as described by Professor
Avraham Grossman (Pious and Rebellious: Jewish Women in Medieval Europe,
2004). Note that the first generation of
Tosafists, such as Rabbeinu Tam and Rashba”m, were active in the twelfth
century. These changes in the role of
women are viewed as positive, particularly when measured against Muslim
society.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
With this background, let us
return to the question: what is different about the synagogue setting that would
cultivate a leaning towards Maimonides’ view rather than the Tosafot’s
view? Should one suggest that in the
synagogue, being a holy place, one should make more of an effort to avoid
licentious thoughts, then it should be pointed out that there should be less
concern of such problems where there is trepidation before the <i>Sh’khina.</i> And if one should suggest the commonly heard
refrain <i>kol k’vuda bat melekh p’nima</i> (literally: “all the princess’s
belongings should be led within,” Psalms 45:14, having nothing to do with
modesty) to prevent women from appearing in public or taking public roles, we
should point out that people are proud to see their daughters and wives appear
in court as attorneys or judges, at academic conferences, or speak on their
book tours, before strange audiences.
Should it not also be comfortable for them to hear those same women announce
when <i>min</i><i><span style="font-family: "times ext roman" , serif;">ḩ</span>a</i>
is in front of their own caring and supportive communities?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoBodyText">
May I dare suggest that restricting lay positions to men,
whether in the synagogue or in Jewish communal organizations is a manner to
retain a last stronghold of Maimonides’ vision of male hegemony, in a society
where change challenges many traditional values, where religion has become a
lifestyle choice rather than an obligation.
It is based on a false hope that conservatism is what will guard Judaism
from these challenges, rather than engaging those challenges, the way Judaism
had done for centuries in the past.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
But is Maimonides’ vision of
society what we really wish to strive for or preserve? We all are witness to what befell those
societies that are in the mold of Maimonides’ Muslim Egypt, polygamous (<i>Hilkhot
Ishut</i> [Laws of Personal Status] 14:3) societies, in which women are veiled
(<i>Hilkhot Ishut</i> 24:12) and are rarely permitted to venture outside of
their homes (<i>Hilkhot Ishut</i> 13:11).
Are such societies what we wish to emulate?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
Moshe rejected Joshua’s concern
about Eldad and Meidad threatening authority.
He did not feel threatened at all, but rather said “would that all the
Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put His spirit upon
them!” Would that all the Lord’s people
– including women – assume leadership roles in our communities, and may our
communities thus be able to meet the challenges of tomorrow!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Dr. Debby Koren is an independent scholar who
is currently working on a book on responsa of the 16th -17th centuries in the
post-expulsion Jewish Spanish and Portuguese communities. She also lectures and teaches Talmud and
halakha in informal adult settings.<o:p></o:p></i></div>
Devorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14579018807634647530noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4908170626335283336.post-86712439266127088022013-10-15T15:08:00.002+03:002013-10-15T15:23:54.282+03:00Love the Convert - How's That?<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">This time I'm going to write about another type of family law that might be dealt with in the <i>batei din</i>: inheritance law. Notice I wrote "might be". That's because, unlike divorce for which the <i>batei din</i> have a monopoly, inheritance cases are heard in a <i>beit din</i>, rather than the civil court, only if all parties involved agree in writing to allow the <i>beit din</i> to judge on the case. That's a good thing, because women are not treated fairly in Jewish inheritance law. But this time, I won't be addressing women's problems. I'll be addressing how converts are treated under Jewish inheritance law, and we'll look at a case (940365/1) </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">that was decided in the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">beit din</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> in Be'er Sheva just a couple of months ago (August 18, 2013).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In this case, there is only one living person involved - the biological son of the deceased, who, a Holocaust survivor, has no other known living heirs (e.g., brothers), nor did he have any other children. It should be quite simple and straightforward to determine that this son is the heir. Except, the deceased's wife was not Jewish when the deceased had married her and when the son was born. Mother and son converted to Judaism after immigrating to Israel. As a result, the son is not considered his father's son <b>halakhically</b>. According to <i>halakha</i>, a convert to Judaism has no <i>yi<u>h</u>us</i>, or familial relationship, to his relatives from before the conversion. Therefore, according to <i>halakha</i>, this son is not the heir to his biological father.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><i>Dayyan</i> Luz-Iluz wrote:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: right;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">.לפי זה, היה ראוי לדחות את הבקשה להוצאת צו ירושה על שם המבקש</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Based on this, it would have been appropriate to deny the request for an inheritance order in the name of the claimant.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">But the <i>dayyan</i> (only one<i> dayyan</i> signed this <i>pesak</i>) sought to find a way, in this case, given that the claimant is a sincere <i>mitzva</i>-observing convert, to issue an inheritance order for the claimant. It is quite possible that the fact that the civil court offers an alternative law was a motivating factor (would that the civil courts offer an alternative to the religious divorce laws), because the <i>dayyan</i> wrote:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="a" dir="RTL" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="HE" style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">הנה, בוודאי שאין
מקום להפנות את המבקש לרשם לענייני ירושות, ששם אכן יוצא צו ירושה על שם המבקש, על
פי הדין האזרחי, שאם על פי דין תורתנו הקדושה אינו יורש, מה נועיל בכך. ולכן, אם
לא נוציא צו ירושה על שם המבקש, יועבר העיזבון לידי האפוטרופוס הכללי על פי חוק,
ושם יחלקו את העיזבון כפי הוראות החוק למוסדות דת מדע ותרבות וכדו'. במצב כזה,
לענ"ד ניתן להוציא צו ירושה על שם המבקש לאחר שנקבל את התחייבותו שאם יבוא
מאן דהוא שהוא היורש של המנוח על פי דין תורה, ויתבע להעביר אליו את העיזבון,
המבקש יצטרך להיענות לתביעה זו ללא היסוס, וכפי שיתבאר בהמשך. כך באמת עשיתי,
ולאחר שקיבלתי את התחייבותו לכך הוריתי להוציא צו ירושה על שם המבקש.</span><span style="font-family: FrankRuehl, sans-serif; font-size: medium;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="a" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Here it certainly would be inappropriate to refer the claimant to the Inheritance Registrar [i.e., the civil court], because there they would in fact issue an inheritance order in the name of the claimant, according to the civil law, while according to our holy Torah law, he is not the heir, so what would we gain by that? [I.e., we wouldn't want to encourage someone to circumvent the <i>halakha</i>.] Therefore, if we don't issue an inheritance order in the name of the claimant, the State authority for guardianship would take control of the estate, according to law, and it would divide the estate, according to the direction of the law, to religious, scientific, and cultural institutions, and the like. In such a situation, in my humble opinion, an inheritance order should be issued for the claimant, once we receive his commitment that if someone comes who is an heir of the deceased according to <i>halakha</i>, and he sues to retrieve the estate, then the claimant must comply without hesitation, as will be clarified further. That is what I did, and once I obtained from him such a commitment, I gave the direction to issue an order of inheritance to the claimant in his name.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The <i>pesak</i> contains several pages of halakhic discussion about what would be done according to <i>halakha</i> with an estate that has no heir, and other questions somewhat related to the case at hand. Apparently, the <i>dayyan</i>'s motivation in including this discussion it to give halakhic backing to his decision - better for the estate to fall into the hands of the biological son than to those (in this case, institutions) who are not at all the rightful heirs, which would happen if he did not agree to issue an order of inheritance in the claimant's name (but, of course, only if the claimant did NOT go to the civil court, where he would have received the same result, without the <i>pilpul</i>, and without having to agree that if his father's long-lost brother shows up that he must hand over the estate).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">For all practical purposes, the claimant would have received the same result whether from the <i>beit din</i> or from the civil court. But that is only because the deceased had no other living relatives.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">A recent article in <i>Makor Rishon</i> (a Hebrew newspaper in Israel whose readership is primarily national-religious) discussed this case and presented it as if the <i>pesak</i> was so compassionate and sensitive to reality. Look at how wonderful the <i>batei din</i> can be!!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">But suppose the case were just slightly different and their were two parties who came before the <i>beit din</i> - a brother of the deceased and this son, each wanting to claim the inheritance. The <i>beit din</i> would award it to the brother. The civil court to the son. Which do you think is the more just law, given that if only the son were born Jewish to this father, he would have been the heir according to <i>halakha</i>, too?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I know what I think. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I don't know how many Israelis there are who were not born Jewish according to Orthodox law but have a Jewish father, but I will assume it is a common occurrence. Whether these Israelis converted to Judaism or not, the civil court would recognize them as their fathers' children. The <i>beit din</i> does not, and will only rule in their favor when it is not contested by any halakhic heir.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Some lessons to be learned:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">1) Write a will! This is true even if everyone in the family was born Jewish. (It is also important so that women in the family will be treated fairly.) But it is even more important if there are non-Jewish (according to Orthodox law) members of the family. There is no knowing who will decide that they want the <i>beit din</i> to probate your estate, and if they will pressure (or hoodwink) reluctant family members to agree.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">2) In the event that there is no will, fortunately, by Israeli law, ALL parties who have an interest in the estate must agree to have the estate probated in the <i>beit din</i> for the <i>beit din</i> to assume the authority. But, again, sometimes people are pressured into agreeing to go to the <i>beit din</i>, or they are naive and don't know what the results might be.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">3) Learn what the <i>halakha</i> would say about your rights to inherit BEFORE you agree to have an estate probated in a <i>beit din</i>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Oh, and 4) Love the convert!</span></div>
Devorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14579018807634647530noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4908170626335283336.post-80775557017625139212013-09-30T13:42:00.000+03:002013-09-30T13:42:52.348+03:00Haven't I Been Telling you NOT to Register your Civil Marriage (which took place abroad, of course)?<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">If you've been following my blog, you should have caught on to the fact that I recommend against registering a civil marriage (which had to have taken place outside of Israel, since Israel does not have civil marriage) in <i>Misrad HaPnim</i> (Office of the Interior). I'm sure I mentioned it several times (for example, <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/report-and-comments-about-conference-on.html">here</a>). And, of course, that means that you might as well not bother with a civil marriage in, say, Cyprus. I've explained that once a couple registers as married in <i>Misrad HaPnim</i>, dissolution of the marriage would still be in the hands of the <i>batei din</i>. The whole point of a civil marriage is, I would think, to manage your personal life without the intervention of the religious establishment in Israel.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In this post I will demonstrate my point by writing about a case that came before the <i>Beit Din</i> <i>HaGadol</i> (the highest rabbinic court in Israel) in Jerusalem earlier this year. The decision for the case, 891549/1, is dated March 5, 2013. What was before the <i>Beit Din HaGadol</i> was an appeal (by the woman) against a previous decision by the regional <i>beit din</i> in Tel Aviv from approximately a year earlier. In that earlier decision the <i>beit din</i> ruled that within thirty days the woman must accept a <i>get l'<u>h</u>umra</i> (גט לחומרה out of concern for the more stringent opinion), but if she does not accept the <i>get</i> within thirty days, considering that the couple was married civilly, but had no (Orthodox) religious wedding, the marriage would be released, which basically means that <i>Misrad HaPnim</i> would receive direction from the <i>beit din</i> to change the status of the two parties to single.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The couple was married in a civil marriage in China in 1987. They each arrived in Israel in different years in the 1990s and each one converted, also at different times. They lived together as a couple in Israel prior to completion of the conversions. Though during the conversion process they declared that they wanted to marry according to Jewish law, they never did.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">It was the man who sued for divorce. At the outset, the <i>beit din</i> ruled that there should be a <i>get l'<u>h</u>umra</i>. The woman agreed to accept a divorce, once the matters of property and child support were decided in the (civil) family court. However, she did not appear on the designated date for the divorce proceedings. The woman changed her mind and said that she wants her husband to prove cause for divorce in the <i>beit din</i>. A whole lot of back-and-forth, which I won't bother to summarize. The result was as I stated above: the woman was ordered to accept a <i>get</i>. If she did not within thirty days, the marriage would be released.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">However, the woman apparently decided she wanted to retain her married status and remain married to this man. Therefore, the appeal. She did not want a divorce, nor did she want the single status that would be imposed upon her by the <i>beit din</i> even if she did not accept the <i>get</i>. She did not want to lose whatever benefits or value she had from this relationship. She wanted <i>shalom bayit</i>. (Go figure - I never understand someone who insists that a relationship isn't over when one person so clearly wants "out" - and in this case the marriage was in such a shambles that, at some point in the series of appearances before the <i>beit din</i>, she requested that the husband be tested for STDs and AIDS before she would take him back!!)</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">The </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">pesak din</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> is rather long (28 pages), and most of it consists of a discussion of the reasons for being stringent in requiring a </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">get</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> to end a civil (or non-Jewish) marriage. All this is pretty theoretical, and has nothing to do with the fact that the woman does not want the marriage ended in any manner - <i>l'<u>h</u>umra</i> or otherwise. The <i>dayyanim</i> appear to be using this <i>pesak</i> as a platform to reiterate their standing on terminating a civil marriage. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">This particular case has the added matter of the civil marriage taking place when both partners were not yet Jewish. The simple ruling is found in the Rm"a (R. Moshe Isserles' glosses on the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Shul<u>h</u>an Arukh</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">), </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Even HaEzer</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> 26:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoQuote" dir="RTL" style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">עכו"ם שנשא עכו"ם, וכן מומר שנשא מומרת לעבודת
כוכבים בנימוסיהן, ונתגיירו אח"כ, אין כאן חשש קידושין כלל ומותרת לצאת ממנו
בלא גט, אף על פי ששהה עמה כמה שנים אינו אלא כזנות בעלמא.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">[In the situation of] a gentile who married a gentile, and similarly an apostate who married an apostate, such that they were living in accordance with a gentile religion, but who then converted [to Judaism] after they married [according to gentile custom - there was no civil marriage in the Rm"a's time], there is no concern that there was <i>qiddushin</i> at all, and [the woman] is permitted to be released from him without a <i>get</i>. Even though he lived with her for several years, [the relationship] is not anything more than promiscuity.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">If such is the Rm"a's ruling, why does the <i>beit din</i> prefer a <i>get l'<u>h</u>umra</i>, and why do they need to write so many pages? It is because there are dissenting views, cited in the <i>pesak din</i>, but which I will not include here, to keep the length of this post reasonable. The dissenting views raise the possibility that this was not promiscuous, that the intimate relationship (following the conversions, in the case of this couple) was for the purpose of <i>qiddushin</i>, in which case a <i>get</i> would be necessary to end the marriage. (Check the first <i>mishna</i> in <i>Qiddushin</i> about the three ways to acquire a wife: by giving her something of monetary value, by a contract, or by sexual relations.) The Sages were not very enthusiastic about <i>qiddushin</i> enacted by sexual relations, but it is a halakhic possibility, nonetheless, and it persists in being of concern in all discussions of dissolution of a non-halakhic marriage.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">For this reason, every <i>pesak din</i> that deals with dissolving a civil marriage (regardless of whether or not partners were born Jewish) will go through the litany and quote all of the <i>rishonim</i> and <i>a<u>h</u>aronim </i>who had anything to say about the intent of each of the parties when s/he engaged in sex with the other, and whether or not it was for the purpose of <i>qiddushin</i> or was a promiscuous relationship. Never mind that many, many halakhic experts have already declared that in these modern times when a couple could easily have opted to marry according to Jewish law, but didn't, that clearly their intent was not for <i>qiddushin.</i> Never mind that R. Moshe Feinstein did not require a <i>get</i> in cases of civil marriage, because he knew that by doing so it could increase the numbers of <i>mamzerim</i>; in the U.S., couples could get a civil divorce and ignore his ruling, if he were to insist on a <i>get</i>.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In Israel, couples have no such other option. If the <i>batei din </i>would follow R. Feinstein's approach (and that of all the other authorities who provide reasons to be lenient) and rule a general decision that couples who do not have a halakhic wedding do not need a <i>get</i>, then the rabbinate would lose control over divorce in Israel. The civil law would then have to provide a means for a couple who did not have a halakhic religious ceremony to change their status in the <i>Misrad HaPnim</i> without the intervention of the rabbinate. Of course, if that were to happen, perhaps the <i>batei din</i> would have some time freed up to do more important things than deal with couples who don't really need a divorce, anyway. But practical benefits should never interfere with power games, should they? </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">So we get a lengthy discourse that includes all of the reasons to be lenient and all of the reasons to be stringent, including various analyses of the thinking behind the sexual relations of a couple who didn't marry halakhically. Portions of the discussion are not particularly flattering to such a couple, to put it mildly. Much of the cited material, being from centuries ago, is quite out of touch with reality (and then some rather modern stuff is also out of touch with reality). And then the general conclusion, presented before getting to the case at hand:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="a" dir="RTL">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: "FrankRuehl","sans-serif"; font-size: large; line-height: 115%;">לרוב ככל
הפוסקים, אין לחשוש לקידושי ביאה בנישואין אזרחיים. אך גם החוששים לכך, זה רק כאשר
בני הזוג יהודים נישאו בנישואין אזרחיים דאיכא הטעמים הנ"ל להחמיר, אבל כאשר
בני זוג נישאו אזרחית בעודם גויים והתגיירו, ליכא לכל הני טעמי להחמיר.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">According to just about all of the authorities there is no reason to be concerned about <i>qiddushin</i> by sexual relations in the case of a civil marriage. But even those who are concerned [and therefore would obligate a <i>get</i>], it is only in the case when both partners are Jews who married in a civil marriage, because of the reasons given above to be stringent. But when the partners married civilly while they were still gentile, and then converted, those reasons to be stringent are not relevant.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">None of this really matters in the case of this particular couple. What is important is that the appeal is dismissed because the wife did agree to divorce several times (and apparently changed her mind). In fact, the higher <i>beit din</i> questions why the regional <i>beit din</i> required a <i>get</i> at all, given the lengthy discourse that was just provided by one of the <i>dayyanim</i> and its conclusion! Therefore, even without a <i>get</i>, the marriage is to be dissolved. I'd like to point out that this lenient attitude is specifically because the couple married civilly when they were not be Jewish. Had it been a case of two people who were born Jewish, in spite of the fact that, as we saw in the conclusion, overwhelmingly the authorities are not concerned about <i>qiddushin</i> with a civil marriage, the <i>batei din</i> in Israel require a <i>get l'<u>h</u>umra</i>. (However, they will not consider a child born to a woman who was married in a civil marriage and did not receive a <i>get</i> a <i>mamzer</i>.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">What are my readers to get out of this? That even in a case of a marriage that is in shambles and should be terminated swiftly, without mudslinging, without long drawn out proceedings in the <i>beit din</i>, once the marriage is registered in <i>Misrad HaPnim</i>, there is no escaping the <i>batei din</i>, even when a <i>get</i> is not halakhically required. In this case, it appears that the correct result was eventually achieved. But at what cost - to the two estranged parties who paid lawyers for all of the appearances in the <i>beit din</i> over the course of several years, to the taxpayers for the services of the <i>dayyanim</i>, to the other citizens whom the <i>dayyanim</i> could have served instead - for more pressing needs? And, let's not forget the guy who first sued for divorce approximately 2 1/2 years before the final decision from the highest <i>beit din</i>. I have no idea who was really at fault in the marital breakdown. I don't care. Remember, I support no-fault divorce. Two and a half years is way too long a process if someone wants to move on with his or her life. </span></div>
<div class="MsoQuote" dir="RTL">
<span dir="RTL"></span></div>
Devorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14579018807634647530noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4908170626335283336.post-18783557927857847212013-09-15T19:21:00.000+03:002013-09-15T19:21:03.392+03:00"Halakhic" Prenup Agreements - A Summary of my Objections<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">For the past couple of months I've been writing about various prenuptial agreements. In the title above, I used the word "halakhic" to refer to those agreements that are intended to be used by couples who choose to marry in an Orthodox ceremony, particularly via the Israeli Rabbinate (including Tzohar rabbis), but any Orthodox ceremony is relevant.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">That doesn't mean that other prenuptial agreements that deal with finances, child care, devotion to one another, etc. are not halakhic. Indeed, they most likely are. But I am not concerned with them, so long as a couple does not delude themselves and think that they then can proceed safely to marry in a standard Orthodox ceremony. I am concerned with those prenups that are specifically aimed at preventing women from becoming <i>agunot</i> (or men from becoming <i>agunim</i>). This is a summary of my main concerns. I will put the fundamental patriarchal nature of the Orthodox marriage aside (though this is something that I oppose vehemently). It is a different topic. Though I keep referring to "women", the same applies to a man whose wife might refuse to accept a <i>get</i>, except that he is no where in as difficult a situation as a woman whose husband refuses to give her a <i>get</i>, and so I've chosen to refer to women.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">1) Before I would tell women to "rest assured" that they are protected by any of these prenups (read all my posts from July until the last one - you'll see which ones are more commonly used), I would want to see documented evidence of women who had to go to civil court to enforce it, then received their <i>gittin</i> in the <i>beit din</i> without a glitch. Such documented evidence must include rulings from <i>batei din</i> in Israel. I have so far heard a personal story of a woman who was told by certain <i>dayyanim</i> that if they knew there was such an agreement (not even enforced in a civil court), they would declare a <i>get</i> that follows as invalid. It is not enough that certain rabbis have co-authored one agreement or another. The rabbis involved in formulating the agreements tend to be on the more "liberal" side of the spectrum, and do not represent the <i>dayyanim</i> who serve in the <i>batei din</i>. The prenup that would most likely be accepted by the <i>batei din</i> is one for which I have significant critique - it is the one that I discussed in my <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/a-prenup-agreement-for-mediation.html">last post</a>, and it has gained no public awareness, to the best of my knowledge. And, it is also one that is most likely to have difficulties in the civil courts (I explain why in that post).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">2) All of the prenups that are based on "enhanced" monthly support payments (and that pretty much covers them all, except for conditional marriage), so that the recalcitrant spouse will not want to prolong the recalcitrance, will not be effective if the recalcitrant spouse is very poor (because s/he won't have from what to pay, anyway) or very rich (because $1500/month won't put a dent in a spiteful guy who earns tens of thousands of dollars a month).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">3) None of the prenups based on "enhanced"monthly support payments will help if the recalcitrant spouse leaves the country. A case of a husband who absconded with the wedding gifts and left the country just two days after his wedding </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">recently made </span><a href="http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-World/Jewish-News/Private-rabbinical-court-annuls-marriage-after-man-moves-to-US-326053" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">headlines</a><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> when a private </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">beit din</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> annulled the marriage. None of these prenups would have helped this woman. (Nor did the 40,000 NIS bribe that the State <i>beit din</i> paid the extortionist husband out of State funds, i.e., taxpayers' money. Why should taxpayers have to foot the bill for the problems that result from an archaic, injust halakhic system?) And, we need to hear the results of a court case to see if the State will recognize the decision of this private <i>beit din</i>. In two previous posts, I wrote about cases in which the recalcitrant spouse - one time the women, one time the man - left the country. You can read them <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/a-sarvan-get-and-sanctions-would-prenup.html">here</a> and <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/whats-good-for-goose-is-not-good-enough.html">here</a>.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">4) These agreements do not address problems that occur less frequently, but are still very severe when they occur: <i>iggun</i> due to disappearance of a spouse, perhaps for innocent reasons on the spouse's part, <i>iggun</i> of a widow who is waiting for <i><u>h</u>alitza</i> (the quite degrading ceremony that must be performed so that levirate marriage is not required; sometimes the <i>yabbam</i> extorts, and sometimes he is simply too young), <i>iggun</i> of a woman whose husband has lost the mental capacity to give a <i>get</i>. These types of cases might be rare these days (once they were not rare at all and various halakhic methods were commonly used to try to prevent their occurrence), but they are tragic when they do occur, and they are indicative of the basic problems of <i>qiddushin</i>. People don't discuss these much - they really are an embarrassment to Jewish law.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">5) The above problems all compound and give cause to my main and all-encompassing objection: these prenups mislead couples into thinking that a halakhic marriage is fine and dandy so long as they sign one of these agreements. It allows people to continue to hide their heads in the sand instead of facing the truth about <i>qiddushin</i> and what it truly entails. The foundational problems will not be fixed with such an approach.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">That's a shame.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">See you at the Kolech conference, where I'll be speaking about the meaning and value of a <i>ketuba</i> today. </span></div>
Devorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14579018807634647530noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4908170626335283336.post-1473610882908977492013-09-01T16:54:00.001+03:002013-09-01T16:54:16.466+03:00A Prenup Agreement for Mediation<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I've got one last prenup to talk about - this at a reader's request in a <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/07/a-look-at-two-other-prenups-that-are.html#comment-form">comment</a>. This agreement was written by Rabbi David Mescheloff, and you can see information about him, the documents (one for the man, one for the woman), explanations, and an article - all in Hebrew (except for an English bio of R. Mescheloff) - <a href="http://homedir.jct.ac.il/~meschelo/marriage/menu.html">here</a>.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Before I even explain this agreement and give my opinion, I will point out something interesting. This agreement is found on the website of the Jerusalem College of Technology. Why not on the site of a rabbinic organization? How about Tzohar, so popular for providing <i>mesadrei qiddushin</i> and in whose journal R. Mescheloff's shorter paper was published? (His lengthy paper was published in the journal <a href="http://www.zomet.org.il/?CategoryID=270&ArticleID=170"><i>T'humin</i> 21</a>.) In fact, in his opening paragraph in the <a href="http://homedir.jct.ac.il/~meschelo/marriage/about_agreement_tzohar.html">version</a> that appeared in Tzohar's periodical, he starts out by inviting the Tzohar rabbis to offer this agreement to couples about to marry. Didn't happen. Why not the Israeli Rabbinate? Why not <a href="http://www.itim.org.il/">Itim</a>? How are couples supposed to learn about it?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">R. Mescheloff actually provides an answer to these questions. Among the halakhic authorities to whom he presented this agreement for approval was the renowned R. Yosef Elyashiv. R. Elyashiv stated that there is nothing that is not permissible in the agreement, but he had some concerns about making it public, for general use. His concerns are actually relevant to every prenup agreement, and are consistent with some of my own concerns and comments about any of the agreements that I have discussed in all of my posts about prenups: Some organization might decide to push for this agreement to become standard, for everyone to sign, and then couples would end up signing it without even understanding what they were signing. If a time comes when the agreement needs to be implemented, one of the parties might claim that s/he didn't know what s/he was signing.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">This concern is true for every agreement, which is why I've been recommending for every agreement that I discussed that a couple consult with legal and halakhic authorities. As a result of R. Elyashiv's concern, R. Mescheloff himself, when preparing a couple for their wedding, spends an hour and a half explaining the agreement to the couple.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I totally, totally agree that any agreement that a couple agree to should be explained to them very carefully. Why isn't this done with a <i>ketuba</i>? Didn't the <i>ketuba</i> become the standard that R. Elyashiv is so concerned about, that it would just be presented for "signature," without explaining it?!! How many couples who marry actually understand what is in the <i>ketuba</i> and what they are agreeing to - the man by giving it to the woman, and the woman by accepting <i>qiddushin</i> and the <i>ketuba</i>? A lot of what they are actually agreeing to is not even written in the ketuba!! It is written in Jewish codes of law that, by virtue of enacting <i>qiddushin</i>, both parties are bound by, without knowing what they have accepted! (Somehow, I don't think it would work for someone to claim that the <i>qinyan</i> is not binding because she didn't know what she was agreeing to.) So my response to this concern is:</span><br />
<div dir="rtl" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">אתה נאה דורש ואין נאה מקיים </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;">(יבמות סג:)</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<br /></div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Loosely translated, this means "practice what you preach" (but the Hebrew is closer to "you preach nicely but don't do it nicely"). I quoted the Hebrew from <i>Yevamot</i> (it appears in some other places in the Talmud, too), where the Sages said this to Ben Azzai after he said that one who does not engage in procreation is like one who spills blood and reduces the image of God. He did not marry and had no kids himself. (Well, actually, there is a story that he did marry with not such a good outcome, but getting into that would really be off-topic.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I will attempt to summarize the essence of the agreement, rather than go through what would be very lengthy, if I explained each of the nineteen (!) paragraphs. Even its author wrote that one of its drawbacks is its sheer length. R. </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Mescheloff wrote in his explanation of this agreement that it is based on halakhic agreements that have been used in the past, approved by halakhic authorities, all presented thoroughly in his article in <i>T'humin</i>. Indeed, the structure and language of the agreement is far more in keeping with halakhic contracts than any of the other agreements discussed. After presenting a summary of the agreement, I will explain why this is so.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The purpose of the agreement is to bring a couple - one of whom wishes to divorce - to mediation (<i>gishur</i>; גישור). If marital therapy can save the marriage, the mediator would direct the couple to marital therapy. If marital therapy would not succeed, then divorce mediation would be the next step, so that the couple can reach a divorce agreement and proceed with a divorce. R. </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Mescheloff claims that in 95% of cases of divorce, there is no justification for the <i>beit din</i> to order a divorce, and that mediation would save everyone a lot of time, money, aggravation, and the nasty proceedings that often precede eventual settlement. Mediation does not determine who is "at fault", but is intended for each party to find ways that they can compromise and reach an agreement.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I agree with everything that R. </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Mescheloff wrote about this (I merely briefly presented his approach), and his willingness to recognize that no one needs to be determined as the "winner" or that no one should be made "to pay" for his/her contribution to the breakdown in the marriage is admirable. I contrast his responsible and realistic view of marital breakdown with that expressed by R. Eliezer Melamed, which I referred to in a <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/07/prenuptial-agreements-for-prevention-of.html">previous post</a>. Only the concluding sentence in the section that presents the benefits of mediation is troubling to me. I will paste the Hebrew sentence here and translate it:</span><br />
<div dir="rtl" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span dir="rtl" style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">ההסכם לגישור יקטין את סבלם של הרוב המכריע של המתגרשים, כי יאפשר לכל אחד מבני הזוג להשתמש לטובתו בזכות הסירוב שההלכה מעניקה לו, בלי לנצל אותה לניגוח חברו ולמטרות לא הוגנות.</span></blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The Agreement for Mediation will reduce the suffering of the overwhelming majority of those who divorce, because it will permit each one of the couple to use to his/her benefit the right to refuse </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">[divorce] that is granted by the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">halakha</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">, without using it to abuse the other or for unfair purposes.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I do not think any one should have a "right to refuse divorce". It is this premise that is the undoing, in my opinion, of the value of this agreement. A person's basic human right is to have the freedom to choose with whom to share one's life and to terminate such a relationship if it is not satisfactory. No one should have a "right" to refuse this wish to dissolve the relationship. Someone has the "right" to feel unhappy, even devastated, that his/her spouse wants out, but does not have the right to refuse.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The essential element in this agreement, like others that we have seen, is to have a "monetary incentive" for the recalcitrant spouse to cooperate, in this case, to cooperate in mediation so as to reach an agreement that will enable them to proceed to divorce. But the main difference is that this "monetary" incentive is not monthly support payments (in the event of recalcitrance) but rather is the forgiving of a purported debt (when there isn't recalcitrance). The mechanism of <i>odita</i> (אודיתא) is used, by which someone admits that s/he owes someone a certain amount of money acquired in a loan from the other, in this case a large sum. Each spouse's document is admission of such a "debt" to the other. So long as the marriage is good, payment of the "debt" is deferred. If one party wants to divorce, so long as s/he cooperates first in marital therapy, the debt is deferred. And if the therapy isn't successful, then so long as the one who didn't want to divorce cooperates in mediation, his/her debt is deferred. If a divorce agreement is reached and divorce takes place, then the debts are forgiven. There are time frames specified for each stage in dissolution of the marriage. In a nutshell, that is the mechanism.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Now that I explained the mechanism, I can explain why such a mechanism is used. It is because the very nature of Jewish contract law is quite enigmatic. While Jewish law is quite explicit about transfer and acquisition of property, whether through a sale or a gift, and about monetary debts, such as loans, the fundamental law does not allow for contractual obligations, whether to transfer property in the future, or to perform an act. Without getting too technical (or legal), obligatory contracts - and in the case of the prenups that are based on "generous" support payments, conditional obligatory contracts - fall in the realm of what is called <i>qinyan devarim</i>, which is roughly translated as an “acquisition of words,” which is not binding. For a <i>qinyan</i> to be binding, it must be relating to a concrete object, and words have no substance (even if they are written). (A contract between an employer and a worker who will be paid for his services is an exception to this rule. Employment of salaried workers has its own distinct set of regulations.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">A legal system without an instrument for obligatory contracts would be difficult to maintain, and the non-binding nature of a <i>qinyan devarim</i> is circumvented in Jewish law by several methods, one of which is <i>odita</i>, used in this prenuptial agreement. Each circumvention method has its proponents and opponents among Jewish legal authorities, and each one is considered more appropriate for some specific circumstances and less appropriate for others, but in this framework we can only touch on the fact that there are, indeed, methods to grapple with the inherent limitations of Jewish contract law, so as to render an enforceable (in a <i>beit din</i>, whatever enforceability means in a <i>beit din</i>) obligatory contract.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">One can find on the Internet halakhic contracts that are promoted by various organizations that would like to see Jews using Jewish law rather than civil law even in matters of, for example, sale or rental of an apartment. But such contracts are obligatory contracts, and to make them binding, the "gimmick" of <i>odita</i> is commonly used - a party admits to owing a "loan", to be forgiven if, for example, transfer of the apartment is made on time. (Here is not the place to discuss the application of <i>situmta</i>, which I won't explain, but mention for those who know about this stuff - I'm trying to preempt questions about what I write.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I called <i>odita</i> a "gimmick", because it is that - there never was a loan, and yet the agreement states that the person signing acknowledges that s/he has in his/her hand a sum of money that his/her future spouse loaned to him/her and that s/he accepted it and is in debt for it, to be repaid according to the conditions specified in the document. This is in essence what happens when one tries to apply two-thousand-year-old rabbinic law to modern society (and these problems already became acute as Jews became more and more involved in trade hundreds of years ago). So, do we turn cartwheels in order to say we are being halakhic? Or do we admit that the system is outdated and go with a legal system that is comfortable with obligatory contracts?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">R. Mescheloff does admit that some people, including the Israeli Supreme Court, might have problems with people signing that they took a loan that never existed, that in fact, the whole agreement is based on a lie. He further relates that some halakhic authorities expressed reservations about the method of <i>odita</i>, and have presented various explanations and justifications for its use. He then states that it is not a lie but rather a "form of speech" that creates a loan that didn't exist before.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Personally, I look at this as a classic example of the way the halakhic system works - it is a system of creative compliance, using many "gimmicks" such as selling <i>hametz</i> (which I don't think individuals should do - they should eat it up or throw it out, but that is another topic), selling the land in Israel for <i>shemita</i>, or allowing the <i>beit din</i> to "distribute" the produce harvested during <i>shemita</i>, such that the payment for the produce is for the effort and not for the produce itself, <i>heter iska</i> (used to circumvent the prohibition to charge or pay interest), conditional divorces given by someone on his deathbed (not common any more, but once quite common, to avoid levirate marriage or <i><u>h</u>alitza</i>) etc., etc., etc. Intellectually, I love these "gimmicks". They are often clever and even subversive. They demonstrate that there was always recognition that there were problems with <i>halakha</i> and that solutions had to be found.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">On the other hand - on a different intellectual level - I feel that use of these "gimmicks" demonstrates the absurdity of trying to preserve what is clearly outdated law. When turning cartwheels results in a herniated disc, it is time to scrap the law. And, there is the serious danger that to the vast majority of Israelis who are not well-versed in how these halakhic methods are used as a means to reach an end, Jewish law will seem absurd at best and a laughing-stock at worst.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">But, actually, this is not my main objection to this agreement, and that is because I do appreciate the legal elegance and halakhic language that was used to write the agreement. It is so far better written than the other agreements, even if in an antiquated style - I am a student and admirer of halakhic literature, and this fits right in.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">My main objection - and R. Mescheloff did mention that the "womens's organizations" that assist women who are waiting for a <i>get</i> (why am I bothered by this? is it only women who care about the problem of <i>iggun</i>?!) expressed this concern - is that "enforcement" of the agreement and any ultimate authority is placed in the hands of the <i>beit din</i>, rather than the civil courts. But the <i>beit din</i> has no power of enforcement! They were given the authority by the Israeli government to impose penalties on a recalcitrant spouse (and can agree to a <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heter_meah_rabbanim">heter me'a rabbanim</a></i> - agreement of one hundred rabbis - if the wife is recalcitrant), but they have no power to enforce payment of this fictitious debt if one party does not abide by what is expected for the debt to be forgiven or deferred. Suppose one spouse refuses to go to therapy or go to the mediator. Then what? Summon him/her to the <i>beit din</i> for a hearing. And if s/he doesn't show up? If it were a hearing about a divorce, the <i>beit din</i> does have the authority to ask for a police escort, for example. But the <i>beit din</i> does not have the power to force someone to a hearing about an unpaid "loan", or about any of the conditions by which the loan would be forgiven. So the most the <i>beit</i> din could do would be to tell a community to excommunicate someone - those tools that were so common in the 16th century don't work so well today. We know this. They don't work for <i>get</i> refusers and they wouldn't work for people who ignore their halakhic prenup.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The other problem with giving all authority to the <i>beit din</i> is that they have a different set of values from mine. I think this paragraph from R. Mescheloff's article (the shorter one) reflects the values and ideas that I dispute and would be wary to rely on: </span><br />
<div dir="rtl" style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">ברוב רובם של המקרים של הבאים להתגרש בימינו ההלכה קובעת כי כשם שיצרו בני הזוג את זיקת הקידושין והנישואין שביניהם מתוך רצון והסכמה הדדיים, כך ינתקו את הזיקה, בגט, רק בהסכמה. זו דרישה הגיונית וצודקת. היא גם שומרת על "הזכות האזרחית" של כל פרט לקבוע בעצמו את מעמדו האישי, בלי שגוף חברתי זה או אחר יתערב מכוח הממסד בחייו הפרטיים. הצורך בהסכמת שני בני הזוג לגירושין גם מאפשר לכל אחד מבני הזוג להגן על האינטרסים שלו לפי מיטב הבנתו, בלי שמישהו אחר יעריך במקומו מה הם האינטרסים שלו ובאיזו עוצמה עליו להרגיש שנפגע.</span></blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">In the overwhelming majority of the cases of those who divorce these days, the <i>halakha</i> determines that just as they created the marital bond with mutual desire and agreement, so they should break the bond, with a <i>get</i>, only by agreement. This is a reasonable and just requirement. It also maintains the "civil right" of each individual to determine his own personal status, without any societal body intervening in the individual's private life, by the power vested in it by the establishment [i.e., government]. The requirement of agreement by both parties to divorce also permits each of them to protect his/her own interests according to his/her understanding, without someone else determining what his/her interests are, and how great the damages s/he perceives.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I'm going to put aside the fact that <i>halakha</i> actually permits a marital bond without mutual agreement: A father can, halakhically, marry off his minor daughter without her agreement (and don't fall into the common mistake of citing <i>mi'un</i> מיאון - this is only for a minor whose brother and/or mother married her off!!). Levirate marriage (<i>yibbum</i>) is also marriage without mutual agreement. Fortunately, neither of these are acceptable in today's society, but <i>halakha</i> does permit them.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">But, I'll put that aside. What R. Mescheloff neglects to consider when promoting mutual agreement to divorce is that women do not have the solution of a <i>heter me'a rabbanim</i>. Men do. And men who have extra-marital relations do not have the cloud of <i>mamzerut</i> hanging over any possible children. Any thought that the "right to refuse divorce" is a legitimate right does not consider the injustice of the system.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">R. Mescheloff is looking for symmetry in an asymmetric situation. Two people might fall in love, but it only takes one to fall out of love for the marriage to be over. I would not want to rely on a system that does not recognize that.</span></div>
Devorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14579018807634647530noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4908170626335283336.post-43792351927020363932013-08-14T14:57:00.000+03:002013-08-14T14:57:26.191+03:00An Agreement for the Beloved - some nice ideas, but ...<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In the interest of thoroughness and in the interest of keeping my word, I offer this post about a rather obscure (in the sense of lacking any prominence) prenup agreement that is available, only in Hebrew, on <a href="http://www.mavoisatum.org/page.aspx?id=78">Mavoi Satum's website</a>. (Though the link is called <i>Sh'tar Ohavim</i> - a document for those who love, the actual document is called <i>Sh'tar Ahuvim</i> - a document for those who are loved, perhaps for those who are in love with each other or those who are beloved, as in <i>re'im ahuvim</i> in the <i>sheva b'rakhot</i>.)</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">No organizational affiliation or author is named for this document, and though someone at Mavoi Satum told me that she thinks so-and-so wrote it, since it was not a definite identification, I chose not to name any names. Anyone who would like information can contact Mavoi Satum.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The document is intended to be an agreement for a union between two people, with no mention of halakhic <i>qiddushin</i>. We're off to a good start. The document aims to be totally egalitarian in the relationship between the two partners - exclusivity in "personal relations" (יחסי אישות) and </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">in responsibilities - financial support for each other, joint support for their joint children, redeeming each other from captivity and providing medical care (traditionally, obligations of a husband for his wife), and other similar obligations</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">. This is refreshing, certainly in comparison to the <i>ketuba</i> and the implicit, but unstated-in-writing, asymmetric obligations of a husband to his wife and a wife to her husband in the default halakhic system.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">The document also defines the way to dissolve this relationship. For those who are troubled by the concept of a retroactive nullification sans ceremony of a conditional marriage, a concept that arose in my <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/08/everything-including-kitchen-sink.html">previous post</a>, you might find some ideas in the procedure defined here. If either partner decides that s/he can no longer live in harmony and happiness with the other, then s/he should so declare before a <i>beit din</i> <u>that recognizes the validity of this agreement, in all its details</u>. If no such <i>beit din</i> can be found (hint, don't look to the rabbinate, or to the Beit Din of America), then a public declaration should be made before ten adult Jews (of either gender). After such declaration is made, the partners are to meet with a professional to attempt to reconcile - for a period of six months if there are no children (there is a spelling mistake in the Hebrew text here), and a period of one year if there are. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">After this period, if one partner still maintains that s/he can no longer live in harmony and happiness with the other, then a document attesting to the attempt to reconcile with the assistance of a professional should be presented to the <i>beit din</i> or to the quorum of ten. Only one partner has to make such a claim, and then "the two parties are freed from one another."</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Similarly, if one party becomes ill (mentally or physically), and can no longer be attentive to the other, or one party disappears, and the other party does not want to live in this situation, then the same procedure is followed. However, instead of an attempt at reconciliation, there is a waiting period of one year if there are no children, and two years if there are, in order to try to restore the health of the one who is ill, or to locate the one who disappeared.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">The purpose and motivation of these clauses is quite obvious. The situations in which a woman finds herself an <i>aguna</i> if she were to be married halakhically, unconditionally, are addressed. The public declaration provides closure and, I would imagine, would be a preventative to rash decisions to end a relationship.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">We see some positive ideas here! But I am not convinced that the agreement is completely well thought out. It has a space for a bride and groom to sign, and a space for two witnesses. But without a notary, at least, or signing a document in a family court, this document would not hold up in court. Therefore, there is no power of enforcement. Such a document should come with clear instruction. It also appears, to my layperson's eyes, not well-formulated from a legal point of view. If I were interested in using such a document, I would bring it to a lawyer, and ask the lawyer to formulate something that is in accordance with the laws in Israel (or wherever it is being used) and that maintains the spirit of this agreement and whichever portions that could be adapted to a correctly worded legal document.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">But there are also some clauses that seem naive to me. For example, it states that all money and property acquired during their life together, <u>including inheritance and gifts</u>, is to be considered joint property. This is a big mistake, in my opinion. If one person inherits his/her family estate, it is not wise to consider it joint property. If the relationship sours, or if the heir dies young, what happens to the property? Because of such problems, hundreds of years ago it already became acceptable to give dowries to daughters contingent upon the marriage lasting a certain number of years. Sadly, it was common for women to die in childbirth, and families that gave her a dowry did not want the husband or his family to inherit the dowry they gave their daughter just two years ago. They wanted their property returned. There are numerous responsa addressing disputes like this. If a woman's grandmother gives her a diamond that is a family heirloom, it should stay in that family, and not be considered joint property.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">That's just one example of the problematic clauses. But I think all of the clauses that have to do with inheritance, property, and child support would need to be replaced with carefully considered and legally proper clauses (once again, I suggest looking at the <i>Mishpaha Hadasha</i> (New Family) <a href="http://www.newfamily.org.il/">website</a>).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">There is another concern that I have about this document. Some of the clauses include heirs in the obligations, such as the obligation to redeem one another from captivity. I don't see how you can actually obligate your heirs to do something in such an agreement.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In conclusion, there are some nice ideas here. But if you like the ideas, be inspired by them, and then go draw up a better agreement with expert advice. One that would hold up in court and one that reflects the serious thought that a couple should engage in at this important time in their lives. Then have whatever (non-halakhic, or conditional <i>qiddushin</i>) that you like, and live together in harmony and happiness. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">(And, I really don't think that Mavoi Satum should have this agreement on their website, at least not without some qualifying statement. Fortunately, I doubt it has been used much, if at all.)</span></div>
Devorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14579018807634647530noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4908170626335283336.post-6845467544851486682013-08-06T13:32:00.000+03:002013-08-06T13:32:53.736+03:00Everything Including the Kitchen Sink: Contract for a Just and Fair Marriage - Center for Women's Justice<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In my <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/07/a-look-at-two-other-prenups-that-are.html">previous post</a> I took a look at two prenups that are similar in concept to the <i>Heskem L'khavod Hadadi</i>, which I discussed in the <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/07/prenuptial-agreements-for-prevention-of.html">post before that</a>. I also wrote that I would next discuss the <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/cwjhebrew/shtar">prenup</a> offered by the Center for Women's Justice (CWJ, called <i>Merkaz Tzedek L'Nashim</i> in Hebrew). There is a link to an <a href="http://www.cwj.org.il/our-projects/contract-for-a-just-and-fair-marriage">English version</a>, but the English version does not have everything that the Hebrew one does (and there is no explanation as to why) and the English translation is inaccurate. Therefore, my discussion will relate to the Hebrew one, and I will point out the significant discrepancies.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">This prenup agreement contains several clauses. The first clause is similar to clauses that we've seen in other agreements - an agreement to divide any joint property accrued during the marriage according to the civil law in Israel. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I can point out here, that even this clause is a subject of contention, not just with this agreement, but with other agreements that seek to avoid the fault-based approach to property and <i>ketuba</i> settlements that take place in the <i>batei din.</i> Many rabbis oppose, based on their claim that the Israeli courts are like gentile courts, that choosing the civil courts to settle disputes rather than the <i>batei din</i> is a transgression. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">This, of course, is not a new dispute in Israel. Here is not the platform for me to explain all the reasons that almost everyone, including most people who consider themselves halakhically observant, prefer the civil courts in Israel (and outside of Israel) to religious courts. Here is not the platform for me to explain all that is lacking in what here in Israel is often termed <i>Mishpat Ivri</i>, a term that in my eyes is agenda-driven, where the agenda is to apply what is considered Jewish law in the courts, even the civil courts. Why don't I just drop a few phrases to make you think about the complexity of the issue: "testimony of women," "punishment for rape," "required evidence to convict a murderer," and, for those of you who are advanced in Jewish law, "<i>asmakhta</i>, <i>qinyan devarim</i>, and obligatory contracts."</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I'll return to the subject at hand - the CWJ prenup. Notice that in that first clause about division of property, unlike the <i>Heskem L'khavod Hadadi</i>, there is no alternative option for the woman to receive 50,000 NIS as her <i>ketuba</i> instead of the equal division of property. Not only that, it clearly states that the woman waives any claim to the <i>ketuba</i>. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Well, I didn't want to criticize the <i>Heskem L'khavod Hadadi</i> two posts ago - I said I wanted to start with the positive aspects. But since I'm now comparing, I will state here that I totally oppose any such unequal property division, afforded by giving a woman this option to take 50,000 NIS as her <i>ketuba</i>. I realize that this option was probably included in the <i>Heskem L'khavod Hadadi</i> to placate those who were uncomfortable with the idea that the <i>ketuba</i> is an outmoded irrelevant document that is being replaced by the agreement. But, hey, it <b>is</b> an outmoded irrelevant document that must be replaced. (To totally replace it, proper wills must be executed as well.) I also suspect, just as many women in Israel are not in favor of equalizing the <i>Bituah Leumi</i> retirement age and payments (similar, but not identical, in concept to US Social Security) for men and women, there are women who feel that since women have so many disadvantages, the option of a 50,000 NIS <i>ketuba</i> payment helps offset those disadvantages. I don't accept that. I think the disadvantages themselves are what need to be addressed, and not offer compensation that accepts and/or maintains a status quo of women in a disadvantaged position in society (or in religious law). And, it is pretty easy to envision a couple that has far fewer assets than 100,000 NIS worth, and therefore if a woman can claim 50,000 NIS, the man might truly be pressed to be able to pay. He should not have to pay for the sins of other men who mistreat women. Equal is equal, and I'm in favor of equal. I therefore commend CWJ for keeping the <i>ketuba</i> out of this agreement.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The second clause of the CWJ agreement is similar in concept to the other prenups I've looked at so far - monthly payments by the recalcitrant spouse, until a divorce is given/received. I don't think I need to elaborate any further - you can just look at the previous two posts to see an explanation of this idea. Here, we are talking about the larger of $2000 or 50% of the recalcitrant spouse's salary - same for the man and the woman, as it should be (see my <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/07/a-look-at-two-other-prenups-that-are.html">previous post</a> for a discussion of a prenup that does not do that). </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">As strongly advised in the previous two posts, a couple should consult with halakhic and legal experts regarding the appropriate monetary payments that should be defined in their agreement.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">There is no mention here of obligatory marital counseling for a defined amount of time - a reasonable requirement, which we have seen in other agreements.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">A detail that I did not point out previously, but I will point out now - because it is lacking in the CWJ agreement - is that in the <i>Heskem L'khavod Hadadi</i> (and some other similar prenups), the calculation of the salary is based on the previous year. This is important - it prevents a recalcitrant spouse from quitting his (or her) 7-figure-salaried-job (and living off savings or a bonus, or hidden income) when deciding to refuse to divorce just so as to avoid having to pay high payments. Such things have happened, certainly with cases of men who refuse to pay <i>mezonot</i> (maintenance to the wishing-to-be-divorced wife) or child support. They conveniently become unemployed. By basing the calculation on the previous year, such tricks are harder to pull. Yes, this is a problem inflicted by men, because under Israeli law (which, in this case is a direct result of patriarchal Jewish law), only men are obligated to pay maintenance to a spouse, and only men are obligated to pay child support. Yes, it is unfair, and the men who complain about that are justified in their complaints.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">That's why the prenup should include an agreement about equal sharing of child-support - we have seen that in other agreements. The CWJ prenup does not include such a clause. And such a financial agreement makes sense not just for the case of divorce - I've mentioned that several times in earlier posts.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The third clause reiterates that all disagreements are to be settled in the civil courts.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">So far, nothing is radically different from other prenups that I've discussed. But the fourth clause is where this prenup takes a radical turn. It introduces several concepts: conditional marriage, annulment of the marriage by a <i>beit din</i>, and divorce by proxy. The inclusion of these three concepts in one agreement was inspired by Professor (and former <i>dayyan</i>) Michael Broyde's proposed <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/33122968/Broyde-Tripartite-Agunah-Proposal">"tripartite" agreement</a>. I will avoid discussing Broyde's misconduct. We can learn from anyone's scholarship, and I'll leave it at that.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I'll briefly summarize the three paragraphs in to this fourth clause of the CWJ agreement and offer my comments on it. The first paragraph is an agreement that the marriage that will be performed will actually be conditional. </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">I've mentioned conditional marriage in my blog. For anyone who wants to have a traditional, halakhic, wedding ceremony, conditional marriage - </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">qiddushin al tenai</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> (technically, that means "conditional betrothal", but these days the betrothal is immediately followed by the <i>nisu'in</i>, the marriage) - is the way to go. The problem is, and I mentioned this </span><a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/report-and-comments-about-conference-on.html" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">before</a><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">, a couple will have to make an effort to have such a ceremony. The rabbinate won't do it - but that is a good thing, because that way, if you have the sense to marry conditionally, then you will, by default, stay away from the rabbinate.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">However, the CWJ agreement was actually drawn up with the idea that the agreement would be signed not necessarily at the time of (or immediately before) the ceremony, but some time prior to it, while the ceremony could be conducted by a rabbi from the rabbinate. I know people who have done this. Big mistake. Is the <i>mesader qiddushin</i> aware that it is agreed by the bride and groom that this is conditional? Chances are that had he known, there is no way that he would have officiated at the wedding. Not if he does not want to risk his permit to officiate at weddings in Israel. But, in any event, by marrying via the rabbinate - and therefore registering in <i>Misrad HaPnim</i> (Ministry of the Interior) - a couple would be throwing out any value they had in the conditions set. Divorce would have to be done in a <i>beit din</i> of the rabbinate, who won't recognize the conditions set. If a woman is widowed, and <i><u>h</u>alitza</i> is required before she can remarry, the <i>beit din</i> will not recognize this conditional marriage. If a woman's husband becomes incompetent for the purpose of giving a divorce, again, the <i>beit din</i> won't recognize the conditional marriage. She is stuck, an <i>aguna</i>.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In small print at the bottom of the (English) page (there is a similar statement in the Hebrew), the CWJ agreement states:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">At this juncture in time, CWJ doubts that the rabbinic courts in Israel will accept clause 4 as binding under the halakha. Nonetheless, it is our hope that in the future rabbinic courts and halakhic authorities will recognize the necessity for conditional marriages and will authorize their use.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Clause 4 is the clause that contains the conditions. Therefore, this agreement is not valuable for anyone who chooses to marry through the rabbinate.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Clause 4 defines two conditions for the marriage to be valid (I am following the Hebrew version):</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">1) </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">that (A) <u>either</u> the couple do <b>not</b> live apart for 18 months or more <u>or</u> that (B) neither the man nor the woman has approached a <i>beit din</i> to execute the document. (Both could be true, too - it states "at least one".) I'll express this as <b>A or B</b>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">2) that the groom, if he dies before the bride, will leave a viable descendant (so that <i><u>h</u>alitza</i> is not necessary, in the event that the groom has a brother). I'l express this as <b>C</b>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Therefore, the conditions that the marriage be valid can be expressed as: <b>(A or B) and C</b>. </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">According to Jewish law, every condition must also be stated in the negative form. </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Maimonides ruled (</span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Mishne Torah</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> Laws of Personal Status [</span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Hilkhot Ishut</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">] 6:2) that a condition "should be a twofold condition, that its positive [i.e., the condition that must be fulfilled ] should precede the negative [i.e., what constitutes non-fulfillment of the condition] ..." </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">(This is learned from the way Moshe made a conditional agreement with Reuven and Gad at the end of </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Parashat Matot</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">.) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Therefore, the the marriage will be null and void if </span><b style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">~[(A or B) and C]</b><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">. I'm not a lawyer, but I am a mathematician, so I'l apply De Morgan's Laws and convert this to: </span><b style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">~(A or B) or ~C</b><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">, which is equivalent to </span><b style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">(~A and ~B) or ~C</b><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">. (See why a core curriculum must include some mathematics?) In other words, the marriage will be invalid if either the man dies leaving no viable descendant </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">(</span><b style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">~C</b><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">)</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">; or the couple lives apart for 18 months or more </span><u style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">and</u><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> one of them files for divorce </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">(</span><b style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">~A and ~B</b><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">).</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> I switched the order just because the syntax in English is easier to follow.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">The English version of condition #1 has "and" rather than "or": <b>A and B</b>, but this is inconsistent with the negative form of the condition as written both in the English translation and the Hebrew version. So, though I am merely a lay person and not a lawyer, I'd say that there appears to be a problem with the English version!!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">I'm not really sure that I see the reasoning behind the addition of what I called "B". I called it an "addition" because, if you look at the original proposal by Prof. Broyde, you'll see that there is just one condition for the marriage to be valid: no separation for 15 (not 18) months or more. Such a separation would make the marriage null and void. Broyde's proposal has nothing more - not even something to avoid <i><u>h</u>alitza</i>. But I'm not here to critique his proposal. If you'd like to see critique of his paper, you can read <a href="http://www.manchesterjewishstudies.org/storage/Yehudah%20Abel%20Comment%20on%20Dayan%20Broyde's%20Tripartite%20Agreement%202009.pdf">Yehudah Abel's comments</a>. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Perhaps the reasoning of the CWJ version is that if a spouse disappears - say in war - the remaining spouse must request that the marriage be declared void, rather than for it to happen automatically. But the English version is misleading, again. It translates "B" as "neither of us files for divorce". That is not what the Hebrew version says. The Hebrew version says "if neither of them turns to a <i>beit din</i> to execute this document" לממש. That does not mean filing for divorce!! A divorced woman can't marry a <i>kohen</i> (in the Orthodox world), but a woman whose marriage is null and void can.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Moving on, the second paragraph in the fourth clause allows for <i>hafqa'at qiddushin</i> - annulment of the marriage by a <i>beit din - </i>in the event that the conditions that validate the marriage are not upheld.<i> </i> The English version of this portion, entitled "</span><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Condition, Annulment, and Agency," has a very brief and inaccurate translation. I have no idea why. I suspect it is just sloppy or incomplete work. I will not point out all of the problems with this portion's translation. I'll just state that this should be corrected - if the English version is there to help people who are not comfortable enough with the Hebrew, then those English-readers are being misled. Marriage agreements are not a place for sloppy work.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">But even the Hebrew text is extremely problematic and must be corrected before use. The Hebrew text states that the couple authorizes a <i>beit din</i> (which <i>beit din</i>? Don't look to one in the rabbinate!) to annul the marriage in the event that the conditions stated above are upheld - בהתקיים התנאים. Certainly they mean "if they are <b>not</b> upheld"! It is true that if they are not upheld it means that they live apart for 18 months or more, etc. (see above). A condition can be stated in the negative, for example, "I will return your security deposit on the apartment so long as you don't damage the apartment." If the condition of <u>not</u> damaging the apartment is upheld, I'll return the security deposit. If the condition is not upheld, that is, if you damage the apartment, then I won't return the security deposit. Which is the condition? (See my quote from Maimonides, above.) The text must be much more carefully worded so as not to be ambiguous. There are enough examples of various conditional obligatory agreements in the halakhic literature that could be emulated so as to offer a far better-written (and unambiguous) document.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Explaining <i>hafqa'at qiddushin</i> in this post is not feasible - it is already quite a long post. This <a href="http://law.huji.ac.il/upload/GateKeepers_AWestreich.pdf">paper by Avshalom Westreich</a> is a good one (there are many) to look at for a presentation of this halakhic approach to nullifying a marriage.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The third and final paragraph in the fourth clause of the agreement is appointment of a <i>beit din</i> by the man, who authorizes this appointed <i>beit din</i> to write a <i>get</i> that is to be delivered, by agency, to the woman, in the event that the conditions stated above are not upheld. Again, it states that the <i>get </i>would be given if the conditions stated above are upheld - שבהתקיים התנאי, but, in my opinion, this is not worded correctly. I don't think there is a need to repeat why. I also wonder what happens if the people appointed are no longer in this world, or cannot be found. How valuable is it to appoint a <i>beit din</i> "from now"? I realize that in Jewish law, one can say "from now" and have it actually retroactively done later, but if a man turns into a recalcitrant spouse, later might not come. So honest-to-goodness now is better than nothing.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Why so many different methods of dissolving the marriage? Either it is simply null and void by virtue of the conditions not being upheld, <u>or</u> it is annulled by a <i>beit din</i>, <u>or</u> a divorce is sent?!! Well, which one is it? Why, at least, is a preference not stated? (It is better for the marriage to be null and void - then a woman has no problem if she wants to marry a <i>kohen</i>, though that issue is a topic in itself, not to be touched here.) </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Should we change all the or's to and's? Well, that wouldn't make sense - can it be null and void but in need of a <i>get?</i> (Actually, many <i>poskim</i> who oppose <i>hafqa'at qiddushin</i> say that </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">hafqa'at qiddushin</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> can only be implemented by a <i>beit din</i> if there is some kind of <i>get</i> - you can read the references linked to, to learn about that).</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> And, don't forget the earlier portion of the agreement, with the monthly payments, meant to encourage a recalcitrant spouse to agree to divorce.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In his article about the "tripartite" agreement, Broyde explains that each one of the three approaches (reflected in the fourth portion in the CWJ prenup) has support from <u>some</u> <i>poskim</i>. (But none of them has support of all <i>poskim</i>.) So, by throwing everything in, including the kitchen sink (now you get the title of this post), maybe something will actually work and be accepted by the Orthodox community.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I would rather say: pick what you think is a good solution, and have the courage of your convictions. In my humble opinion, the most viable one of the above is the conditional marriage - a couple is not reliant on any <i>beit din</i> (so long as you don't include what I called B above). Then a person is reliant on his or her own belief in the method and its halakhic justification, and his or her own conscience. If the condition is not upheld, the marriage is as if it never happened. That's it? No public declaration? No ceremony? Like breaking up with a live-in boyfriend? Well, if you think there is a vacuum, you might see the value of a prenup (or additional clause) along the lines of what I intended to look at in this post as well, but will defer to the next post.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">To conclude, I will draw an analogy to this agreement, which includes so many methods of dissolving a marriage in the hopes that one of them will work. It is like the cancer patient who needs surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation. The prognosis is not too good. The disease is quite advanced. Jewish marriage and divorce law is the patient here, and if it needs so many treatments to fix the problem, then maybe it is beyond repair. Unfortunately, there is no cure for cancer. If all else fails, throw everything at it (I know - that does not always make sense for cancer, either). There is no cancer preventative either. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">With Jewish marriage law, if a couple is already married and one of the spouses wants to dissolve the marriage but one is recalcitrant, try whatever tools might work. But there is a simple preventative to the problems in Jewish marriage laws: don't smoke, and if you haven't yet, "be smart, don't start".</span></div>
Devorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14579018807634647530noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4908170626335283336.post-48003532935740727792013-07-25T14:48:00.000+03:002013-07-25T14:48:05.004+03:00A look at two other prenups that are similar in concept to the Heskem L'khavod Hadadi<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In my <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/07/prenuptial-agreements-for-prevention-of.html">previous post</a>, I discussed the <i>Heskem L'khavod Hadadi</i> (The Agreement for Mutual Respect), which is being promoted by several organizations to help solve the problem of recalcitrant spouses in divorce proceedings. This time, I'll write about two other agreements that are similar in concept, but different enough that I ought to point out the differences, and then I'll give you my two cents.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><a href="http://www.yadlaisha.org.il/Image/uploaded/%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%9B%D7%9D%20%D7%9E%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9F%20%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%95%D7%95%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99.pdf"><b>Yad L'Isha's Prenup Agreement</b></a></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">(This agreement can be downloaded from some other sites as well, but I don't see a point to put all the links here - you can look at my <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/07/prenuptial-agreements-for-prevention-of.html">previous post</a>.)</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The agreement begins with some paragraphs on financial matters and equal distribution of property, in accordance with the Israeli civil law. In the <i>Heskem L'khavod Hadadi</i>, these matters are addressed in the addendum.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Similar to the <i>Heskem L'khavod Hadadi</i>, the recalcitrant spouse must pay a monthly payment until the <i>get</i> is given/accepted (man agrees to give, woman agrees to accept). The amounts defined are slightly different, but not significantly. For these payments to be obligatory, one of the three following conditions must be in place: Either the couple must be living apart for at least twelve months; the <i>beit din</i> has determined that there is no chance for reconciliation or has ordered one of the parties to give/accept a <i>get</i>; or the breakdown in the marriage is irreparable.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The primary difference between this agreement and the <i>Heskem L'khavod Hadadi</i> is the manner in which it is decided that reconciliation is not possible. The second condition is what bothers me most in this agreement. The <i>beit din</i> is the last place I'd look for someone to say that a marriage is over. A recalcitrant husband just has to say the words "<i>shalom bayit</i>" and he has to be practically a serial murderer before the <i>beit din</i> would obligate a divorce, in spite of the husband's request to reconcile. I only need to remind you of the <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/shameful-acts-and-shameful-interrogation.html">case</a> of the husband who was guilty of sexually molesting his 15 year old daughter. So that condition is worthless. The third condition, the intent of which is the same, is not elaborated on. Who decides that the marriage is irreparable, and on what basis? The agreement does not specify. Therefore, the only condition that is clearly defined and feasible to happen is the twelve month separation. Therefore, for anyone who thinks it is important to try to reconcile before proceeding with divorce, the <i>Heskem L'khavod Hadadi</i> is the better formulated agreement.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I wrote above that the amounts of the monthly payments to be made by the recalcitrant spouse according to Yad L'Isha's prenup are not significantly different from the amounts in the <i>Heskem L'khavod Hadadi</i>. However, there is one point that bothers me. These amounts are not equal for the man and the woman. While the man would have to pay 40% of his monthly salary, with a minimum of 3000 NIS, the woman would have to pay 40% of her monthly salary, with a minimum of 2000 NIS. No doubt, the authors of this agreement took into consideration that more often that not the woman's salary is a lower salary. I'm in favor of equality. It is possible that the minimum of 3000 NIS might pressure the women more, because relative to her income it is more. But remember, the real point in this payment is not to pay maintenance. The real point is to "encourage" someone to agree to divorce. There is no problem of a coerced divorce if the woman is the recalcitrant spouse. If there were no concern of a coerced divorce (see my quote from Maimonides about that in my <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/07/prenuptial-agreements-for-prevention-of.html">previous post</a>), I'd say the higher the payment the better! We are out to accomplish something here - ending a marriage that is no longer good. I'm in favor of equal rights and equal responsibilities. Every situation is different. If a couple wants to take into consideration their different circumstances, including differences in earning potential, in this agreement, they can consult with a lawyer and a halakhic authority and tailor their prenup to their requirements. I don't see the necessity of doing that when the goal is not to actually pay. In any event, it is essential that a couple consult with such experts before signing this agreement.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Unlike the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Heskem L'khavod Hadadi</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">, Yad L'Isha's agreement does not address child custody and support issues. In my opinion, this is a significant omission that needs to be addressed, and a couple who would use this agreement should amend it to include this matter.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">To sum up, in my opinion, this agreement is not as well-formulated as the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Heskem L'khavod Hadadi </i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">(for which I have criticism, also - not to worry - as I do for all of the prenups that are based on the same concept)</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">, and therefore I'd like to suggest that Yad L'Isha remove it from their website and replace it with the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Heskem L'khavod Hadadi</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">, unless they can offer some explanation of what advantages their own prenup has. The </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Heskem L'khavod Hadadi </i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">has achieved greater momentum as far as its publicity and support from various organizations are concerned, so why confuse the public? Let's avoid decision fatigue.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><b>The (Israeli) Conservative Movement's <a href="http://www.itim.org.il/_Uploads/dbsAttachedFiles/heskem-conservative-movement.pdf">Prenup Agreement</a></b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Here we find a breath of fresh air! In the second "whereas" (in the manner that legal contracts are written) it states that the Conservative approach to marriage, which the couple has chosen, is based on their belief in equality of the genders and the right of each one to be married to whom they wish. Breakdown of a marriage should not result in a woman remaining an <i>aguna</i>, because of the refusal of her spouse to give her a <i>get</i>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The agreement itself is also based on the principle of monthly payments by the recalcitrant spouse, as seen in the <i>Heskem L'khavod Hadadi</i>. The amount is not specified, and, as always, the couple should consult with legal and halakhic authorities. There is also a paragraph requiring an attempt at marriage therapy, but there is no paragraph addressing custody and support of children. This should be added.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Two possibilities are presented with this agreement. One possibility is that the couple has a civil marriage (in addition to the Conservative ceremony), in which case, presumably, they register in Misrad HaP'nim (see my <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/07/prenuptial-agreements-for-prevention-of.html">previous post</a> for my thoughts on that, and you can read earlier posts, as well - by now you must know what I think about doing that). If that is the case, then any divorce proceedings would have to be in a <i>beit din</i> (of the Israeli rabbinate). Therefore, the halakhic and legal advice that the couple obtains must be with people who are familiar with those <i>batei din</i>. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The second possibility is that the couple do not register in the Misrad HaP'nim. Such a couple is referred to as <i>yedu'im batzibbur</i> (literally, known in public, what is termed "common law marriage"). I urge such couples who plan on having this status - or even just think about it - to check with the <a href="http://www.newfamily.org.il/en/">New Family</a> organization to find out all of the latest and greatest rights of such a relationship. The information provided on the form for the prenup is not up-to-date in this matter. These rights are improving all the time in Israel and I think this is the best way to go! If a couple chooses this route, they should consult with a Conservative halakhic authority, who should explain the implications of marriage (and divorce) in the manner of the Conservative movement. I am under the impression that if the prenup agreement does not lead to the desired result, if one party wishes to divorce, then the Conservative beit din will annul the marriage (<i>hafka'at qiddushin</i>).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Therefore, it would be wise for any couple who chooses to marry in a Conservative ceremony not to register in Misrad HaP'nim. They will have a traditional and halakhic (yes, I maintain that their ceremony is halakhic) marriage (and therefore, with all of the reservations that I have about <i>qiddushin</i>), but at least better protection against <i>get</i> refusal than is found in the (Orthodox) Israeli rabbinate.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In summary, if I had to choose one of the three prenups based on substantial monthly payments by the recalcitrant spouse that are offered, I would opt for the Conservative one, marry in a Conservative ceremony, and not register in Misrad HaP'nim.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">But if a couple insists on marrying using the services of the Israeli rabbinate (you do know already what I think about this, don't you?), then use the <i>Heskem L'khavod Hadadi</i>. Yad L'Isha should remove their agreement, so that there is a standard prenup of this type. There are enough concerns about the effectiveness and acceptance of this type of agreement, without confusing the matter by having multiple versions. This does not mean that couples should not tailor it to their needs, but it should be based on a standard format.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">If I am already raising the matter of "concerns", I ought to tell you that one reader raised the question of the attitude of the Israeli <i>batei din</i> to such agreements. Based on her personal experience, there are <i>dayyanim</i> who see any such prenup as a cause to make any future divorce a coerced divorce, and thus invalid. I plan on raising this issue with the various organizations that are promoting the agreement. It is fine that a civil court will order the recalcitrant spouse to pay, because this agreement is seen by the civil court as a valid monetary contract, but what happens when the couple appears in the <i>beit din</i> to arrange the divorce?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In my next post I'll discuss the <a href="https://sites.google.com/site/cwjhebrew/shtar/mevo">prenup</a> offered by the Center for Women's Justice. I'll also say a few words about a prenup that is on <a href="http://www.mavoisatum.org/page.aspx?id=78">Mavoi Satum</a>'s site, not because I think it is of much importance, but because it is kind of nice.</span></div>
Devorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14579018807634647530noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4908170626335283336.post-65371006752552134852013-07-17T17:31:00.002+03:002013-07-17T17:31:29.844+03:00Prenuptial Agreements for the Prevention of Agunot - the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The wedding season is here! All the organizations is Israel that concern themselves with the problem of <i>agunot</i> have had recent promotion campaigns to encourage couples to sign prenuptial agreements. That includes <a href="http://www.kolech.org.il/heskem.asp">Kolech</a>, <a href="http://www.mavoisatum.org/EnPage.aspx?id=97">Mavoi Satum</a>, The <a href="http://www.cwj.org.il/home">Center for Women's Justice</a>, <a href="http://www.icar.org.il/prenuptial-agreements.html">ICAR</a>, and <a href="http://www.kdam.info/">Beit Hillel</a>. (If I forgot someone, let me know.) The links provided are to English pages, unless no equivalent English page is available.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Kolech, Mavoi Satum, Beit Hillel, and the <a href="http://www.youngisraelrabbis.org.il/prenup.htm">Council of Young Israel Rabbis in Israel</a> have been promoting the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><a href="http://upload.kipa.co.il/media-upload/kulech/12113717-11242011.PDF">Heskem L'khavod Hadadi</a></i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> (The Agreement for Mutual Respect). The Council of Young Israel Rabbis provides information in English, and also an amended version that includes an international arbitration clause, which is important for couples who might have more than one country of residence. </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">ICAR, the</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> </span><a href="http://rackmancenter.com/%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%9B%D7%9E%D7%99-%D7%A7%D7%93%D7%9D-%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%90%D7%99%D7%9F/%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%97%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%9C%D7%93%D7%95%D7%92%D7%9E%D7%90/" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Rackman Center for the Advancement of the Status of Women</a><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">, and Mavoi Satum, have several different prenups available for download. <a href="http://www.itim.org.il/eng/?CategoryID=205&ArticleID=523">Itim</a> has the </span><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><i>Heskem L'khavod Hadadi</i> and the agreement offered by the Conservative movement (in Israel). The Center for Women's Justice provides an agreement that is different from the others in that among its purposes is to make the <i>qiddushin</i> conditional (<i>qiddushin al tenai</i>), which I explained briefly in <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/a-sarvan-get-and-sanctions-would-prenup.html">this earlier post</a>. <a href="http://www.yadlaisha.org.il/page-eng.aspx?id=43">Yad L'Isha</a> offers <a href="http://www.yadlaisha.org.il/Image/uploaded/%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%9B%D7%9D%20%D7%9E%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9F%20%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%95%D7%95%D7%99%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%99.pdf">an agreement</a> that they formulated themselves.</span><br />
<div>
</div>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">As you might have concluded, I am aiming this post at people who live in Israel. If you are reading this and live in the US, then the corresponding prenup would be that offered by the <a href="http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=105762">Rabbinical Council of America</a> (RCA) together with the <a href="http://www.theprenup.org/">Beit Din of America</a>. Some of the differences are a result of the different legal situations - in Israel, there is no way to divorce other than through the <i>beit din</i>. In other countries, a couple might have a civil divorce but not a religious divorce. The various legal and practical implications that are involved impact the formulation of the agreement.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">In this post, I will discuss the agreement that is most commonly used in Israel, </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Heskem L'khavod Hadadi.</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> I want to start on a positive note, so I will point out what I consider its positive aspects and what it can accomplish. In the next post I hope to compare the other available agreements to it, and in a future post I'll offer my criticism and concerns.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Before I begin my discussion of the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Heskem L'khavod Hadadi</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">, I feel it is my responsibility to point out to you one organization in Israel whose rabbis are very involved in officiating at weddings, and are presented in the press as being a moderate voice in Orthodox Judaism. Yet, their website - which features on their home page slide show a smiling bride and groom - has not a word about prenups, not a word about problems with divorce. I am referring to <a href="http://www.tzohar.org.il/?page_id=146">Tzohar</a>. I was not even able to find on their website two articles - by two of the three authors of the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Heskem L'khavod Hadadi</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> - that were published about nine years ago in the Tzohar journal. (If I am mistaken, let me know and I'll correct what I wrote and apologize for the misinformation.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">For this reason, I consider the Tzohar rabbis who perform weddings like wolves in sheep's clothing. Friendly, pleasant, smiling rabbis lead innocent young couples to the <i>huppa</i> to marry according to Jewish Orthodox law, but do not say a word about the problems that might come up if they wish to terminate the marriage, nor do they express any responsibility that every one must take for <i>k'lal Yisrael</i>, so that every Jew can be free to terminate a bad relationship, if desired.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Therefore, I request of each of you who chooses a Tzohar rabbi to officiate at your wedding to ask him why not a word is said about prenups, and if the Tzohar rabbis object to them on halakhic grounds, or for other reasons, what do they propose as a solution to the disgraceful problem of <i>agunot</i> (and men who are also victims of recalcitrant wives, who refuse to accept a <i>get</i>). What do they propose to prevent the extortion and shameful divorce proceedings in the <i>batei din</i>? Mention to the rabbi that the RCA and the Beit Din of America (see above) do encourage use of a prenup, and that the RCA request that their rabbis do not officiate at a wedding unless the prenup is signed (but unfortunately, the <a href="http://www.rabbis.org/news/article.cfm?id=105762">link</a> provided above to the RCA is evidence of the fact that this is not always implemented).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Now to my discussion of the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Heskem L'khavod Hadadi</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">. Any of the sites that have the agreement available for download also have an explanation about the agreement. I recognize that these explanations cannot be too long or detailed - people won't want to read them. But I also get the impression that the organizations that prepare these explanations don't want to frighten couples and deter them from getting married. I do - I want couples to understand exactly what <i>qiddushin</i> means, and what the risks and problems are when <i>qiddushin</i> is done unconditionally. I did say that I'd control myself and save my critique for a later post, so right now I'll say only this: the explanations that are simple and sweet only reveal the tip of the iceberg. The <a href="http://www.mavoisatum.org/page.aspx?id=89">Hebrew explanation</a> provided by Mavoi Satum is quite good and honest. It states that the prenup does not solve all problems and that not all rabbinic authorities approve of its use. There is also a reference to a ruling by R. Moshe Feinstein that lends support to use of such prenups. <a href="http://www.yadlaisha.org.il/Page-eng.aspx?id=71">Yad L'Isha</a> also points out some concerns with the prenup, though their <a href="http://www.yadlaisha.org.il/Page.aspx?id=38">Hebrew explanation</a> is better.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">This agreement is appropriate for any couple who will be registering (or is already registered) their marriage in <i>Misrad HaP'nim</i> (Ministry of the Interior) - even if the couple does not marry via the rabbinate, but marries outside of Israel in a civil ceremony (though it is beyond me why such a couple would then register in <i>Misrad HaP'nim</i>!). Since there is no other mechanism for divorce in Israel other than via the <i>beit din</i>, anyone registered as married who wishes to terminate that marriage MUST get a divorce in a <i>beit din</i>, or have a permit from the <i>beit din</i> to change the marital status (though the <i>beit din</i> requires a <i>get l'humra</i> - a <i>get</i> to be stringent - even in civil divorce, they will under certain circumstances forgo that requirement, and declare the civil marriage void). The <i>beit din</i> is the only government body that can approve change in marital status. There would be no value or need for a couple who marries in a civil marriage outside of Israel or in a private ceremony in Israel and does not register in the <i>Misrad HaP'nim</i> to sign this agreement. However, it is still very important to sign a financial agreement and an agreement about responsibility for children. I refer such couples to the <a href="http://www.newfamily.org.il/en/">New Family</a> organization for information.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">If you have read any of the explanations of the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Heskem L'khavod Hadadi</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> (or similar prenups) or the prenup itself, you will have understood the principle. Either partner in a marriage may decide that they no longer wish to be married and can request to terminate the marriage. There is a requirement to first try to reconcile and have several sessions of "couple therapy". A time period for this and a number of meetings is defined. A couple can change this time period and the number of sessions, but they should consult with a legal advisor before making any changes to the agreement. The Council of Young Israel Rabbis states on their site:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="background-color: white; font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 20.359375px;">Please note for your information that the composers of the prenuptial agreement cannot take upon themselves legal or halakhic (Jewish legal) responsibility for the phrasing and text of the agreement or for its validity. Rabbinic and Halakhic authority and/or legal authority (an attorney), of your choosing, should be consulted in order to obtain appropriate counsel and advice.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">That would even more so apply to anyone who changes the text provided.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">After this defined period, the recalcitrant spouse (if there is one - maybe they now both realize that the marriage is "over") is obligated to pay the other spouse, monthly, whichever amount is greater between $1500 or 50% of the recalcitrant spouse's average monthly salary. Any change to these amounts MUST be in consultation with halakhic and legal authorities, because the authors of the agreement - Dr. Rachel Levmore, R. Elyashiv Knohl, and R. David Ben-Zazon) determined this amount to provide the correct balance so that it serves as a strong incentive to the recalcitrant spouse to wish to end the marriage, but not so strong as to be considered a coerced divorce, which is the prime halakhic objection to such prenups among those who object on halakhic grounds.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">[This would be a good point to remind you that in Mishna <i>Gittin</i> 9:8 it states that "a coerced get in Israel [i.e., among Jews] is acceptable" and that Maimonides ruled (Laws of Divorce 2:20):</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">When a man whom the law requires to be compelled to divorce his wife does not desire to divorce her, the <i>beit din</i> - in all places and at all times - should have him beaten until he says "I want to", at which time they should have a <i>get</i> written. The <i>get</i> is acceptable. Similarly, if gentiles beat him while telling him: "Do what the Jews are telling you to do," and the Jews have the gentiles apply pressure on him until [he consents] to divorce his wife, the divorce is acceptable. ... Therefore, since someone who refuses to divorce his wife wants to be part of the Jewish people, and he wants to perform all the <i>mitzvot</i> and eschew all transgressions, but it is his evil inclination that presses him, when he is beaten until his [evil] inclination has been weakened, and he says "I want to," he [is considered to have] divorced willfully.</span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">"Because of our many sins,"</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">batei din</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> in Israel do not rule according to Maimonides in this matter.]</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The couple also agrees that there will be no monetary, custody, or child support conditions upon which granting (or accepting) the <i>get</i> depend. All those issues are to be determined separately. The </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Heskem L'khavod Hadadi</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> has an addendum in which the signing couple agree to divide their property according to the Israeli "</span><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Law of Financial Relations between Couples" (which I discuss somewhat in <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/whats-value-of-ketuba-part-ii.html">this earlier post</a>), unless the woman prefers to receive 50,000 NIS, linked to the cost of living index, as payment of her <i>ketuba</i>. This addendum (which may be replaced with any other financial agreement) also includes a paragraph about child custody and support.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Here are the points that I view as positive about this agreement:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">1) No "mudslinging" in the rabbinic court (which is the only venue to achieve a divorce, as pointed out above). Some of my previous posts, such as <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/shameful-acts-and-shameful-interrogation.html">this one</a>, already have mentioned the awful mudslinging that goes on. To convince the <i>beit din</i> to obligate a husband to give a divorce, a woman must make some rather serious charges against him. Likewise for a husband to convince the <i>beit din</i> to obligate his wife to accept a divorce. At times the charges are rather trumped-up, exaggerated, falsified. Some spouses hire private investigators to come up with "dirt" on their spouse. Some spouses agree to undergo polygraph tests to prove that they are innocent of the charges against them. The </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Heskem L'khavod Hadadi</i><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"> promotes "no-fault" divorce. Maintaining mutual respect and dignity is valuable considering that the couple might have children that they raise coperatively and they will have joint family occasions (perhaps <i>bar/bat mitzva</i> or marriage of a child) where they will have to cooperate and celebrate together.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">2) Similarly, the "mudslinging" to either receive payment of the <i>ketuba</i> (by the woman) or to avoid payment of the <i>ketuba</i> (by the man) is unnecessary, if the couple signs the financial addendum, or a similar financial agreement. Otherwise, if a woman sues for her <i>ketuba</i> in the <i>beit din</i>, she must prove that her husband was at fault and that she is justified, not just in suing for divorce but also in requesting her <i>ketuba</i>. A husband that does not want to pay the <i>ketuba</i> will try to prove that his wife was at fault - whether he or she first filed for divorce - and is undeserving of her <i>ketuba</i>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I find it quite interesting that what I consider so positive in such an agreement - no-fault divorce and the absence of court hearings full of accusations - one of the opposers of the prenup, R. Eliezer Melamed, considers one of the main problems with it. Almost a decade ago <a href="http://www.yeshiva.org.il/midrash/shiur.asp?cat=209&id=2316&q=%D7%A7%D7%93%D7%9D%20%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%90%D7%99%D7%9F">he wrote</a> in opposition to this prenup, and faults it because it does not relate to who is responsible for the family breakup, who, he feels, should be held responsible and pay a price. That whole "piece" that he wrote is quite troubling, so if you can read Hebrew, take a look (so you can be troubled together with me, and see why prenups have not received wide acceptance in the <i>yeshiva</i> world).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">3) The prenup has the potential to reduce the number of cases of <i>iggun</i>. There isn't yet a huge amount of experience with it, especially not in Israel, and it is possible that those who sign it are a self-selected group of couples who, anyway, have more "mentschlichkeit", so it is hard to determine how effective the prenup actually is.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">4) The separation of the divorce from the monetary, custody, and child support matters reduces the potential of extortion and concessions under pressure that frequently take place in order to obtain a <i>get</i>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">5) Signing the addendum (or a similar financial agreement) will reduce the lengthy court proceedings and high legal expenses associated with such settlements.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">6) If every couple that marries via the rabbinate and/or registers their marriage in Misrad HaP'nim would sign this agreement, it would become a norm. A new norm for Jewish marriage is an imperative to raise the awareness of the problems in Jewish divorce, and only then can we hope that the number of cases of <i>iggun</i> and extortion will be reduced.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In my opinion, it is this last reason that is the primary one for every couple who already married or will marry and/or who is or will be registered in the Misrad HaP'nim to sign this agreement, or a similar one (I will talk about other such agreements in the next post). Every couple likes to think that it won't happen to them, that they are madly in love and will live happily ever after. So don't sign this for yourselves. Sign it because if you will live happily ever after, statistics show that someone else - your brother or sister, your good friend, your future child, your parent - will divorce, and you want this agreement to be the norm for their benefit. If this becomes totally acceptable and expected for every couple, then those who don't sign will be the odd ones.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Notice I wrote "who already married". You can sign this if you are already married, even if you have been happily married for 50 years. Be an example to your children and grandchildren. The one important difference between "before marriage" and after is that before marriage you can have the document authenticated at a notary or in the marriage registry (they are obligated by law to do this, so if they balk, <a href="http://www.itim.org.il/eng/?CategoryID=205&ArticleID=523">Itim</a> has suggested that you ask them for help). However, if you sign it after you are married, the document can only be authenticated in family court (or in a <i>beit din</i>, but they wouldn't understand why you want to do this and I wouldn't understand why anyone would voluntarily enter the <i>beit din</i>). This does cost more than the notary or the marriage registrar.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">But since I'm raising the issue of cost - it costs quite a lot to have a family, and weddings cost a fortune, spent in a few hours, and on matters that have no real impact on how good your relationship is in the long run. So when it comes to a prenup agreement, don't be a cheapskate. I hope it won't save you a nickel. I hope it will be a waste of money for you to have signed it. But if you and many other couples sign it, it will certainly save someone else a lot of grief. Thank you for your cooperation.</span></div>
Devorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14579018807634647530noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4908170626335283336.post-63880829641866442612013-06-30T09:12:00.000+03:002013-06-30T09:12:45.981+03:00What's Good for the Goose is Not Good Enough for the Gander<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">About a month ago my post was about <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/a-sarvan-get-and-sanctions-would-prenup.html">an <i>aguna</i> whose husband was in New Jersey</a>, and the <i>beit din</i> imposed sanctions on him. We won't know the result of the sanctions - all published <i>piskei din</i> have the names deleted - unless we see a <i>pesak din</i> with the exact same details and some additional development, so that we can reasonably assume it is the same case.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">We'll now consider a similar case (7874/4 from 23/4/13). In fact, it appears to be worse, as it is dragging on for more time. And, more severe, because the couple's child was snatched and taken by one of the spouses to the United States, on the pretense that the trip was to visit parents. The other spouse filed a complaint according to the Hague convention.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">But the important difference between the cases is that here the <i>get</i>-refuser is a woman who refuses to accept her get (we don't learn why) and the refused is her husband. He tried to arrange a <i>get</i> by messenger, but she was not compliant. They already had an agreement worked out in the US (though we don't know from when). It turns out that the wife will have custody of the child and the husband will have visitation and twice-weekly phone calls (so I guess the wife was not found guilty under the Hague convention).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Trust me, I tried to write a brief summary of the details that we learn in the <i>pesak</i>, but I gave up. Some of them contradict one another - they don't know where she lives, they found out where she lives, her parents (by the way, her father is a rabbi) don't know where she is and have lost connection, her mother has taken her for psychiatric treatment because she is paranoid, etc., etc. And, the details are dry. Oh, except maybe for the husband's claim that the wife's former brother-in-law reported that she is now married to a gentile.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">We learn in the course of the presentation of the details that presently the husband has another woman with whom he lives and that he wants permission to marry her because they will be undergoing fertility treatments together. That's how it is with a <i>mesurav get</i>! Just imagine the situation if it were a <i>mesurevet get </i>who wants to have another child! As a matter of fact, these upcoming fertility treatments seem to be the stimulus for the urgency of the husband's request, because at some point we are told that he abandoned his request for a while, but has now renewed it.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The main point in the <i>pesak</i> is that the <i>dayyanim</i> determine that the husband, who is of Ashkenazi descent (and therefore subject to the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gershom_ben_Judah#Synod_and_bans"><i><u>H</u>erem</i> of Rabbenu Gershom</a>), should be permitted to take a second wife, for the following reasons:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">1) The Rm"a (Rabbi Moshe Isserles) in his gloss on the <i>Shul<u>h</u>an Arukh Even HaEzer</i> 82:2 ruled that if a man wants to divorce a rebellious wife, she must be forced to accept the get, or he is permitted to marry another woman, because <u>a woman does not have the power to keep him chained forever</u>. Numerous other sources are provided, and they note that there are latter decisors who don't even require <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heter_meah_rabbanim">the agreement of one hundred rabbis</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The second reason is something that I didn't know before. Live and learn.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">2) If the couple has a civil divorce, the <i><u>H</u>erem</i> of Rabbenu Gershom does not apply. For this reason, too, there lots of citations.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">They bring two more reasons that do not really enlighten us much - they just strengthen their case. They also discuss whether the 100 signatures are required, and take the stringent view that they are.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">They conclude (unanimous decision):</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">1) The man is permitted to marry another woman.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">2) The man has provided a divorce for his wife, but that doesn't mean she can remarry (presumably until she would come to the <i>beit din</i> and accept it, or accept it by messenger).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">3) This ruling requires the approval of the Chief Sephardi Rabbi, Rabbi Amar, who is the head of the highest rabbinic court.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">4) The permission to take another wife is final when Rabbi Amar and 100 rabbis agree.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Before writing the conclusion, they also state that if there is a hearing in the future about the woman's <i>ketuba</i>, she would be denied her <i>ketuba</i>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">To sum up, the woman has a <i>ge</i>t - she just needs to take it. She has no <i>ketuba</i>. He has a new woman in his life, he can have kids that are not <i>mamzerim</i>. Again, just switch the roles. A <i>mesurevet get</i> and a recalcitrant husband. צדק צדק תרדוף. Justice, justice shall you pursue! (Deuteronomy 16:20)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">You'll find a bit more detail in my <a href="http://vatashardevoraivrit.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/blog-post_30.html">Hebrew blog</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
Devorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14579018807634647530noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4908170626335283336.post-389213391232715222013-06-24T13:05:00.000+03:002013-06-24T13:11:50.147+03:00Heroes of the Beit Din Save the Damsel in Distress from the Clutches of King Kong<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In this post I'd like to comment on an article written by Yehuda Yifra<u>h</u> that was published this past weekend (21-6-2012) in Makor Rishon (a newspaper that caters to the National Religious sector in Israel), in its Tzedek (justice) section, entitled "A New Era is Beginning".</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">When I read about the French woman Ella (fictitious name), who was a <i>mesurevet</i> <i>get</i> and her violent <i>get</i>-refusing husband, it brought to mind this <a href="http://davidszondy.com/ephemeral/Kingkong.jpg">image from the original 1933 King Kong movie.</a> (It might be hard to see, but King Kong is holding Ann in his left hand.)</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Ella's story is a nightmare. She was married for 11 years and suffered "a decade of torture and suffering." Beating and other physical abuse, curses, threats like "I'm going to slaughter you," while he is holding a knife in his hand. Finally, Ella sued for divorce. (For those who ask "why do we need feminism?", one answer is: we need feminism to reassure women that they should have zero tolerance for violence.) And the husband's response to the request? "Over my dead body." When he didn't show up at the appointed time at the <i>beit din</i> in Paris, they said that there is nothing they can do to help her. In fact, outside of Israel, that is true to some extent - the <i>beit din</i> cannot impose any sanctions like they can in Israel, such as taking away a driver's license or a professional license. But they could have put him in <i><u>h</u>erem</i> in his Chabad community. They didn't. Ella said that the Chabad rabbis there apparently believe in Catholic marriage. They told her that for the sake of holding the family together, she has to suffer in silence. She said that in a different Chabad community in France, a woman (mother of nine children) was murdered by her husband.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">But Ella had two strokes of luck going for her:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">1) Her husband went to Israel for a family event.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">2) The couple emigrated from Israel, so they are Israeli citizens, giving the <i>batei din</i> in Israel the authority to rule in such cases and to impose sanctions. Thus they were able to impose an order to prevent the husband from leaving Israel, which forced him to come to the <i>beit din</i>.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">So, like the squadron of bi-planes (the outdatedness of the planes is a good metaphor, I think) arrives to save Ann, or perhaps like <a href="http://i391.photobucket.com/albums/oo352/lmks/superman-flying.jpg">Superman</a>, the <i>dayyanim</i> in the Tel Aviv <i>beit din</i>, headed by Rav Shtasman, swooped in to save the captive woman.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Yifra<u>h</u> paints a picture of this <i>beit din</i> as being representative of a "new era" of <i>batei din</i> with a "new generation of young <i>dayyanim</i> ... who are leading a revolution in the level of service that is provided currently by the <i>batei</i> din to the public." The woman's lawyer (a woman) also praised the <i>beit din</i>: "I feel like we received the <i>get </i>as a gift!" (Gift?!! She, too, is speaking like an abused woman. "Oh, thank you, thank you so much for not beating me.") "This man could have easily evaded [giving a <i>get</i>], and only the determination of Rav Shtasman and the other <i>dayyanim</i> brought about the desired result. I felt awakening in me a respect for the <i>beit din</i>, which became a user-friendly place, and finally there is someone to work with."</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The quoted spokesperson - a close contact of Rav Shtasman, also praised the Tel Aviv <i>beit din</i>: "They don't disparage the importance of guarding the family unit and the value of <i>shalom bayit </i>(reconciliation) in situations when it is sensible and feasible," (by the way, Ella's husband also requested <i>shalom bayit</i> when he appeared - because of the order not to leave the country - before the Tel Aviv <i>beit din</i>) "but when they identify a broken relationship that cannot be repaired, they act quickly."</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">But just a moment! What was holding this woman captive? It is the halakhic system of marriage that was holding her captive! <i>Halakha</i> that the <i>batei din</i> have faith in, support and rely on. So these "heroes" are coming to save her from a system that they are a part of, that they are compliant with. Keep in mind, she had no trouble getting a civil divorce in France.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">But in the halakhic system, a woman's freedom is dependent upon men - her husband and the <i>beit din</i>.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="background-color: #f6f5ed; color: #666666; font-family: David, Arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; text-align: start;"><span style="font-size: medium;">כִּי הִנֵּה כַּהֶגֶה בְּיַד הַמַּלָּח </span></span><span style="background-color: #f6f5ed; color: #666666; font-family: David, Arial; font-size: 13px; line-height: 18px; text-align: start;"><span style="font-size: medium;">בִּרְצוֹתוֹ אוֹחֵז וּבִרְצוֹתוֹ שִׁלַּח</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">"As the helm in the hand of the seaman, who holds it at will or casts it at will" </span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">(from a <i>piyyut</i> in the Yom Kippur evening service)</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">When I began this blog, I described it (as you can see above) as "a blog about <i>halakha</i>, women and Judaism, Jewish family law, <i>agunot.</i>" I explained in my <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013_04_01_archive.html">first post</a> that "My primary focus is to discuss Jewish family law, through examination of recent <i>piskei din </i>(judgments) from the Israeli <i>batei din</i> (Jewish courts of law). I explained that there is not "a vast difference between application of Jewish family law in the Israeli system of <i>batei din</i> and application of this law in any other Orthodox <i>beit din</i>, wherever Jews reside. ... There are differences between Israel and outside of Israel as to how this application of Jewish family law interacts or interferes with the secular courts, how much power of enforcement the <i>dayyanim</i> have, and the options before a Jewish couple, at least one of whom wishes to dissolve the marriage. In each case – being in Israel vs. outside of Israel – there are some more difficult aspects and some less difficult aspects." My aim with this blog is to enlighten the readers: what does (halakhic) Jewish marriage entail? What are the obligations that one is agreeing to when entering such an arrangement? What is a <i>ketuba</i> and what does it entail?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I wrote in that first post that "we find a system that is bogged down in antiquated law and outdated concepts that have outlived their relevance to the way people live their lives today. We find a sincere, often well-meaning, attempt to regulate modern lives with an inappropriate set of tools. We find a system in which the power lies solely in the hands of men, even though, by sheer coincidence, I suppose, half of the people involved in marriage and divorce happen to be women."</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">My aim in writing this critique of Yifra<u>h</u>'s article is to put out a warning. Don't be deluded by the idea that friendlier <i>batei din</i> will solve the problem of <i>agunot</i>, or that it will convert the halakhic marriage into something that is appropriate for our generation. We don't need to reach a level of violence to want a divorce. We don't need to be so desperate as to regard a <i>get</i> as a "gift." Every woman - and man - is entitled to have control over his or her life. It should not be the <i>beit din</i>'s decision, no matter how "friendly" the <i>beit din</i> is, to decide if <i>shalom bayit</i> is desired or even feasible. Only you know what it would mean to continue living with this person whom you once loved, but has become intolerable for you.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The correction has to be at the "root" of the problem - Jewish marriage laws. This is not just a matter for those couples who come to the <i>beit din</i> to divorce. It is a matter for every happy couple. The marriage laws must be appropriate for the types of relationships that couples have in this era, and not those of a thousand or two thousand years ago.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">A Hebrew version of this post can be found <a href="http://vatashardevoraivrit.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/blog-post_24.html">here</a>.</span></div>
Devorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14579018807634647530noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4908170626335283336.post-88657610089708549122013-06-18T23:50:00.000+03:002013-06-19T08:25:10.950+03:00Report and Comments about the Conference on Qinyan and Qiddushin at the Rackman Center, Bar Ilan University<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">This past Wednesday, the <a href="http://en.rackmancenter.com/">Rackman Center for the Advancement of the Status of Women</a> held a <a href="http://en.rackmancenter.com/the-necessity-of-the-property-component-in-halachic-marriage/">conference</a> on "The Necessity of the Component of 'Acquisition' in Halakhic Marriage." They called it "The Necessity of the <u>Property</u> Component in Halachic Marriage," but I'm not pleased with the translation of the word <i>qinyan</i> to "property". A <i>qinyan</i> is an acquisition, or an act of acquisition. Property is what is acquired, and there are many types of property and many types of acquisition in Jewish law. Just to give one example, <i>qinyan</i> of a slave does not give you the same rights as <i>qinyan</i> of an animal. You may slaughter the animal, but you may not slaughter the slave, even though you own him.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The conference had two sessions, the first addressing the question of the value of the <i>qinyan</i> in a Jewish marriage. The question posed for the session made the assumption that there is in fact an element of <i>qinyan</i> in halakhic marriage. Though this is an assumption that I agree with (the first <i>mishna</i> in <i>Qiddushin</i> is a good place to start), there are many who will disagree, and there is a never-ending debate between those who recognize that there is a <i>qinyan</i> and those who attempt to reinterpret the use of the language and who try to claim that there is no <i>qinyan</i>, perhaps just an act of <i>qinyan</i>, but only as something symbolic, a remnant of ancient times. (All apologetics, to me.) Thus, the first session was primarily a series of presentations by the various speakers (the chair of the session Dr. and Rabbinic Court Advocate Rachel Levmore, Rabbi David Bigman, and Rabbi Elyashiv Knohl of Tzohar) who explained why they thought that there really isn't a <i>qinyan,</i> and those who maintain that there is (Rabbi Dov Linzer speaking in English via a video hookup and Professor Zvi Zohar). </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Rabbinic Court Advocate Rivka Lubitch (from now on, Rivka) suggested that the <i>qinyan</i> is no longer relevant or effective, because people today (in Western society) do not think that people can be owned. She focused on the problems of <i>mamzerim</i> and ways to alleviate the difficulties of those who are on the list of <i>mamzerim</i> maintained (wrongfully) by the Rabbinic courts. Unfortunately, none of her suggestions (not presented here in her order) are realistic. A child resulting from the union of a male <i>mamzer</i> and a gentile woman (or a female slave) is not a <i>mamzer</i>, but a gentile (or a slave). The resulting child can then convert to Judaism (and the slave can be freed, becoming a full Jew), so that the child does not carry the taint of <i>mamzerut</i>. Sorry, no equivalent solution for a female <i>mamzeret</i>. Why anyone who has to suffer the stigma of <i>mamzerut</i> would want his child to join this warm and inclusive religion is beyond me. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">But I came up with an idea: a JDate website for male <i>mamzerim</i> to meet women whose conversions are revoked or who have difficulty converting in the <i>batei din</i>. Just think how much they have in common, starting with anger towards their treatment by the <i>batei din</i>! The website could also allow <i>agunot</i> to meet men with conversion problems (so they are gentile). After all, a child resulting from such a union is NOT a <i>mamzer</i>!! The <i>aguna</i> doesn't have to wait forever for the SoB to give her a <i>get</i>. She can meet a guy who would have liked to be Jewish and get on with her life. A free weekend holiday will be given to the first couple to meet on this website!</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Another of Rivka's suggestions was that the <i>batei din</i> should not accept any testimony about <i>mamzerut</i> (this is the approach of the Conservative <i>batei din</i>, from what I understand). This is a fine idea (won't solve anything for those already named), but I don't believe the Orthodox <i>batei din</i> - not in Israel or outside of Israel - will buy it. And, besides, there will be certain communities of Jews that will keep their own lists (there are such websites, already). Only if enough Jews, even observant ones, pay no attention to the <i>yi<u>h</u>us</i> of potential spouses for their children would this work. The same is so for the idea that it can be statistically shown that all of us are actually tainted - we are all <i>mamzerim</i>, similar to the idea that Sanherib mixed up all the nations so that we don't know who the descendants of Amalek are. (You can read about this idea in Hebrew, <a href="http://vatashardevoraivrit.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/blog-post_12.html">here</a>.) If most Jews, in particular those who are observant, really don't care, then the problem will go away. But so long as there are significant numbers of Jews who feel the need to check someone's bloodline, the problem won't go away. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Her last suggestion (I presented them out of order) is to accept the halakhic opinion that children conceived by in vitro fertilization are not <i>mamzerim</i>, even if one or both of their parents are. Even assuming the <i>batei din</i> in Israel would agree to this halakhic opinion, what does it actually mean you would be telling a <i>mamzer</i> (or <i>mamzeret</i>) to do? To have a relationship with someone whom they can't marry legally in Israel and then go through what is a difficult, demanding, unpleasant - to say the least - medical procedure if they want to have a baby, so it will not be tainted? Wow, such a kind religion! Where do I sign up?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Rivka's concerns about <i>mamzerut</i> actually bring us to the real point of the conference. It really doesn't matter whether you think there is or isn't a <i>qinyan</i> in Jewish marriage. Sure, the idea of the <i>qinyan </i></span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">is offensive to feminists</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">; even if it were true that it is just symbolic, merely the language used in so much of our rabbinic literature is offensive. But putting that aside, bottom line - it is the difficulty of getting out of a marriage (and all the related aspects that I have been pointing to in my blog) that must be dealt with. The organizers of the conference seem to think that if only the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">qinyan </i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">could be taken out of the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">qiddushin</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> (an idea that makes no sense, given the obligatory elements of halakhic marriage), then there would be no problems of <i>agunot</i> and </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">mamzerut</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> (which, Rivka tells us, these days is almost always the result of women who are denied a <i>get</i> giving up waiting)</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">. So the real point of the conference was addressed in the second session, in which the question posed was: "It possible to have a halakhic marriage without a <i>qinyan</i>, and if so, how could this be done while keeping most of the familiar ceremony intact?"</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Since it really isn't possible to have a halakhic marriage without a <i>qinyan</i> (unless you already think there is no <i>qinyan</i>, but then why do the problems still exist?), what we did hear in the second session were suggestions from the speakers for alternative marriage ceremonies.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Dr. Ariel Picard's suggestion that we should marry according to Noahide law, because this is something that exists in our rabbinic sources, and so is an authentic halakhic alternative, is odd. Civil marriage is also a form of "Noahide law", so it seems to me that the fact that he has a halakhic term to pin it on makes him feel better.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Rabbanit Malka Piotrkowski suggested amending the <i>ketuba</i> to obligate a man who does not give his wife a <i>get</i> to go to prison. "If she is imprisoned, so should he be." We know that there are men who are willing to sit in prison rather than to give their wives a <i>get</i>. This suggestion focuses on just one of the set of very complex problems with Jewish family law. And, we can simply say the old cliche "two wrongs don't make a right." Malka (please forgive me for leaving out the full title and name) admitted that Prof. Ruth Halperin-Kadari (of the Rackman Center) was not enthused with her idea. The most important thing that I think that Malka said was her critique of the Tzohar rabbis, because many of them do not support and encourage use of the prenup (discussed in a <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/a-sarvan-get-and-sanctions-would-prenup.html">previous post</a>).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Professor Noam Zohar offered three suggestion, in order from least preferred to most preferred. His suggestions are basically identical to what I have said in various places.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">1) A lot of people still will want a traditional marriage, but the least that they should do is to sign the prenup.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">2) A better option would be conditional marriage (also described briefly in <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/a-sarvan-get-and-sanctions-would-prenup.html">that post</a>).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">3) The best option would be not to have any kind of valid <i>qiddushin</i>. You can make a ceremony look a lot like a traditional one, but changing the "formula" of what the groom says to the bride, for example, would invalidate it.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The first option is quite practical, but limited in its value, and addresses only one problem with halakhic marriage and divorce. The third option is also very practical - do whatever ceremony you like, but DO NOT have a civil marriage (such as in Cyprus) and then register in the <i>Misrad HaPnim</i> (Office of the Interior), because once you register in <i>Misrad HaPnim</i> as a married couple, dissolution of the marriage would still be in the hands of the <i>batei din.</i> No mention was made of a Reform ceremony, but when I tell people these same three options, I suggest that as a possibility for option 3. "Reform" is not a dirty word in my vocabulary. Reform rabbis know how to make meaningful life-cycle events with Jewish content, and yet there will not be <i>qiddushin</i>.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The second option actually has something very appealing for those who like to work within the halakhic framework, and recognize that <i>halakha</i> always had many solutions for "creative compliance". A properly written set of conditions can solve all of the problems of halakhic marriage, while still being a halakhic marriage, so long as it is in effect, and null and void, if it is not. It does not solve the problems of the patriarchal model in the ceremony itself (Noam Zohar mentioned that he will not say "amen" to the first blessing, which addresses men: "... Who forbad us the betrothed and permitted us those who are married to us" - "us" are the men.) It does not eliminate the <i>qinyan</i>. But the biggest hurdle is finding people who are well-versed in the intricacies of drawing up such a document and who are willing to conduct such weddings. This solution is for those who are willing to do their homework and find the appropriate <i>mesader</i> (or <i>mesaderet</i>) <i>qiddushin</i>.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The question to ponder, following this conference, is: are there people out there who can continue on the path of Rabbi Rackman, for whom the center is named? (One place to learn about Rabbi Rackman's work in the matter of freeing <i>agunot</i> is Aviad HaKohen's book <b>Tears of the Oppressed - An Examination of the Agunah Problem: Background and Halakhic Sources</b>.)</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">For the Hebrew-readers among you, you will find a more detailed write-up in my <a href="http://vatashardevoraivrit.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/blog-post_18.html">Hebrew post</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The Center stated that all of the lectures will be available for viewing on their website. </span></div>
Devorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14579018807634647530noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4908170626335283336.post-65571230622973711032013-06-09T22:29:00.000+03:002013-06-09T22:29:30.130+03:00Shameful Acts and a Shameful Interrogation<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A technical note: For this post, I'm trying an experiment. I wrote the <a href="http://vatashardevoraivrit.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/blog-post_3145.html">post in Hebrew first</a> and will now present a more condensed version in English, without the quotations and translations from Hebrew. On one hand, for those English-speakers who can read some short excerpts in Hebrew, I thought it would be nice to have those quotations and translations. But I want to see which way I reach a wider audience (and also don't overtax myself with writing this blog). I think I was not addressing the needs of the Israeli audience enough, and the focus really is <i>batei din</i> in Israel, though they reflect, to a large extent, <i>halakha</i> everywhere.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If you like to see some Hebrew, you can always read the English version and then try the <a href="http://vatashardevoraivrit.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/blog-post_3145.html">Hebrew one</a>. If you can read Hebrew, the English version should help you follow the Hebrew one.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I'd be happy to get feedback letting me know whether this works for you.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now to the post:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><b>Case 860977/1, <i>pesak</i> dated 20.5.2013</b></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The case is horrifying, but the proceedings should be short and clear. One would think.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The case concerns a man who was found guilty of six counts of sexual misconduct with his 15 year old daughter. He was sentenced to 8 years of actual time in prison, and several other shorter times under various conditions, unnecessary to mention here. He was also ordered to pay 75,000 NIS damages to his daughter. And, by the way, following her inability to talk for a number of months, when she finally did speak, she said he committed many more horrible acts than the six he was convicted of.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">No surprise, then, that the wife sued for divorce. It should be an open and shut case. Husband should be ordered to divorce his wife, and she should also be awarded her <i>ketuba</i> and <i>tosefet ketuba</i> (see my earlier posts on these terms). After all, she certainly has adequate grounds for divorce, the fault is his, and therefore the <i>ketuba</i> is hers. A <i>pesak</i> of several lines is all that is necessary. Right? That's all that remains is to decide what kind of sanctions would work for a guy in jail, in the event that he is not cooperative about giving the <i>get</i>.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">But here's what happened: The husband says he wants to reconcile (<i>shalom bayit</i>)!! The court agrees to his request that his wife come to prison to speak with him so he can try to convince her. They make an agreement with the husband - they will arrange for her to come (and convince her to come) under the condition that if she still says she does not want to reconcile, then he will give the <i>get</i>. He agrees.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I imagine that you are not surprised that she did not agree to reconcile. But now the husband says, fine, he'll give the <i>get</i>, if she relinquishes her <i>ketuba</i> and <i>tosefet ketuba</i>. What should the <i>beit din</i> do? They should say "no, way". You must give the <i>get</i> and the <i>ketuba</i> and we will pull out all of our ammunition to make sure you do so.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">But they don't do that. They set a date for further court proceedings, including an interrogation of the woman, because "the woman opposed relinquishing her <i>ketuba</i>." What nerve she has! </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The <i>pesak din</i> first contains a recording of some questions posed to the woman by the <i>dayyanim</i> and then some of the questions (but not all - there are portions omitted, indicated by ellipses) posed by the husband's attorney.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">For example, the <i>dayyanim</i> asked if she divorces tomorrow, would she then go and marry again. She says she wouldn't be interested and can't even think about such a thing. But what is this their business? Now, you might think that they are trying to show the husband's lawyer how much she was emotionally damaged by her husband's behavior. But I suspect another motive. I suspect that they are trying to demonstrate that she has no ulterior, impure motive to wanting a divorce (this is giving the <i>dayyanim</i> any benefit of the doubt).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The husband's attorney then has his turn. He wants to know, for example, why she can't forgive him if he is willing to go for psychological help. After all, he already is paying his price by serving time. She and her daughter are having psychological therapy and so is he, so why can't she forgive him? (Is he just doing his job, as disgusting as it is? Or does he really not realize that there is a difference between the victims' need for psychological therapy and the pervert's need for therapy?)</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">But the most degrading of the lawyer's questions are: why does she want a divorce; perhaps she is looking to meet someone else?</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Well, the wife won't agree to reconcile, and she won't agree to relinquish the <i>ketuba</i>. So the <i>dayyanim</i> each write lengthy halakhic discourses (total of over sixty pages) to come to the conclusion that the husband is obligated to give the <i>get</i> and also obligated in paying the <i>ketuba</i>, though the latter's actual value is <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/whats-value-of-ketuba-part-ii.html">dependent upon the outcome of the division of property in the family court</a> (where the husband sued for division of property, proving that he really did not want <i>shalom bayit</i>).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">That might not sound so bad - if you saw my earlier posts, you'd realize that I do not see it as unjust to take the division of property into consideration when ruling on the <i>ketuba</i>.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">What was so very distressing is the process that each of the <i>dayyanim</i> went through to reach this conclusion - and they disagree as to how firm the obligation to divorce must be and how immediately there must be sanctions if the husband does not cooperate.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">See, performing inappropriate sexual behavior with your own daughter is not definitely clear grounds for a wife to be entitled to divorce, and certainly not clear grounds to be entitled to her <i>ketuba</i>, given that she is the one filing for divorce. It is not one of the grounds for divorce listed in the halakhic codes. So the <i>dayyanim</i> must look at other reasons that she might be entitled to a divorce, among them:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">1) He cannot fulfill his sexual obligations and "everyone knows why a bride goes under the canopy."</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">2) He cannot support his wife.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">3) He is nauseating to her (<i>ma'is alai</i>)</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">But this is not enough. One of the <i>dayyanim</i> discusses whether or not they can accept evidence of his guilt from the criminal court system, which does not apply the halakhic methods for testimony and evidence. They question whether the shameful acts committed by the husband are as bad or worse than one who "sleeps around" (this ground for divorce is discussed in an <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/whats-value-or-use-of-ketuba-part-i.html">earlier post</a>) - that is a ground for divorce that is in the halakhic codes, so they can judge according to that. They question if a long-term imprisonment is sufficient grounds for divorce. They question if they can apply sanctions (forcing a <i>get</i>) even if the grounds for divorce are not one of those in the <i>mishna</i> that lists those grounds for which a man can be forced to divorce his wife. They discuss under which circumstances the husband can be obligated to pay the <i>ketuba</i>, and if he is considered a rebellious husband, and under which circumstances they can request that the wife concede property in exchange for the <i>get</i> (called the approach of the Maharshada"m, the approach by which <i>batei</i> din sometimes tell a woman that it is her fault that she has no <i>get</i>, because she could concede the property that the husband asks for). Over sixty pages of such questions and considerations, each one with numerous sources from <i>rishonim</i> and <i>a<u>h</u>aronim</i> (pre-Spanish expulsion and post-Spanish expulsion halakhic authorities), codes and responsa literature. And, by the way, there is very little citation of 21st century precedents from the Israeli <i>batei din</i>.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The very discussion itself is indicative of the mindset of those who officiate in the <i>batei din</i>. Out of touch with reality. Lack of sensitivity to the heinousness of the crime. An insistence that the only way to examine such a case is via the lens of outdated texts, as irrelevant as they are to the case at hand.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">We must keep in mind that though they "ordered" the husband to give a <i>get</i>, until the woman receives it, there is no <i>get</i>. But the last point I'd like to make in this case is that even if the judgment is correct, the end does not justify the method by which it is reached. The methods applied in the <i>batei din</i> are disgraceful, as displayed in this case.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
Devorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14579018807634647530noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4908170626335283336.post-5484661573439686382013-06-02T18:38:00.002+03:002013-06-02T21:34:49.207+03:00A Sarvan Get and Sanctions - Would a Prenup Help this Case?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The <i>batei din</i> must have a PR department, among the goals of which is to publicize the tough actions they take to help <i>agunot</i>. So the case that I'm going to write about today was written about in the Israeli press (and maybe made it to the Jewish media abroad).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I'll summarize the case and <i>pesak din</i>, and then add my two cents.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><b>Case 835157/7 (7/5/2013)</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The husband was ordered by the <i>beit din</i> to give his wife (now 31 years old) a <i>get</i> on September 7, 2011. But he has not done so; he has gone to the US and lives in New Jersey (he already left Israel in March, 2011). Apparently, the <i>beit din</i>'s order to give the <i>get</i> missed the boat. Even though the husband is abroad, the <i>beit din</i> insists that because both spouses are citizens of Israel, the <i>beit din</i> has the authority to impose sanctions, which they did on February 8, 2012.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">These sanctions included denial of Israeli consular services to the husband. Of course, if he does not need to renew his Israeli passport, why would he need consular services? How much of a sanction is this? So, it didn't work, and later in 2012 (July), the wife requested of the <i>beit din</i> to impose additional sanctions on him.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Among the decisions reached by the <i>beit din</i> on 17 July, 2012 (and signed on 31/7/13) are the following:</span><br />
<div>
<div class="-" dir="RTL">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; mso-fareast-font-family: FrankRuehl;">
ג. הואיל והבעל מסרב
לציית לפסק הדין, מותר לקרותו עבריין, ודינו מבואר בשולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן שלד.<br />ד. מצוה על כל מי שיכול
לסייע להתיר את האשה מעגינותה, לפיכך יש להימנע מלעשות טובה לבעל ו/או לדבר עמו
ו/או לצרף אותו למנין ו/או לישא וליתן עמו ו/או לקברו. כמבואר ברמ"א.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; mso-fareast-font-family: FrankRuehl;">ה. </span><span lang="HE">בית הדין נעתר לבקשת
האשה ועל כן בית הדין מתיר לפרסם את שמו ופרטיו ותמונתו של הבעל [פלוני] בקהילה ב[...]
ו/או בכל מקום שהוא ללא הגבלה, בצירוף הודעה כי כל היודע על מקום הימצאו ויש בידו
לסייע להוציא מהבעל גט, הרי הוא מצווה ועומד לכך, ואילו כל המסייע לו להמשיך ולעגן
את האשה, הרי הוא מסייע לדבר עבירה.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; mso-fareast-font-family: FrankRuehl;">ו. </span><span lang="HE">בית הדין מעביר העתק
החלטה זו לידי הרב [...] – רב הקהילה לפי הכתובת הבאה: [...]</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; mso-fareast-font-family: FrankRuehl;">ז. </span><span lang="HE">בית הדין מעביר
החלטה זו למחלקת העגונות בהנהלת בתי הדין, לפעול באמצעים העומדים לרשותם לביצוע
תוכן החלטה זו ובית הדין מורה לאגף עגונות בהנהלת בתי הדין לפנות לכל גורם רבני או
אחר שיש בידיו להשפיע על הבעל לתת גט, לעשות זאת.</span></span><span dir="RTL"></span></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">3) Considering that the husband refuses to abide by the ruling of the <i>beit din</i>, it is permissible to call him a transgressor, and the law regarding such a person is detailed in the <i>Shul<u>h</u>an Arukh</i>, <i>Yo-re De'a</i> 334.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">4) It is incumbent upon anyone who can help to release this woman from her <i>iggun</i>. Therefore, one should refrain from doing any favors for the husband, and/or from talking with him, and/or to include him in a <i>minyan</i>, and/or to do business with him, and/or to bury him, as specified in the Rm"a. [Rabbi Moshe Isserles, glosses on the <i>Shul<u>h</u>an Arukh</i>]</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">5) The <i>beit din</i> grants the woman's request, and therefore permits publicizing the name, details, and photo of the husband so-and-so [but then why not publicize it here, in the <i>pesak din</i>?!!] in community such-and-such and/or in any place, without restriction, together with a notice that anyone who knows of his location and has the ability to help retrieve a <i>get</i> from the husband is hereby ordered to do so, while anyone who assists him to continue to chain his wife is aiding and abetting a crime.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">6) The <i>beit din</i> is forwarding a copy of this decision to Rabbi so-and-so [actually inadvertently named later in the <i>pesak</i>], rabbi of the congregation according to such-and-such address.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">7) The <i>beit din</i> is forwarding this decision to the division for <i>agunot</i> under the authority of the <i>batei din</i>, so that they will request of any rabbinic body or anyone else who can influence the husband to give the <i>get</i>, to do so.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Before continuing with the summary, I'd like to relate to the citation from the <i>Shul<u>h</u>an Arukh</i> (SA) and the Rm"a. The chapter referred to contains the laws relating to those who are shunned or excommunicated. Though this summary of points from the <i>pesak din</i> of July, 2012 does not use the word <i>nidui</i> or <i><u>h</u>erem</i> (shunning or excommunication - the latter being a stronger level, but I will not go into that detail here), that is actually what the decision entails. In paragraph 43 of the cited chapter, the SA lists the twenty-four reasons that a person is shunned. Reason number 6 is:</span><br />
<div class="-" dir="RTL">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">(ו) מי שלא קבל עליו את הדין, מנדין אותו עד שיתן </span><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">One who doesn't accept [and carry out] the judgment of the <i>beit din</i> is shunned until he complies.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In item 4 above, the <i>pesak</i> refers to several sanctions that everyone is asked to impose on the husband:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">a) not to do any favors - for the excommunicated (more severe than shunning), in paragraph 2 the SA states that:</span><br />
<div class="-" dir="RTL">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">וכן אסור להנותו יותר מכדי חייו<b> </b></span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Similarly, it is forbidden to grant any benefit to him, beyond what is necessary for him to live.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">b) not to speak with him - again, in paragraph 2 it states that:</span><br />
<div class="-" dir="RTL">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">ומותר לדבר עם המנודה ועם המוחרם, אלא אם כן החמירו עליו בית דין בפירוש. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">הגה: ומ"מ לא ירבה עמו בדברים, ולא ידבר עמו אלא לצורך, כמו שמדבר עם האבל </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">It is permitted to speak with the shunned and the excommunicated, unless the <i>beit din</i> specified to be more stringent with him. The Rm"a adds in his gloss: But in any event, one should not converse much with him, and should only speak with him when necessary, as one who speaks with a mourner.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">c) not to include him in a <i>minyan</i> (I don't know, these <i>dayyanim</i> never count me in a <i>minyan</i> - am I being shunned?) - again, in paragraph 2 regarding one who is shunned (and therefore even more so one who is excommunicated):</span><br />
<div class="-" dir="RTL">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">ואין כוללין אותו לכל דבר שצריך עשרה. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">הגה: אבל אם לא נדוהו בפירוש, אף על גב שהוא עבריין ..., מצרפין אותו למנין י' להתפלל עמו. ואפילו מנודה ממש שאין מצרפין אותו למנין, מ"מ מותר להתפלל בעודו בב"ה.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">And he is not included in any matter that requires ten (i.e., a <i>minyan</i>). The Rm"a adds in his gloss: but if they (the <i>beit din</i>) did not specify clearly that he is shunned, even though he is a transgressor, he is included in a <i>minyan</i>, to pray with him. But even one who is truly shunned, who is not included in a <i>minyan</i>, in any event it is permitted to pray while he is still in the synagogue. (That would mean that he is not kept out of the synagogue.)</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">d) not to do business with him - this one is interesting, because in paragraph 2, it states that it is forbidden to hire one who is excommunicated, or to be hired by him, but it does not say anything about a prohibition to do business. The ruling in the SA there is very similar to Maimonides, Laws of the Study of Torah (<i>Hilkhot Talmud Torah</i>) 7:5, where it states that it is forbidden to hire the excommunicated, or to be hired by him, <b>and</b> it is forbidden to do business with him. The SA clearly omitted this last prohibition, nor does the Rm"a add it in his gloss. The <i>beit din</i>, in the case under discussion here, decided to include Maimonides' additional restriction.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">e) not to bury him (a Jewish burial) - in paragraph 6 it states:</span><br />
<div class="-" dir="RTL">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">אם רצו בית דין למעט הנידוי מל' יום, או להוסיף, הרשות בידם. </span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">הגה: ויש רשות לבית דין להחמיר עליו שלא ימולו בניו, ושלא יקבר אם ימות, ולגרש את בניו מבית הספר ואשתו מבית הכנסת, עד שיקבל עליו הדין. </span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">If the <i>beit din</i> so wishes, they can reduce his shunning to less than 30 days, or add [days] - it is their prerogative. The Rm"a adds in his gloss: And the <i>beit din</i> has the option to be more stringent [and rule] that one should not circumcise his sons, nor bury him if he dies; his sons should be expelled from school, and his wife from the synagogue, until he complies with the judgement.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I went through this exercise for several reasons: it is valuable to see the basis for the rulings of the <i>beit din</i>, by looking at these <i>halakhot</i>, we can see how the <i>beit din</i> attempted to be quite harsh on this <i>get</i>-refuser, and it never hurts to learn a little <i>halakha</i> just for the edification.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Let us return to the case. These sanctions, as stated, were imposed back in July 2012. In the latest iteration this past month, the husband protests (actually his lawyer does, on his behalf) these sanctions, claiming that these sanctions are not within the options available to <i>batei din</i> to impose, as specified in the Israeli law. Further, the <i>beit din </i>has no authority to restrict the husband outside of Israel. These sanctions attack the sovereignty of the United States, because they are addressed to people (those who are supposed to shun him) who are not citizens of Israel. And, lastly, the sanction to prohibit his burial is not valid, because after he dies, his wife is a widow and she no longer needs a <i>get</i>. (Did he say "over my dead body"?) Other claims along these lines were made by the husband's attorney.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The <i>beit din</i> rejects all of these claims, but one of them - the non-burial clause - is disputed among the <i>dayyanim</i>. I wish to be brief regarding the rejections - I want to get to my "two cents". The <i>beit din</i> claims that since it is a legal body in Israel, under the authority of the state, they certainly have every right to give an order any Israeli citizen (e.g., the husband). As far as telling non-Israeli citizens how to behave - they have the authority to do that, as a religious <i>beit din</i>, enabling them to direct any Jew, anywhere, as to what they must do. They cite precedent to prove that they have a right to impose social sanctions (excommunication), even if it is not spelled out in so many words in the Israeli law.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">On the other hand, the non-burial clause is problematic, according to the minority opinion:</span><br />
<div class="-" dir="RTL">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; mso-fareast-font-family: FrankRuehl;">יחד עם האמור, נראה שבהשתלשלות הדורות מנעו פוסקי ההלכה
שימוש בהרחקה שלא למול בניו או שלא לקברו בנוגע לעבריין המנודה, היות שהאפקטיביות
שלהן להשגת היעד המבוקש התבררה כלקויה, ואדרבה הן עלולות להרחיק את היעד הנכסף בשל
תגובת הלוואי מהמורחק בדורות החופש והדרור. וכן נראה שעלולה היא להתנגש באופן כללי
עם הוראות החוק המקומי. ועיין ספרים שונים, כמו יביע אומר וכדו' שהגבילו את השימוש
בצעדים שבזמננו עומדים ביחס הפוך לתקווה המצופה מהם.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Along with what was stated, we see that in the course of the generations, adjudicators have refrained from using the sanctions not to circumcise his sons or not to bury the transgressor who is shunned, since their effectiveness in achieving the desired goal is defective. On the contrary, they are likely to even delay the longed-for result, because of the accompanying reaction of the shunned in times of freedom and liberty. It also is likely to conflict in a general manner with the local law. Look in various books, such as <i>Yabia Omer </i>[one of R. Ovadya Yosef's collections of responsa] and the like, that have limited the application of these steps, that in our times bring the reverse of what we hope to achieve from them.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Several interesting citations along these lines are quoted, and if I were giving a set of <i>shiurim</i> on the subject, they would be a fascinating example of how <i>halakha</i> changes. The minority opinion is that all the sanctions, except the non-burial remain in place.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">However, the other two <i>dayyanim</i> disagree. The citations brought by the lone dissenter are not in cases of a man who holds his wive captive, but, for example, someone who does not keep <i>Shabbat</i>. They cannot be compared. In the case at hand, the law should have required that the man be beaten with a whip so that he will agree to comply with the ruling, but since today that is not done, the <i>beit din</i> must be stringent with him so that he will release his wife. Thus, the husband lost his appeal, and the sanctions are in place. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Will he give the <i>get</i>? We don't know. He could decide to refuse until he is on his deathbed, and then he'll give it so that he will be buried properly. Why, he could even give it now, effective at a future time: this is your divorce, effective the day before I die. That is halakhic, too. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Now for my thoughts on this. Some people might say "bravo" to the <i>beit din</i> for being so tough. Given the situation, they did just about as much as they can do, except for <i>hafqa'at qiddushin</i> - annulment - which <i>batei din</i> in Israel won't do (nor will Orthodox <i>batei din</i> anywhere else). Indeed, given the mindset of the <i>beit din</i>, and the four cubits<i> </i>of <i>halakha</i> within which they work, they <b>were</b> tough. But rather than to criticize the <i>beit din</i>, it is those four cubits of <i>halakha</i> that are unsatisfactory. A woman's right to be freed of a marriage should not depend upon sanctions and how stubborn her husband will be. She should have the right to say "I want out" and then be able to be a free woman.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Perhaps some of you are wondering: would a prenuptial agreement have helped such a situation? Or, perhaps some of you are thinking: "it wouldn't happen to me - we've signed a prenup".</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">As I imagine most of my readers know, in the US, the RCA (Rabbinical Council of America) declared that its member rabbis should not officiate at a wedding unless the couple signs a prenuptial agreement, as a method to prevent problems of <i>get</i>-refusal. I don't know to what extent this is enforced, but it is considered by many to be a valuable step that was taken to prevent the problem of <i>agunot</i>. If you are not familiar with this prenup and how it works, just Google "RCA prenuptial" and you'll find loads of relevant links.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">There has been a similar attempt in Israel to promote use of a prenuptial agreement, the most popular one being the <i>heskem l'khavod hadadi</i> - the agreement for mutual respect. You can look at material on the website of either <a href="http://www.cwj.org.il/home">The Center for Women's Justice</a> (there is a link to the Hebrew site, too) or of <a href="http://www.kolech.com/english/magazine.asp?cat=3922">Kolech</a> (the link provided is to the English site - the Hebrew one is <a href="http://www.kolech.com/heskem.asp">here</a>) to find information about the prenups in Israel. So far, their use in Israel is not widespread, but several organizations have been campaigning to increase awareness (and signing) of these agreements.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I certainly urge anyone who marries within the Orthodox framework to sign such an agreement. It is better than nothing, and might even be effective enough to avoid many cases that would otherwise result in <i>get</i>-refusal. You are not signing it for yourself - you've got the perfect relationship. You are signing it so that it will become the norm, just as the <i>ketuba</i> is.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">However, these agreements have not been used for a long-enough time nor are they widespread enough to be able to determine, yet, how effective they really are. It might be a self-selected population who signs them - the type of people who in any event would not be so obstinate if their spouse said that s/he no longer loves him/her. And, though I will not expand upon this thought right now, I will just state here that the prenup does not do anything to address the inherent paternalistic model of traditional Jewish marriage, whereby a man acquires his wife with a <i>qinyan</i> (an act of acquisition), and all that goes with that model (some of which I mentioned in an <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/whats-value-of-ketuba-part-ii.html">earlier post</a>).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">But in this case, would a prenup help? The prenup states - in a nutshell - that if either party wants "out", after a set period of attempted reconciliation with marital counseling, the reluctant party must pay a monthly support payment of $1500 or 50% of that person's income, whichever is larger (this is the amount in Israel; check the RCA version for the US) until the <i>get</i> is granted/accepted (whichever is relevant). This monthly payment is intended to be enough to "encourage" the reluctant party without forcing him/her, which would invalidate the divorce. There are several clear situations in which it won't work: if the reluctant party is so poor that they wouldn't be able to pay, anyway; if the reluctant party is so rich that it won't bother him/her to keep paying in spite; if the reluctant party is so stubborn that s/he would rather sit in prison (which might happen in Israel); or the reluctant party is overseas, in which case there is no way to enforce the monthly payments (as a case in point, the husband in the case we saw was not paying the <i>mezonot</i> that he must pay his wife until he divorces her). One last situation: it won't work if either party is no longer mentally competent.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">So what would be better? If you insist on a halakhic marriage, do <i>qiddushin al tenai</i> - conditional betrothal (for all intents and purposes, conditional marriage). No, the rabbinate won't agree to it, but if one of the conditions is that if you are not longer living together, say, for a year, then the marriage is null and void, and you are set free - you were never married to the rat to begin with.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">There have been some attempts to revisit the idea of a conditional marriage. (As one example, view <a href="http://www.scribd.com/doc/33122968/Broyde-Tripartite-Agunah-Proposal">this paper</a> - and yes, I am aware of the scandal that surrounded the author of it, but we can learn from all sources of knowledge. </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">For the truly serious, read Eliezer Berkovitz's book תנאי בנישואין ובגט.</span><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">) </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">And a handful of renegade young couples in Israel are doing just that - a conditional marriage that is not registered with the rabbinate. May there be more like them!</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
Devorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14579018807634647530noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4908170626335283336.post-53747929391647896322013-05-27T18:02:00.002+03:002013-05-27T21:21:41.784+03:00A Mesurav Get, his wife, his lover(s) - Would Alimony Help?<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">In this post, instead of beginning with a long-winded introduction, I'll start out right away with summaries of a few cases - cases that, at least to me, have rather perverse implications. (Other opinions? You can write comments.) I'll save the long-winded stuff for the end.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">In all of these cases, the man sues for divorce, but the woman refuses, and claims that she wants to reconcile. Unfortunately, as I mentioned in my previous post, the best example that I saw of this in the last few months was in a file that mysteriously disappeared from my computer. I'll summarize it from memory.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">The husband sued for divorce, several years ago. The wife did not want to accept, but asked for <i>shalom bayit</i> (reconciliation). The <i>beit din</i> did not agree that the husband's claims against his wife were sufficient to order her to accept the divorce. But the husband now lives overseas with a woman, and, based on the fact that they have been separated for quite a while (sometimes considered a reason to order acceptance or granting of a divorce), he renewed his suit for a divorce. The woman still refuses and claims she wants him back. The <i>beit din</i> has compassion for this woman, abandoned by her husband, who is now living with another woman. The wife, as it turns out, is ill, and depends upon the <i>mezonot</i> that the husband is obligated to pay to support his wife - after all, so long as she is his wife, he is obligated to pay for her support (her earnings would reduce the sum he must pay, but this woman, it appears, was not employed). It was not clear in the case whether this woman became sick after the husband left her, before, or whether she had this illness even before they were married. No matter - the <i>beit din</i> will not force the woman to accept a divorce (by using sanctions against her), and they insist that the husband is still obligated to pay her <i>mezonot</i>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">It was not clear to me how they can enforce payment of <i>mezonot</i>, if he is living overseas. Maybe he is actually not such a bad fellow, and listens to the <i>beit din</i>. It wasn't clear. (More likely, <a href="http://www.btl.gov.il/English%20Homepage/Benefits/Alimony/Pages/default.aspx"><i>Bitua<u>h</u> Leumi</i> - National Insurance - pays her, at the taxpayers' expense, and they will need to take action to collect the debt, somehow.</a> But once she is divorced, <i>Bitua<u>h</u> Leumi</i> will not do this.) What the <i>beit din</i> is able to do is prevent him from reentering Israel, if and when he wants to visit family, children, friends, without being stopped with the purpose of trying to get him to pay his debt of <i>mezonot</i> to his wife. (And that's probably what <i>Bitua<u>h</u> Leumi</i> would have to do to try to get him to pay his debt back to them.) But of course, if he is really a rat, he might not ever try to return, and thus avoid paying. He won't be extradited because of this.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">I leave it to you to think about whether this man should be responsible to continue to support this woman because she became ill, even if he were no longer married to her. In other words, would alimony be justified in this case? I think there are a lot of factors that might determine whether it is or is not justified (think about the responsibility to purchase disability insurance, even for stay-at-home parents). But let's suppose that it is justified - I'm sure each of us could conceive of the situation where she became sick while they were married, she raised and cared for their children while he worked, and he can't just walk out on her without being responsible, and therefore alimony is justified. Except, Jewish family law does not provide for alimony; in fact Israeli civil family law does not, either. (I hope that in a future post I will show an example of how this is rectified, in some rare situations.) The <i>ketuba</i> is all that the husband would be obligated to pay, if the woman did agree to the divorce, which might not be all that much. That is why this woman, whose husband has made a life with someone else and no way would reconcile and come back to his wife, insists that she wants <i>shalom bayit</i>. What she really wants is continued financial support.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">By not obligating the woman to accept a divorce, the <i>beit din</i> is actually sanctioning the lifestyle of a man who has a wife and a mistress. What is that we hear about Jewish family values? Is not something perverse here? Would it not be better to say "the marriage is over, but the man must pay alimony"? By not obligating the woman to accept the divorce, this man doesn't even need a <i>heter me'a rabbanim </i>(see my <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013_04_01_archive.html">first post</a>). He has a <i>heter shelosha rabbanim</i>!! (Three rabbis, for all intents and purposes, permit him to live with another woman while he has a wife.) True, they say he is evil for doing it - but they are doing nothing to end this situation. They do not demand of the wife to accept the divorce. If the situation were that the woman were living with another man, and she wanted the divorce, but for some reason the husband didn't want to give the <i>get</i> (maybe she is rich and he hopes to inherit her), there is no way a <i>beit din</i> would tolerate the claim of <i>shalom bayit</i> on the part of the husband. She would be declared a <i>moredet</i> (a rebellious wife), would lose her <i>ketuba</i>, and he would be obligated to divorce her, and if need be, there would be sanctions against him until he does so.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The next case that I will summarize is almost twenty years old, but is similar in many respects, and at least this time I can cite a case number, so that you know I'm not just using a creative imagination to come up with these cases. I do not have the original <i>pesak din</i>; rather I refer to the summary in <a href="http://rackmancenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/dindayan-22.pdf">HaDin VeHaDayyan (case 4 in issue 22)</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<b><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Case </span><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">005470158-21-1 17/7/1995</span></b><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">The husband sues for divorce on the grounds that he and his wife (married for over 40 years) are already living apart for eight years (recall what I said above about a lengthy separation sometimes being grounds for divorce) and they have also divided their property, and there is no chance for a reconciliation. The wife claims that the husband left the house, has other women, and she will accept a divorce if the husband fulfills the conditions set by mediators that were appointed - nine years before!!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">The <i>beit din</i> rejects the husband's claim for divorce on the grounds that he did not fulfill the conditions set by the mediators, among which include that the husband must provide for his wife those benefits that she would receive as the wife of a shareholder in the Egged (bus company) cooperative, and a share in his pension benefits as the wife of a shareholder in the cooperative. Therefore, in reality, the couple agreed - according to the decision of the mediators - to live separately without being divorced. She remains technically his wife, so that she can continue to receive these spousal benefits. They are living this way already since the mediation decision, and the husband never sued for divorce before, so the <i>beit</i> din sees no reason why suddenly he should want to divorce his wife. If he did, she would lose all of these spousal benefits. Living separately, which might normally be grounds for divorce, is not accepted as grounds for divorce in this case, because they chose this way to live.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Given the situation in the first case that I described, need I say more? Oh, maybe just a reminder that I don't think that the <i>beit din </i>imagines for a moment that this guy is celibate all these years, especially given the wife's initial complaints. Alimony anyone?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">And for my last case, fairly recent: </span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><b>Case 823575/7 19/12/2012</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">The couple in this case were divorced for three months at the time of the last hearing. The dispute is about support payments that the husband was obligated to pay prior to the divorce </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">(remember what is says in the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/whats-value-or-use-of-ketuba-part-i.html">ketuba</a></i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">?), when the couple - married for over 30 years, and with four children - first approached the <i>beit din</i>. At that time, in 2011, the husband sued for divorce, but the wife requested <i>shalom bayit</i> (reconciliation). This, in spite of the fact that the husband boasted that he found a true soul-mate, a gentile woman with whom he lived, and that his wife was only such technically. The <i>beit din</i> then, in 2011, rejected the husband's request to divorce his wife, in no uncertain terms, and said they would not permit him to discard the wife of youth and treat a proper Jewish woman that way. And they ordered him to pay spousal support and household expenses (<i>mezonot</i>, as a husband - this is not alimony) in the amount of 8450 NIS per month (after taking into consideration the wife's earnings).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">After approximately a year, the wife decided that she really couldn't reconcile with him, considering the slurs he said about her, and other nasty behavior that, to keep things a reasonable length, will be omitted here. So she agreed to the divorce, and they were divorced.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">But, apparently, the husband never paid what he was ordered to, and now that they are divorced, he is claiming he never should have had to pay those <i>mezonot</i> (which she is suing for). He gives a list of reasons why, which the <i>beit din</i> does not accept or does not believe. It turns out that the husband has been cheating on his wife for decades - more than half of the time they were married, and this woman he is living with is the third lover he's had, and she was his lover before he left the family home.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">But beyond the <i>mezonot</i> that the husband owes her from when they were married (even if living apart), the wife is suing for her <i>ketuba</i> and for additional compensation for damages.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">It is clear - given the fact that the husband "slept around" (see my <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/whats-value-or-use-of-ketuba-part-i.html">earlier post</a>) - that he is obligated to pay the <i>ketuba</i>. But in addition, the <i>pesak</i> includes a discussion of what possible halakhic framework would support additional compensation for damages. It cites, at length, an article on this topic - again, too lengthy to summarize here.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The <i>dayyan</i> then rules that based on the precedents provided in that article, there is justification to rule in favor of compensation for the wife, based on the following reasons:</span><br />
<div class="a" dir="RTL">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;"><span style="font-size: large;">שיקולי בית הדין
לגבי גובה הפיצוי בנידון דידן הם כדלהלן:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="11" dir="RTL">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; mso-fareast-font-family: FrankRuehl;">א.<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;">הבעל הוא שגרם לפירוק והריסת התא המשפחתי.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="11" dir="RTL">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; mso-fareast-font-family: FrankRuehl;">ב.</span><span lang="HE"> </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;">האישה תבעה שלום בית, אולם לאחר זמן הסכימה לקבל
את גטה מאחר ושוב לא יכלה לעמוד בהשמצות הבעל ובהתנהגותו כפי שכתבנו לעיל.</span><span dir="LTR"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="11" dir="RTL">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; mso-fareast-font-family: FrankRuehl;">ג.</span><span lang="HE"> </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;">מדובר בהרס של בית לאחר שלושים ושמונה שנות
נישואין שבמשך למעלה ממחציתה הבעל רעה בשדות זרים.</span><span dir="LTR"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="11" dir="RTL">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; mso-fareast-font-family: FrankRuehl;">ד.<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;">גובה הכנסות האישה לפנסיה בעוד מספר שנים הוא נמוך
מאד בעוד שהכנסתו של הבעל גבוהה פי כמה. ועתה חי לו חיי הרווחה עם בת זוגתו,
לעיתים בארץ ולעיתים בחו"ל.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="11" dir="RTL">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; mso-fareast-font-family: FrankRuehl;">ה.<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;">הבעל הודה כי האישה הייתה אשת חיל וצנועה שהעניקה
את כל כולה לבעלה וילדיה בזמן שהבעל התרועע עם נשים אחרות. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="11" dir="RTL">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; mso-fareast-font-family: FrankRuehl;">ו.<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;">הבעל הודה כי במשך שנים רבות בגד ובוגד באשתו עם
מספר נשים ועד האחרונה </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; line-height: 115%;">("האירופאית" כלשונו, נוכרית)</span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;"> למעלה מעשרים שנה.</span><span dir="LTR"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="11" dir="RTL">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; mso-fareast-font-family: FrankRuehl;">ז.<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;">הבעל הודה כמובא לעיל כי הכאיב לאשתו ומבין את
כאבה ואף מודה כי הביא אותה למשבר קשה בדרך צינית.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="11" dir="RTL">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; mso-fareast-font-family: FrankRuehl;">ח.</span><span lang="HE"> </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;">הבעל אף במכתביו לבנו כתב כי חלקה של האישה ברכוש
שנצבר לכל הפחות מחצית כמו שמגיע לו, ובזכות שניהם הגיעו לרכוש זה וזה לא קשור
להכנסה הפורמאלית של כל אחד.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="11" dir="RTL">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; mso-fareast-font-family: FrankRuehl;">ט.<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;">עיקר הרכוש שיש לצדדים רשום ע"ש שניהם בחלקים
שווים. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="11" dir="RTL">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; mso-fareast-font-family: FrankRuehl;">י.<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;">יש ביכולתו של הבעל לשלם פיצוי שיושת עליו לאור
הכנסתו הגבוהה ורמת החיים הגבוהה שהוא חי עם בת זוגתו הכוללת נסיעות לחו"ל,
מסעדות, בתי מלון, בילויים, רכיבה על סוסים, קניית רכב חדש בסכום של למעלה
מ-300,000 ש"ח </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; line-height: 115%;">(אמנם על חלקו יש הלוואה)</span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;">.</span><span dir="LTR"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="a" dir="RTL">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;">בהתחשב בכך
שהבעל כבר חויב במלוא הכתובה ותוספת כתובה [כתבו במקום אחר שצמוד למדד זה שווה 333,497.50 ש"ח], בית הדין מחייב את הבעל ב-180,000
ש"ח </span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; line-height: 115%;">(זהו סכום נמוך למי שבגד באשתו מאחורי גבה למעלה מ-20 שנה
ושעליה כתב "אישה צנועה" שהעניקה את כל כולה לי ולילדים", כלשונו)</span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;">.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The considerations of the beit din regarding the amount of the compensation in our case are as follows:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">1) It is the husband who caused the destruction of the family unit.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">2) The wife requested <i>shalom bayit</i>, but some time later agreed to accept the divorce ... [as I already summarized above].</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">3) We are talking about destruction of a marriage of over 38 years, more than half of which the husband has been cheating on his wife.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">4) The woman's pension payments that she will receive in a several years will be very low, while the husband's income will be several times that. And, right now, he lives a very comfortable lifestyle with his mistress, both in Israel and abroad.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">5) The husband admits that his wife was an <i>eshet <u>h</u>ayyil</i> [a "woman of valor"] and modest, who gave all of herself to her husband and children, while he was philandering with other women.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">6) The husband admits that he cheated and still cheats on his wife with a number of women, up to and including the last one (whom he calls "the European", a gentile woman), for more than 20 years.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">7) The husband admits that as a result of this, he caused his wife pain, he understands her pain, and even admits that she suffered a crisis because of him.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">8) In letters to his son, the husband admits that his wife is entitled to at least half of the property, and that regardless of the income of each one of the couple, it is due to the efforts of both of them that they have been so prosperous.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">9) The bulk of the property is legally owned by both of them.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">10) The husband has the financial ability to pay compensation, in light of his high income, his high standard of living that he lives with his mistress, including trips abroad, meals in restaurants, hotels, entertainment, horse riding, a new car for over 300,000 NIS (though part of it is a loan).</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Considering that the husband already paid the <i>ketuba</i> and the <i>tosefet ketuba</i> [333,497.50 NIS, including linkage to the cost of living index], the <i>beit din</i> obligates the husband to pay 180,000 NIS (this is a low sum, for someone who cheated on his wife behind her back for over 20 years, and who wrote about her, in his words "</span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">modest, who gave all of herself to her husband and children" [this last parenthetical statement is in the <i>pesak din</i>, itself]).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In light of some of the points made by the <i>beit din</i>, I assume that the "slurs" that the wife referred to were things the husband said in an attempt to get the beit din to order her to accept a <i>get</i>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">My question in this last case is: considering what a philanderer her husband was, did the wife ever really want <i>shalom bayit</i>, or was she hoping for a fair settlement? I cited this last case to show another example of the <i>beit din</i> allowing a woman to refuse a divorce, in spite of the fact that her husband was philandering. And, to raise the question: considering mainly the matter of pension and future financial support, wouldn't alimony be justified? Do you consider the payment of <i>ketuba</i>, <i>tosefet ketuba</i> plus the 180,000 NIS (a total of approximately half a million shekels) a fair settlement instead of alimony (consider that the woman is probably some where in her 50s)? Keep in mind that she will (or did) receive half of the property, and that chances are that the value of the property is far more than 333,497.50 NIS, so that she may not see the latter.(Usually a <i>beit din</i> will not award the <i>ketuba</i> and <i>tosefet</i> in addition to a 50% share of the property - <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/whats-value-of-ketuba-part-ii.html">see this post</a>, though in this case, since they believe that the husband wronged his wife so much, that might be their intent - it is not clearly spelled out, and the husband might yet appeal). You judge (and are invited to comment about your judgment).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Now that you saw several cases, I'll summarize some explanatory points (some of which I already stated) and then share my thoughts:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">I have used the word "alimony" to mean spousal financial support for an ex-spouse (not child support). This is the usual definition, except that sometimes it also refers to spousal support during the time that a couple is separated, but is not yet divorced. I distinguish between the two, because in Jewish family law, if a couple is separated, but not divorced, then the husband is still obligated to financially support his wife (we revert, for Jewish law, to the paternalistic model - there is no such thing as a wife being obligated to support her husband, unless they have a specific financial agreement that states so), just as he is if they are living together. This financial support is called <i>mezonot</i>. (Don't get confused - the same word is used for support for one's children, but usually the word is qualified, so that you know for whom the <i>mezonot</i> are intended.)</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;">To get a quick idea of how varied alimony laws are in different countries, and different states within the US, you can take a look at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alimony">Wikipedia entry for alimony</a>. As I stated above, </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;">Jewish family law, unlike many other systems of law, does not provide for alimony (according to my narrow definition), nor does Israeli civil family law, apparently following the pattern of Jewish law. I hope to be able to show in a future post a case that demonstrate how, effectively, the equivalent of alimony might be awarded to a spouse. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;">There is something positive, in my own view, to not having alimony, but that positive aspect does not work well with the traditional model of a Jewish family (which I summarize in <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/whats-value-of-ketuba-part-ii.html">this post</a>). The Jewish concept of not having alimony after divorce is consistent with the term <i>sefer keritut</i> ספר כריתת that appears in Deuteronomy 24, verses 1 and 3. The term is typically translated as "bill of divorce," but that does not give the flavor of the term. The word <i>keritut</i> has the same root as the verb to "cut off" (and other related meanings). And that is how the Sages in the Talmud understood it. A clean break. There is no clean break, if a man continues to support his ex-wife.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;">In an ideal situation - well, there is no ideal situation if we are talking about divorce, but in as good a situation as divorce can be - a clean break allows each spouse to begin a new life and move on. And, i</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">f both spouses have been working and have relatively equal earning potential, then there is no justification to award alimony. Alimony should not be a method of extorting money in exchange for agreeing to a divorce, nor should it be a way to penalize someone for "ruining the marriage". That's how the mudslinging begins. Alimony is a means to provide a just distribution of property and the non-financial contribution to a marriage. A spouse's efforts at home or raising children (typically the woman's) is part of the contribution to the marriage and the family, and alimony is a means to balance the various types of effort - whether they earn a salary or not.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">But this "ideal" situation is not always the situation, and I'm sure you can all conceive of situations that are not so. Let's consider divorce without mudslinging - no-fault divorce. A couple agrees that the marriage isn't right and agrees to divorce. Consider on your own under what conditions it makes sense for one spouse to pay alimony to the other, and if it should be forever, or for a specified amount of time, say, until the recipient spouse finishes medical school. Factors like the ages of each spouse, the likelihood that they can each join the workforce, etc., should all be considered. One idea is for a paragraph in a couple's prenuptial agreement to require mediation in the event that one party seeks alimony.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">There are various approaches as to how to divide a household in a reasonably equitable manner, but no approach should result in sham marriages, with philandering or abusive spouses, sustained in the name of justice. I believe that the <i>batei din</i>, by publicizing these cases, are convinced that they are demonstrating their compassion to women. (They probably also think there is a value to show that some men are refused the ability to divorce their wives.) But this form of compassion is causing women to sacrifice their self-respect in exchange for financial support.</span></div>
Devorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14579018807634647530noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4908170626335283336.post-79598601972144664002013-05-21T00:26:00.001+03:002013-05-21T15:57:54.027+03:00Follow-up to Askmakhta post - The Chief Rabbinate's Maximum Tosefet Ketuba<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;">I know, I know. I said my next post would be about alimony (or lack thereof). But Professor <a href="http://law.biu.ac.il/en/node/381">Amihai Radzyner</a> on the Bar-Ilan University Law Faculty called something interesting to my attention, in light of my previous post, and I think it is worthy of a follow-up post</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;">. Besides, the two most important files that I wanted to use for my discussion of alimony disappeared (and I already tried data recovery, to no avail), and this way I have an excuse to delay figuring out how I'm going to deal with that.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">What Professor Radzyner called to my attention is a <i>pesak din</i> (</span><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">5192-21-1 Ashkelon) </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">from November 8, 2001, in which there is a citation of a direction by the Chief Rabbinate about the maximum <i>tosefet ketuba</i> (see <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/the-ketuba-asmakhta-and-merchant-of.html">previous post</a>).</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL">
<b><span lang="HE" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: FrankRuehl; font-size: 14pt;">יא. סכום של
מליון ש"ח אינו מוגזם<o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL">
<span lang="HE" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: FrankRuehl; font-size: 14pt;">במכתב מטעם
הרבנות הראשית למנהלי לשכות רושמי נשואין נתנו כמה הוראות שעל הרבנים עורכי החופות
להקפיד, ובין השאר ( י"ד תשרי תשס"ב ), נאמר שעליהם להקפיד שלא לכתוב
תוספת כתובה מוגזמת, והם ממליצים שם ואומרים "סכום תוספת הכתובה, לא יעלה על
מליון ש"ח ", משמע שהם העריכו שעד סכום כזה עדין זה בגדר הסביר, ואין זה
סכום מוגזם שנאמר עליו אסמכתא.</span><span dir="LTR" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">11. An Amount of One Million NIS is not Exaggerated</span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">In a letter from the Chief Rabbinate to the directors of the marriage registration bureaus, several directions were given, by which it is incumbent upon the officiators of weddings (<i><u>h</u>uppot</i>) to abide. Among them (14 <i>Tishrei </i>5762) it is stated that they must be certain that they should not write an exaggerated <i>tosefet ketuba</i>, and they (the Rabbinate) recommend that "the amount of the <i>tosefet ketuba</i> should be no more than a million NIS." This implies that they assessed that up to this amount is still considered reasonable, and this sum is not so exaggerated that it could be called <i>asmakhta</i>.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Now, in my <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/the-ketuba-asmakhta-and-merchant-of.html">previous post</a>, I asked the following question:</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">2) Why in the world don't the <i>mesadrei kiddushin</i> (the clergy who perform the weddings) tell the couple that it is best to keep the standard, minimum amount on the <i>ketuba</i> and not put in sums that they (or at least the groom) might regret later? Why do they let grooms give <i>ketubot</i> with exaggerated amounts on them?</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">So, actually, in the case in that post, the <i>mesader kiddushin</i> might very well have been aware of the direction of the Chief Rabbinate from more than a decade before. But then, why did the <i>beit din</i> rule that the husband should pay 200,000 NIS, and not the full amount? Why did they consider the 1,000,000 NIS a situation of <i>asmakhta</i>? It appears to be a clear case of the lack of oversight or authority of the Chief Rabbinate.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">And, even in the case just cited, where the decision states that:</span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL">
<span lang="HE" style="background-position: initial initial; background-repeat: initial initial; font-family: FrankRuehl; font-size: 14pt;">לאחר כל מה שכתבנו לעיל, נראה שחיוב הכתובה גם כאשר
הסכום הנקוב בו גבוה ביותר מחייב את הבעל ככל התחייבות.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Considering all that we wrote above, it appears that the obligation of the <i>ketuba</i>, even when the amount is very high, is obligatory upon the husband, as any obligation.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">And yet, the </span><i style="font-size: large;">beit din</i><span style="font-size: large;"> determines that they nevertheless should impose a compromise on the parties, because they have not removed all doubt about what amount is really the maximum over which it would be considered </span><i style="font-size: large;">asmakhta</i><span style="font-size: large;">!</span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Now, consider this quite recent case (<b>871774/1</b>, Tverya)</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">, from 7/3/2013, where the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">ketuba</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> is 2,000,000 NIS!! (Inflation hasn't been so high, has it?)</span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">In this case, there was already a decision by the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">beit din</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">, two months prior, that the couple should divorce. They then originally set a date of thirty days later to determine the decision about payment of the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">ketuba</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">, and then the husband was given an additional thirty days to bring evidence to back up his claims that the wife was not entitled to her </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">ketuba</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> (showing fault on her part). But the husband did not bring any evidence of substance, and the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">beit din</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> rules that therefore the woman is entitled to her </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">ketuba</i></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">They cite the classic sources (mostly </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">rishonim</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">: Maimonides, Nahmanides, Maggid Mishne, R"I Migash, and more - in my opinion this material is just meant to pad the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">pesak din</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> and does not really add anything that anyone who knows the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">halakha</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> doesn't know) about a woman's entitlement to the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">ketuba</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> unless proper evidence and testimony is brought to show her wrongdoing. Further, these sources show that without any reasonable evidence, she does not need to take an oath to declare her innocence.</span></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="a" dir="RTL">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-font-size: 11.0pt;">על כן בנסיבות שבפנינו שאין
בפנינו עדות של עד אחד המעיד עדות שראה בעצמו את המיוחס לאשה, אין אסמכתא אחרת
לטענה זו, וגם הבעל אינו טוען שראה בעצמו את המיוחס לה בטענותיו – אין מקום לחיוב
שבועה.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Therefore, in the situation that is before us, we do not have testimony of even one witness to testify that he saw himself what is claimed about the woman, there is no other evidence about this claim, and even the husband himself does not claim that he himself saw her [do] what is attributed to her in his claims. There is no justification for obligating an oath.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">What remains is for the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">beit din</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> to rule on the amount to be paid, and in this matter the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">beit din</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> is not unanimous. The majority opinion (reminder: two out of three) is that the husband must pay the full amount. They are aware of the opinion that 120,000 NIS is the maximum amount to be paid (see </span><a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/the-ketuba-asmakhta-and-merchant-of.html" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">previous post</a><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">), but maintain that it does not apply in this case; they discuss and dismiss, with various arguments, opinions that exorbitant sums are not obligatory, and one of the two </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">dayyanim</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> even claims that since many people own apartments that are worth 2,000,000 NIS, it is not even such an exorbitant sum.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Nevertheless, they do make the following recommendation - which does not affect this decision that the husband is obligated to pay.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="a" dir="RTL">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-font-size: 11.0pt;">מכאן יש לצאת בקריאה לרבנים
מסדרי חו"ק שיפעלו למנוע כתיבת סכומי כסף מופרזים בשטר הכתובה, ויבהירו לחתן
ששטר הכתובה שריר וקיים גם אם נכתב בו סכום גבוה מאוד, ומן הראוי שייכתב סכום
סביר.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small; line-height: normal;">In consideration of this, it behooves us to declare to the rabbis who officiate at weddings (<i><u>h</u>uppa v'qiddushin</i>) that they should act to prevent the writing of outrageous amounts in the <i>ketuba</i> document, and they should warn the groom that the <i>ketuba</i> document is "firm and established" [i.e., totally valid], even if a very high value is written in it, and therefore it is appropriate to write a reasonable sum.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: small; line-height: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; line-height: normal;">The dissenting <i>dayyan</i> states that the financial situation of the husband has changed, and he has psychological problems, and that he should pay, in place of the 2,000,000 NIS, 150,000 NIS, as compensation for the <i>ketuba</i> (that he really isn't paying - how do you compensate for a large amount with a small one?), and as compensation for the fact that he was unfaithful to his wife, and even had a child with another woman. This dissenting <i>dayyan</i> even uses the word <i>kenas</i> - penalty. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; line-height: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; line-height: normal;">This actually raises a different topic - is payment of a <i>ketuba</i> (or alimony, which doesn't exist in Jewish family law, but we'll get to that soon) a penalty for being at fault, for being unfaithful to one's wife, for example? And, if payment of the <i>ketuba</i> is viewed as a penalty - and in a future post we will look at some cases that view it as such - then what does it say about payment of the <i>ketuba</i> to a widow? Is it some kind of "penalty"?! Something for you to think about, until I address that topic in a future post.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; line-height: normal;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large; line-height: normal;">In the meantime, I'd like to reiterate regarding the <i>ketuba</i>: A couple should have an equitable financial prenup (no matter what type of wedding they have - Orthodox or not), a <b>no-fault</b> prenup, that makes it clear that if the marriage "is over" for whatever reason, after reasonable professional marriage counseling is tried for a reasonable amount of time, the property will be divided according to this agreement, and all mudslinging will be avoided. Children, if there are, will thus be spared hearing the bad behavior of their parents (at least the bad behavior that they are not already aware of), the process will be quicker, and the court systems will have a lesser load, thus bringing justice to more people faster. Rights to a <i>ketuba</i> should be waived in that prenup. And, the prenup should be drafted by professionals who make certain that it will be upheld in court - family court, and one of the stipulations in the prenup should be that the settlement is in fact resolved in the family court. Technically, such an agreement could state that the couple agrees to have this settlement arranged in the <i>beit din</i>, but I think a system that has both male and female judges, a system whose default property division is more equitable and is based on a more relevant model of family structure and finances, is more likely to be the more equitable system.</span></div>
Devorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14579018807634647530noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4908170626335283336.post-29294836059425862602013-05-13T11:54:00.000+03:002013-05-13T11:54:22.279+03:00The ketuba, asmakhta, and the Merchant of Venice<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">At most Orthodox weddings (and many Conservative ones), between the <i>qiddushin</i>, which is actually the betrothal - when the groom gives the bride the ring - and the <i>nissuin</i>, the marriage itself, the <i>ketuba</i> is read. (Once upon a time there was a real time lapse, like a year, between <i>qiddushin</i> and <i>nissuin</i>.) Most people are fairly bored, because they've heard it before and they didn't understand it then, and they don't understand it now either. But then the reader gets to the point where the amounts of money are read. </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Have you ever been to a wedding where the reader says that the groom promises some huge amount (this is the <i>tosefet ketuba</i>, in addition to the base amount), like one million shekels, and everyone who was paying attention at all and understands the Hebrew (the amount is in Hebrew and not Aramaic) goes <i>psssss</i>! Wow! They are so impressed! How romantic! He must really love her to promise so much money! He must think she is worth everything in the world! I'm not sure, actually, what people are thinking (you can tell me in the comments), but I sure get the impression that they think it is romantic.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Well, in the event that the wife is widowed, say when the couple is married 75 happy years, a lot of money might really be important (assuming for the moment, that they are operating under Jewish law, and there is no inheritance for her - you do know that under Jewish law, a wife doesn't inherit her husband, but a husband does inherit his wife?)</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">But clearly I must have an agenda here. There must be a problem, if I'm bringing up the subject of exorbitant <i>ketubot</i>. And, yes, there is. It is a problem of <i>asmakhta</i>. And that's where the Merchant of Venice comes in.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Act I Scene III</span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 3pt 0cm 0.0001pt 72pt; text-indent: -72pt;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Shylock</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> This kindness will I show.<br />
Go with me to a notary, seal me there<br />
Your single bond; and, in a merry sport,<br />
If you repay me not on such a day,<br />
In such a place, such sum or sums as are<br />
Express'd in the condition, let the forfeit<br />
Be nominated for an equal pound<br />
Of your fair flesh, to be cut off and taken<br />
In what part of your body pleaseth me.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 72pt; text-indent: -72pt;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Antonio</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> Content, i' faith: I'll seal to such
a bond<br />
And say there is much kindness in the Jew.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 72pt; text-indent: -72pt;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Bassanio</span></i><span style="font-family: "Courier New"; font-size: 10.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">You
shall not seal to such a bond for me:<br />
I'll rather dwell in my necessity.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 72pt; text-indent: -72pt;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Antonio </span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Why, fear not, man; I will not forfeit it:<br />
Within these two months, that's a month before<br />
This bond expires, I do expect return<br />
Of thrice three times the value of this bond.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 72pt; text-indent: -72pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></div>
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">But Antonio’s ships are lost at sea. He writes to Bassanio: </span></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">“Sweet Bassanio, my ships have all
miscarried, my creditors grow cruel, my estate is very low, my bond to the Jew
is forfeit.”</span></span></blockquote>
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="line-height: 18px;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Act III Scene III</span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Salarino</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;">I am
sure the duke <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<code><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;"> </span></code><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;">Will
never grant this forfeiture to hold.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;">Antonio</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;"> The duke cannot
deny the course of law:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;">For the commodity that strangers have</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;">With us in Venice, if it be denied,<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4908170626335283336" name="33"><o:p></o:p></a></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;">Will much impeach the justice of his state;<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;">Since that the trade and profit of the city<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;"> Consisteth
of all nations.</span><br />
<div>
<div id="ftn1">
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Indeed, Antonio is correct – the duke will not set a legal
precedent and nullify the contract. The
duke refers the case to a lawyer, Balthazar, who is actually Portia in
disguise. She couldn’t agree with
Antonio more:</span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 12pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Act IV Scene I</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;">Bassanio</span></i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;"> … And, I beseech
you,<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4908170626335283336" name="210"> </a> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;">Wrest once the law to your authority:<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4908170626335283336" name="211"> </a> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;">To do a great right, do a little wrong,<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4908170626335283336" name="212"><i> </i></a><i><o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;">And curb this cruel devil of his will.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt;">
<i><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;">Portia</span></i> <span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;">It
must not be. There is no power in <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;">Venice<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;">Can alter a decree established:<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4908170626335283336" name="215"> </a> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;">’T will be recorded for a precedent,<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4908170626335283336" name="216"><i> </i></a><i><o:p></o:p></i></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;">And many an error by the same example<a href="http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4908170626335283336" name="217"> </a> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-bidi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi;"> Will
rush into the state. It cannot be.</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0.0001pt 36pt; text-indent: 36pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; text-indent: 0px;">
<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: 12pt; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">If this case were to come before a </span><i style="line-height: 115%;">beit din</i><span style="line-height: 115%;">
rather than the duke of Venice and Venetian law, this surely would be a case of
</span><i style="line-height: 115%;">asmakhta</i><span style="line-height: 115%;">.</span><span style="line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="line-height: 115%;">Antonio had every
confidence that he would be able to pay the bond.</span><span style="line-height: 115%;"> </span><span style="line-height: 115%;">In no way did he seriously consider that his
flesh would be cut out.</span></span></div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Rashba"m defines <i>asmakhta</i> as follows (<i>Bava Batra</i> 168a at the incipit <i>asmakhta </i>- in <i>Bava Batra</i>, the commentary that appears where Rashi’s commentary usually appears in the printed editions of the Talmud is in fact Rashba”m’s commentary)</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">:</span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<b><span lang="HE">רשב"ם בבא בתרא קס"ח א </span></b><b><span dir="LTR"><o:p></o:p></span></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<span lang="HE"><b>אסמכתא </b>- המבטיח לחבירו דבר על מנת שיעשה דבר לעתיד וסומך
בלבו בשעת התנאי שיוכל לקיים הדבר כשיגיע זמן וכשיגיע הזמן יאנס ולא יוכל לקיים.</span><span dir="LTR"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">[A situation where someone] promises his fellow [to pay or forfeit] something unless he performs some act
in the future. </span><span style="line-height: 115%;">He relies on his
assumption, made at the time of agreement to the condition, that he will be
able to </span><span style="line-height: 115%;">perform
the act, but due to unforeseen and uncontrollable circumstances at the time by
which he must perform it, he could not uphold the promised action.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Now consider the following case (588903/1; <i>pesak</i> dated 10 April 2013)</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> before a </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">beit din</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> (Haifa) regarding a large sum in a </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">ketuba</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">. </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">I won't go into the details of the marital problems. The husband is the one who first opened the case, with the wife first refusing, and requesting </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">shalom bayit</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> (reconciliation). At some point, though, the husband said "</span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">shalom, bayit</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">" (farewell, home) and the wife agreed to be divorced (each accusing the other of all sorts of nasty behavior). Here is a summarizing paragraph from the <i>pesak</i>:</span><br />
<br />
<div class="a" dir="RTL">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-font-size: 11.0pt;">במקרה שלפנינו הבעל תובע
גירושין. האישה בתחילה בקשה שלום בית אולם בסופו של דבר הסכימה להתגרש. לכאורה,
בעל המבקש לגרש את אשתו חייב בכתובתה, אלא אם יוכיח שאינה זכאית לכתובה. בנדון זה
אין לבעל עילה לגירושין. טענותיו לחוסר התאמה אינן פוטרות מכתובה, את טענתו בדבר
הרומן עם גיסו לא הוכיח, וגם בשאר טענותיו – בדבר התכתבויות בפייסבוק – אין ממש.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">In the case before us, the husband sues for divorce. At first, the wife asked for reconciliation, but she did eventually agree to divorce. A husband who requests to divorce his wife is obligated to pay her <i>ketuba</i>, unless he can prove that she is not entitled to it [because of wrongdoing on her part - remember, it is NOT "no-fault" divorce]. In this case, the husband has no grounds for divorce. His claim of "incompatibility" does not absolve him from [paying] the <i>ketuba</i>; the claim of an affair [between his wife and] his brother-in-law was not proven; nor did any of his other claims - correspondence [with men] on Facebook - have substance.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The husband also made various claims about illnesses, such as epilepsy, that the wife has. (For example, some illnesses might be considered a case of <i>mekah ta'ut</i> - an acquisition under false pretenses.) Summarizing the ruling of the <i>beit din </i>on these claims: none of them are justification for her to lose her <i>ketuba</i>, with reference to the relevant paragraph in the <i>Shul<u>h</u>an Arukh</i>.</span><br />
<div class="a" dir="RTL">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-font-size: 11.0pt;">
נמצא שלבעל אין עילה לגירושין,
והואיל והוא חפץ בגירושין הרי שהוא חייב בכתובה.<br />
</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">It is determined that the husband has no grounds for divorce, and since he is the one who wants the divorce, he is obligated [to pay] the <i>ketuba</i>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Before we continue with the problem presented in this decision, I want to emphasize the nature of the "yes-fault" divorce and the asymmetry of the way it works (sometimes to the disadvantage of the wife and sometimes to the disadvantage of the husband). If the husband sues for divorce, and the wife relents, he has to prove grounds for divorce to be absolved from paying the <i>ketuba</i>. If the wife sues for divorce and the husband relents, she has to prove grounds for divorce to be able to collect her <i>ketuba</i>. The result of this approach is a string of nasty allegations thrown around on both sides, sometimes polygraph tests (if both parties agree to use them to back up their claims - perhaps in a later post I'll bring some example of that), private investigators - in short, lots of dirt made public, often rather fictitious dirt. There has to be a better way!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">But, as stated, in this case the <i>beit din</i> ruled that the husband must pay the <i>ketuba</i>, so what is the problem?</span><br />
<div class="a" dir="RTL">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-size: 14pt;">סכום הכתובה בנדון זה הוא מיליון ₪. ידועה מחלוקת הדיינים אם
כתובה בסך הנ"ל היא בגדר אסמכתא ואין לחייב את הבעל בכל סך הכתובה או שכתובה
בסך הנ"ל אינה אסמכתא והבעל חייב בכל סכום הכתובה.</span></span></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The amount of the <i>ketuba</i> in our case is one million shekels. It is a known dispute among <i>dayyanim</i> whether such a [large] sum is a case of <i>asmakhta</i>, in which case the husband should not be obligated to pay the whole sum of the <i>ketuba</i>, or a <i>ketuba</i> with such a sum is not <i>asmakhta</i>, and the husband has to pay the whole sum of the <i>ketuba</i>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The <i>pesak</i> then proceeds to present the two opposing opinions, each in the name of a very senior, very well-respected <i>dayyan</i>, and each with some of the halakhic arguments of the respective "camp". The problem is not just that there has been a dispute about this issue in the past halakhic discourse. If the rabbinate had chosen one, consistent approach to dealing with such problems, then the <i>batei din</i> would have to rule accordingly. But they didn't. And so it ends up left to each <i>beit din</i> to rule as it sees fit.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">According to the opinion cited which claims it is <i>askmakhta</i>, the amount of the <i>ketuba</i> should be between 100,000 NIS and 120,000 NIS - the amount required to support someone for a year, to be consistent with the opinion that the 200 <i>zuz</i> (see the post about the <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/whats-value-or-use-of-ketuba-part-i.html">Value of the <i>Ketuba</i> Part I</a>) was meant to be maintenance for a year. It is true, according to this opinion, that theoretically any additional amount could be valid, if the commitment was not made under pressure, if it was not done to impress those present at the wedding, etc. Further, the Israeli law that divides property (refer to the <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/05/whats-value-of-ketuba-part-ii.html">Value of the <i>Ketuba</i> Part II</a>) must be taken into consideration (there also might be no property to divide). But according to this opinion, the groom is under pressure and is out to make an impression. Therefore, according to the <i>dayyan</i> who maintains this opinion, only the basic amount of a <i>ketuba</i> (the 100,000 NIS to 120,000 NIS) should be paid.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The opposing opinion - that the exorbitant <i>ketuba</i> is not a case of <i>asmakhta</i> - claims that a <i>kinyan</i> (acquisition) is made and it is stated clearly in the <i>ketuba</i> that the the groom recognizes that it is not <i>asmakhta</i>. (In halakhic reality, such a statement on a contract does not mean that <i>asmakhta</i> is ruled out.) According to this opinion, the groom knows very well what he is agreeing to. If the amount is attainable during the lifetime of the husband (if he can't pay it all at once, he owes the balance and should pay it when he has it), then it is not <i>askmakhta</i>. A million shekels is an attainable amount.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The <i>av beit din</i> (head of the <i>beit din</i>) writes:</span><br />
<div class="a" dir="RTL">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;">לדעתי, יש היגיון בסברא לומר
שחתן הכותב כתובה מוגזמת כוונתו להרשים את הנוכחים בחתונה או שמרגיש אי נעימות
לכתוב סכום נמוך, ובנוסף אין החתן מרגיש שהתחייבות זו היא מחייבת – הואיל וזה עתה
נושא אישה אין הוא חושב על גירושין ואינו מאמין שהתחייבות זו תבוא לידי ביצוע.</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; line-height: normal;">In my opinion, it is reasonable to say that a groom who writes an exaggerated <i>ketuba</i> [sum] intends to impress those present at the wedding, or that he feels uncomfortable writing a small amount, and in addition, the groom does not feel that this obligation is [actually] incumbent upon him - considering that he is presently marrying a woman and he does not think about divorce and he does not believe that this obligation will come to pass [</span><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">but he should realize that it is very feasible that he will leave his wife a widow - the <i>ketuba</i> is supposed to be for that, too! - DK].</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">He therefore concludes that it is <i>asmakhta</i>. He adds that according to the other opinion - that it it not <i>asmakhta</i>, this is so only if the amount is attainable by the husband. In this case, the wife even agreed to settle for half the amount, 500,000 NIS, suggesting that she realizes that the whole amount is not feasible. This husband will never be able to attain even the 500,000 NIS amount; forget the one million shekels! (He is not a big earner, you must gather from this.) Their jointly-owned apartment in Haifa is not worth the half million. The husband is a man in his thirties, and not particularly well-off. Since the woman agreed that the <i>beit din</i> could use its judgment to decide on the amount of the <i>ketuba</i>, and because there is no other joint property to divide under Israeli law, the <i>beit din</i> set the amount he should pay at 200,000 NIS. The other two <i>dayyanim</i> concur.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Is this fair? Well, one could say that since he wants the divorce, he should pay. But if it were the other way around, she wouldn't have to pay! She'd probably have to give up her <i>ketuba</i>, but she wouldn't have to shell out anything.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I have several conclusions that I make from all of this:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">1) </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">The </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">ketuba</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> is part of a halakhic system that is based on a model of marriage that is no longer relevant for most couples today. If a marriage is dissolved, whether by divorce or death, property distribution should be based on a more equitable system of law - be it an overhauled Jewish law (not very likely) or a civil system. </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">If a couple wants to be sure to have a more equitable distribution of property, in the event that the marriage is not a success, they would be best to have a financial prenuptial agreement (and proper, equitable wills for successful marriages!!), and in that agreement, the wife should agree that she waives collection of her </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">ketuba</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">. </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> </span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">2) Why in the world don't the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">mesadrei kiddushin</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> (the clergy who perform the weddings) tell the couple that it is best to keep the standard, minimum amount on the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">ketuba</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> and not put in sums that they (or at least the groom) might regret later? Why do they let grooms give </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">ketubot</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> with exaggerated amounts on them?</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">3) What about those </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">kalla</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> teachers? Instead of feeding brides a lot of medieval drivel about her responsibilities to please her husband, how about if they would explain to the bride the meaning of the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">ketuba</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> and the complications that can arise? </span></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">The topic of my next post: Understanding a system that has no alimony.</span></div>
<div>
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-font-size: 11.0pt;">
</span></span>
<div class="a" dir="RTL">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span lang="HE" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%;"></span></span></span></div>
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-font-size: 11.0pt;">
</span></span>
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; font-size: 14.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-font-size: 11.0pt;">
<br />
</span></span></div>
</div>
Devorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14579018807634647530noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4908170626335283336.post-24354881291744861762013-05-08T15:38:00.001+03:002013-05-08T15:38:58.438+03:00We interrupt the discussion of the ketuba for this case, just received – a sarvan get finally relents<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I'll start out with the "happy end", dated today, May 8, 2013, and then we'll see if you think it is really that.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="a" dir="RTL">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">לאחר מתן ההחלטה מתאריך כ"ו
באייר תשע"ג (6.5.2013) הגט סודר ונמסר כדמו"י בו ביום.</span><span style="font-size: medium;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">After issuance of the decision from May 6, 2013, the get was arranged "according to the laws of Moshe and Israel" on that same day.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">What got this guy to give the get, and after how much time? Here is the decision (loosely translated) from May 6th (Haifa):</span><br />
<br />
<div class="a1" dir="RTL" style="margin-right: 18.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">א.</span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal;">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="RTL"></span><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;">בית הדין ניסה רבות לעשות בתיק זה כדי להביא את
הצדדים לידי פשרה, אולם ללא הצלחה.</span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; line-height: 115%;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="a1" dir="RTL" style="margin-right: 18.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; mso-fareast-font-family: FrankRuehl;">ב.<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="RTL"></span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;">בית הדין סבור כי יש
להמשיך במאמצים כדי לשכנע את הבעל לתת גט מרצון, ולצורך כך בית הדין מזמן את הבעל
למחר יום שלישי כ"ז באייר תשע"ג 7.5.2013 בשעה 8.30 בבוקר, ואם ניסיונות
השכנוע לא יצלחו, הרי הבעל יתייצב כאן בכל בוקר בשעה 8.30 לדיון בפני בית הדין.</span><span dir="LTR"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="a1" dir="RTL" style="margin-right: 18.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; mso-fareast-font-family: FrankRuehl;">ג.<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="RTL"></span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;">בשלב זה האשה אינה
צריכה להתייצב, אולם עליה להשאיר במזכירות בית הדין פרטי התקשרות עמה, למקרה בו
ייאות הבעל לתת גט – או אז היא תוזמן מידית.</span><span dir="LTR"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="a1" dir="RTL" style="margin-right: 18.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; mso-fareast-font-family: FrankRuehl;">ד.<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="RTL"></span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;">הבעל הצהיר לפני בית
הדין כי אין בדעתו להתייצב מחר, לאור ההתחייבויות שיש לו כלפי לקוחותיו במשרד,
במקצועו כעורך דין. ראשית, בית הדין סבור כי התרת אשתו מעגינותה הנמשכת קרוב
לעשור, קודמת לכל התחייבות אחרת, ושנית על הבעל להבין כי חסד נעשה עמו באשר אחד
הצעדים הבאים יכול שיהיו כדוגמת שלילת רישיונו בעיסוקו במקצוע עריכת הדין, על פי
חוק בתי דין רבניים (קיום פסקי דין של גירושין) התשנ"ה–1995, ולכן ביטול
פגישות עם לקוחות, היא פגיעה פחותה מכל אפשרות אחרת.</span><span dir="LTR"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="a1" dir="RTL" style="margin-right: 18.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; mso-fareast-font-family: FrankRuehl;">ה.<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="RTL"></span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;">אולם, לאור הצהרת
הבעל כאמור, ולשם הבטחת הופעתו, בית הדין אינו רואה ממנוס, מהזמנתו בצו הבאה
ע"י משטרת ישראל.</span><span dir="LTR"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="a1" dir="RTL" style="margin-right: 18.0pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: -18.0pt;">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; mso-fareast-font-family: FrankRuehl;">ו.<span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';">
</span></span><!--[endif]--><span dir="RTL"></span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;">יחד עם זאת, ניתן יהיה להמיר את צו ההבאה בהפקדת
מזומן בסך 150,000 ₪ כערובה להתייצבות הבעל מחר ובכל יום אחר שהוא יוזמן אליו על
פי החלטת בית הדין.</span><span dir="LTR"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="a0" dir="RTL">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">על משטרת ישראל להביא את הבעל
מחר לדיון כאמור בסעיף ב', ואין לשחררו ללא אישור מפורש מבית הדין.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="a0" dir="RTL">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; line-height: 115%;"><span style="font-size: large;">ניתן ביום <w:sdt docpart="E873CDCBD7144A7E9A3CA3B87507D1CC" id="7301897" sdttag="DecisionDateHeb" temporary="t"><w:sdt docpart="48497A3D11C64C0280033CB56C78B193" id="99056236" sdttag="SignatureHebDate">כ"ו באייר התשע"ג</w:sdt></w:sdt>
(<w:sdt docpart="71BA0B9F8E7146499C4CCC06AAECD05F" id="99056242" sdttag="SignatureDate">06/05/2013</w:sdt>) .</span><span style="font-size: medium;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The <i>beit din</i> has tried extensively to bring the sides to a compromise, with no success.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The <i>beit din</i> maintains that it should continue efforts to convince the husband to give the <i>get</i> willingly, and for this purpose, he is requested to appear tomorrow at 8:30 am, and if the efforts to convince him do not succeed, he must appear every morning at 8:30 am, for a hearing before the <i>beit din</i>.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">At this stage, the wife does not need to appear, but she must leave contact information with the secretary, in case the husband sees fit to give the <i>get</i>, and then she will be requested to come immediately.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The husband declared that he has no intention of appearing, because of his commitments to his clients in his office; professionally he is an attorney. First of all, the <i>beit din</i> maintains that releasing his wife from being an <i>aguna</i> [yes! they use this term - see my <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013_04_01_archive.html">introductory post</a> on this matter], which has dragged on for <u><b>almost a decade</b></u> [my emphasis], takes precedence over all other obligations. Second of all, the husband must understand that this is a favor that is being done for him [to order him to appear before the <i>beit din</i> to try to resolve the matter] because one of the next steps might be such as invalidating his license to practice law, according to the 1995 law for <i>batei din</i>, and therefore cancelling appointments is the lesser damage than other options.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">But, considering the husband's declaration [that he will not appear], and in order to insure his appearance, the <i>beit din</i> sees no alternative but to request his appearance with an order of a police escort.</span></li>
<li style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">In place of the police escort, the husband can deposit 150,000 NIS in escrow, to be certain that he appears tomorrow and any other day that he is requested by the <i>beit din</i> to appear.</span></li>
</ol>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The police must bring him tomorrow, as instructed in paragraph 2, and should not release him without specific instructions from the <i>beit din</i>.</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">OK. So the husband was convinced that the <i>beit din</i> means business. I am sincerely happy for the woman, who was finally released from bondage. She has reason to celebrate. But why did it take almost ten years for this to happen? And what if he is the type of lawyer for whom 150,000 NIS is pocket change? (There are lawyers like that.) Then how much longer would it drag on? </span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">That's why I don't think the rest of us have any cause to celebrate - not those of us who believe that freedom of choice - to whom we are married and if we want to stay married - is a basic human right. Not for those of us who believe that a halakhic system has to be just and moral. Otherwise, it should be scrapped, here and now.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<br />Devorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14579018807634647530noreply@blogger.com17tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4908170626335283336.post-52663497196006698012013-05-06T17:59:00.000+03:002013-05-13T12:06:38.272+03:00What's the value of a ketuba? - Part II<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;">In the case that I presented in my </span><a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/whats-value-or-use-of-ketuba-part-i.html" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;">last post</a><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;">, I stated that the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;">beit din</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;"> ruled that the husband should be forced to give his wife a get, because he was "sleeping around" with other women, and they also </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;">ruled that the husband had no legitimate claims that would disqualify the woman from being paid her </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;">ketuba</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large; text-align: justify;">.</span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">To some of you, this latter point may come as a surprise. Many people - both in Israel and outside of Israel - are under the impression that the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">ketuba</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> is never paid these days. Outside of Israel, indeed, it is quite rare, because there is civil divorce, and the property division is settled in the civil courts. A civil court outside of Israel will not consider a </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">ketuba</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> as a binding contract, if for nothing else, because the values of the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">zuz</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> and </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">zaquq</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> are not certain. (See my </span><a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/whats-value-or-use-of-ketuba-part-i.html" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">previous post</a><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">.) This does not prevent a couple from agreeing to settle their property division in a </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">beit din</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> according to the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">ketuba</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> and Jewish family law, if they both agree, but a civil court would not do so. If the husband and wife were really being true to </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">halakha</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">, they would settle their dispute in the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">beit din</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">, so that they would not turn to the gentile court for adjudication - a prohibition, as you shall see further on in this post - except when there is no alternative.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Israeli law also permits a couple to settle property division in the civil court according to civil law, but in Israel, a couple can also settle their property division - whether amicably or not - in the <i>beit din</i>. The question is, does the <i>beit din</i> operate solely according to <i>halakha</i>, or does Israeli civil law come into play? This is the tricky part. I will not even attempt to explain what is supposed to happen, according to Israeli law - it is very complex, and seems to be interpreted differently by different people. We will see how, in effect, this happens in the recent cases that I will be citing in this blog, the first to be the continuation of the case cited in my <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/whats-value-or-use-of-ketuba-part-i.html">previous post</a>.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">However, first I must summarize a few main principles of the Israeli "Law of Financial Relations between Couples" (to be referred to as "Israeli Law")</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> in a <b>very</b> simplified fashion, and then point out some significant differences between that and <i>halakha</i>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Under the Israeli Law:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">1) A couple may sign any financial agreement that they wish (always a smart move, no matter where a couple lives, rather than to rely on the courts to interpret matters), before or after marriage (different procedures in each case), including a financial agreement arrived at in the <i>beit din</i>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">2) In the event that there is no financial agreement, all property that was accumulated during the marriage - not counting personal gifts or inheritance - whether registered with joint ownership or not, is considered joint property and is to be "equalized", if a couple divorces, or if one of the spouses requests such a division in the family court, prior to divorce. This property includes pension funds, severance pay, savings, tax-deferred savings funds, etc. The court has the right to include, for this purpose, even property that one spouse has transferred its ownership to someone else, if the court (or <i>beit din</i>) sees it as an attempt to hide some of the property.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">3) The family court or <i>beit din</i> has the option to make implementation of the "equalization" of property according to this law contingent upon an agreement to divorce.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">4) "Equalization" of property is done by assessing the value of the property (including such things as pension funds) of each spouse, and then if the values are not equal, the spouse who owns the greater amount must give half the difference to the other spouse.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">5) The court or <i>beit din</i> has the option to decide that some or all of the property should not be divided 50-50, but rather according to a different proportion, because the court takes into consideration such factors as earning potential of one spouse. This is an important point for when I get to the subject of alimony.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Now, here come the very problematic points, both in Part IV of the law, and because they are so essential, I will cite them first in Hebrew, and then translate them. (Here is a <a href="http://www.nevo.co.il/law_html/law01/171_001.htm">link to a website</a> with the complete law in Hebrew, for those who are interested and want to see all the details that I left out. You can also <a href="http://www.nevo.co.il/Law_Word/law01/171_001.doc">download the whole page as a Word document</a>.)</span><br />
<div class="P00" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0.05in 0in 0.0001pt 56.7pt; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="big-number"><b><span lang="HE" style="color: green; font-family: 'Time New Roman'; font-size: 13.5pt;">החוק ובתי הדין</span></b></span></div>
</div>
<div class="P00" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0.05in 0in 0.0001pt 56.7pt; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<span class="big-number"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: Miriam; font-size: 16pt;">13. </span></span><span class="default"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; font-size: 13pt;">(א) חוק זה אינו בא לשנות מסמכות שיפוטם של בתי הדין הדתיים.</span></span></div>
<div class="P00" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0.05in 0in 0.0001pt 56.7pt; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; font-size: 13pt;"> <span class="default" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman';"><span style="font-family: FrankRuehl;">(ב) בענין שחוק זה דן בו ינהג גם בית דין דתי לפי הוראות חוק זה, זולת אם הסכימו בעלי הדין לפני בית הדין להתדיין לפי הדין הדתי.</span></span></span></div>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b>The Law and the Batei Din</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">13. (a) This law does not alter the authority of the religious courts.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> (b) In any matter that this law is relevant, the relgious court must</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> also operate according to this law, unless both parties agree to</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"> be judged according to the religious law.</span><br />
<div class="P00" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0.05in 0in 0.0001pt 56.7pt; text-align: left; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="big-number"><b><span lang="HE" style="color: green; font-family: 'Time New Roman'; font-size: 13.5pt;">שמירת זכויות ודינים</span></b></span></div>
</div>
<div class="P00" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; font-size: 10pt; margin: 0.05in 0in 0.0001pt 56.7pt; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<span class="big-number"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: Miriam; font-size: 16pt;">17. </span></span><span class="default"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl; font-size: 13pt;">אין בחוק זה כדי לגרוע מזכויות לפי חוק לתיקון דיני המשפחה (מזונות), תשי"ט-1959, או מזכויות האשה לפי כתובתה</span></span></div>
<span style="color: #274e13; font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><b>Retention of Rights and Laws</b></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">17. This law does not cancel the rights that are accorded under the Family Law of 1959, or a woman's rights according to her <i>ketuba</i>.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">The model that the Israeli Law operates under is one of a partnership in marriage. It doesn't matter who earns more, who worked more years, who had a better pension plan, who stayed home with the kids and sacrificed career growth - they are in it together, and if the family unit is dissolved, whatever was accomplished, earned, saved, invested is considered a joint endeavor. Point 5) in my listing is relatively recent, and it is intended to serve a similar purpose as alimony, which is not defined in and of itself in the Israeli Law. We will look at a very recent interesting case in the context of alimony in a future post. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><i>Halakha</i> operates under a very different model. Again, I'll summarize a few main principles in a very simplified fashion:</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">1) A couple may sign any financial agreement that they wish (always a smart move, no matter where a couple lives, rather than to rely on the default under <i>halakha</i>), before or after marriage.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">2) In the event that there is no such agreement, all </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">property that was accumulated during the marriage - not counting personal gifts or inheritance - whether earned by the husband or the wife, belongs to the husband. Even the earnings on her dowry (suppose she brought a plot of land as part of her dowry) belong to the husband. Even if she finds a winning lottery ticket, it belongs to the husband.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">3) In exchange for the husband's total ownership, he has the obligations that he agreed to in the <i>ketuba</i> (see the <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/whats-value-or-use-of-ketuba-part-i.html">previous post</a>).</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Now I want you to do an exercise. Think of scenarios in which the wife would come out better off under the Israeli Law and scenarios in which she'd be better off according to <i>halakha</i>, in the event of a divorce. Then, consider the same question in the case of the husband.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">And, now, finally, we can return to our case at hand, </span></span><br />
<u><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Case <span style="line-height: 18px;">838835/8 in the Tel Aviv <i>beit din</i> (<i>pesak</i> dated 24/1/2013)</span></span></u></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Remember that I concluded saying that the <i>beit din</i> determined that the husband did not prove any reason that he should be absolved from paying the <i>ketuba</i>. And now comes the "but":</span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="a" dir="RTL">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;"><span style="font-size: large;">אך בשלב זה אינה
רשאית לגבות סך כתובתה כל עוד לא ניתנה פסיקה על תביעת הזכויות וקופות גמל ומוניטין
של הבעל שתבעה האשה בבית משפט.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">But at this stage, she is not entitled to collect the value of her <i>ketuba</i>, so long as there has not yet been a judgment on her claim for rights, pension funds, and the husband’s worth [such as the value of a business that he built while married to her], for which she entered a claim in the family court.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">This sounds fair enough - a woman can't expect to collect both types of settlements.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">However, it is interesting to see the halakhic reasons that the <i>av</i> <i>beit din</i> </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">(head </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">dayyan</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">, Shimon Malka) </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">gives for his ruling that at this stage she cannot collect her </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">ketuba</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">. The first reason is what I referred to before, the prohibition to bring a claim to the gentile courts:</span><br />
<br />
<div class="a0" dir="RTL">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;"><span style="font-size: large;">שו"ע
חו"מ סימן כ"ו סע' א' אסור לדון לפני דייני עכו"ם ובערכאות שלהם
אפי' בדין שדנים כדיני ישראל, ואפי' נתרצו בעלי דינים לדון בפניהם אסור. (כ"כ
הרמב"ן הרשב"א).</span></span><span dir="LTR"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><i>Shul<u>h</u>an Arukh <u>H</u>oshen Mishpat</i>
26,1: It is forbidden to be judged
before gentile judges and in their court system, even if their law is in
accordance with Jewish law, and even if both parties agree to be judged before
them, it is prohibited.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The <i>av beit din</i> proceeded to cite additional sources to emphasize the severity of this prohibition and to explain why such possible claims as <i>dina d'malkhuta dina</i> (the law of the government is accepted as law) do not apply in this case. Need I remind you that all this discussion - for several pages - relates to the Israeli court system, and not a court system in, say, Tsarist Russia?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The <i>av beit din</i> then summarizes his conclusions, which are the same as before: the husband is obligated to divorce his wife; the wife has not lost her right to the <i>ketuba</i>, but cannot collect at this stage, so long as there has not yet been a judgment in the family court on her suit.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">However, there is a dissenting opinion, written by R. Eliyahu Hishrik, another of the <i>dayyanim</i>. The dissenter does not dispute the conclusion about the obligation of the husband to give a <i>get</i>. But he does dispute the conclusion about the <i>ketuba</i>, and states:</span><br />
<div style="text-align: right;">
<span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">הבעל
לא הוכיח על פי דיני הראיות כל עילה שיש בה כדי להפסיד לאשה את כתובתה. ולפיכך
חייב הבעל לשלם לאשתו את</span></span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"> </span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">כל סכום הכתובה שכתב – בסך 360,000 ₪.</span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The husband did not prove,
according to the laws of evidence, any justification for the woman to lose her
ketuba, and therefore the husband is obligated to pay his wife the whole sum of
360,000 NIS that he wrote on the <i>ketuba</i>.</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">R. Hishrik then states that the case centers around the questions as to whether a husband can be obligated to pay the <i>ketuba</i> after the division of property is done in the family court under Israeli Law. R. Hishrik proceeds with a lengthy discussion of the background of the conflict between the two systems of law, the differences between them (some of which I pointed out), and the implications. I will summarize some important points that he makes:</span><br />
<br />
<ul>
<li><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Whether the husband and wife agree to be judged in the family court or whether they agree to be judged in the <i>beit din</i> system, the property settlement will be in accordance with the Israeli Law (according to the understanding of the respective judges).</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In either case, the losing side is usually the husband from the perspective of the <i>halahka</i>, because according to the <i>halakha </i>some of what rightfully belongs to the husband will be awarded to the wife.</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Therefore, the <i>batei din</i> have adopted a common method whereby there is no "double dipping" - a <i>beit din</i> will not award a woman her <i>ketuba</i> if she receives her settlement of property from the family court, considering the fact that the family court awarded her property that isn't even rightfully hers, according to the <i>halakha</i>.</span></li>
</ul>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">However, R. Hishrik then states that this thinking is not correct in all situations. R. Hishrik understands paragraph 17, cited way above, to mean that even if a woman wins a settlement in the family court, it should not impinge her rights to her <i>ketuba</i>!! R. Hishrik says that there are those who interpret paragraph 17 to mean that the settlement in family court should not impinge upon the rights of a woman to her <i>ketuba</i> in the case that the settlement in family court was less than the value of the <i>ketuba</i> (in other words, one of those cases in which the perhaps the joint property doesn't amount to much). But R. Hishrik disagrees. He says that it isn't the job of the <i>dayyanim</i> to start to write interpretations of Israeli law, and the <i>peshat</i> - the simple interpretation - of the law is that a woman doesn't lose her rights to her <i>ketuba</i> because of a settlement in family court.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">R. Hishrik writes a rather lengthy discussion of this opinion, including comparison to inheritance law and the use of the <i>ketuba</i> in situations of widowhood. He discusses how a religious couple versus a secular couple would view their own financial arrangements. He assumes that a religious couple would internalize the religious law and live accordingly. He discusses the legal standing of a <i>ketuba</i>, and what the contract represents. He presents different models of how the <i>ketuba</i> and the family court settlement might or might not be set against one another, with systematic analysis of each model. His extensive opinion could probably be used as a source for multiple classes in law school on this subject.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">So before I lose you (and myself) in all of the legalistic discussion, I will mention an important point that he makes: It was the husband who opened the case before the family court and the husband who opened the case in the <i>beit din</i> to request to divorce his wife. So it is the husband who is guilty of transgressing the prohibition to go to the "gentile" court for judgment. And then R. Hishrik points out something interesting. What happens if someone did, nevertheless? Well the <i>Shul<u>h</u>an Arukh</i> doesn't say, but on that same paragraph that we saw above, the Rem"a states that if he did, he cannot renege. In other words: you went to the family court, too bad for you, but it doesn't get you out of your obligation for the <i>ketuba</i> (the latter being R. Hishrik's conclusion). <u>Therefore, he concludes that the husband must pay the 360,000 NIS.</u></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><u><br /></u></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">But the third <i>dayyan</i> (Zevadya Cohen) agrees with the <i>av beit din</i>, and states - very briefly, praise to the Lord - that the judgment on the <i>ketuba</i> must wait until the judgment in the family court is passed.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">The concluding <i>pesak</i> of the <i>beit din</i> is according to the majority opinion, and included a statement to the effect that if the husband refuses to give his wife the get, the beit din will consider "methods of enforcement", in accordance with <i>halakha</i> (and the law in Israel).</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">It is likely that in this case, the husband thought that by going to the family court, he would have to pay less than he would if he had to pay his <i>ketuba</i>. It appears - we don't know what the final outcome will be - that the <i>beit din</i> won't let him get away with that. They will rule that he has to top off whatever the family court ruled so that the total is 360,000 NIS. If he doesn't have it - well, that is another problem.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">So, what is a <i>ketuba</i> worth? Well, in this case it might depend upon how financially solvent the two-timing husband is.</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">And, lastly, what is my opinion in all this? The husband might be a rat fink, but the use of the <i>ketuba</i> that way, even according to the majority opinion, is still unjust (in this case unfair to the man, assuming that she will collect some additional amount from the <i>ketuba</i>), and certainly the minority opinion, as clever as his halakhic argument was, is unfair, if we view a marriage as an equal partnership. I'd like to think it is. I prefer the model of the Israeli Law, and I think that a couple would be wise to keep the value on the <i>ketuba</i> to the bare minimum, so that there is a fair equalization of property. (</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">There are reasons - particularly in a second marriage, where each spouse has children from a previous relationship, where it makes sense to keep some property separate, and this should be spelled out in a financial agreement.) </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">And, any financial agreement between a man and a woman who are establishing a domestic relationship should specify that the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">ketuba</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> cannot be claimed (rendering it quite obsolete - I'll return to that in a future post). Rather, whatever property settlement that the couple consider truly equitable should be the rule. In conclusion, any couple that marries and has a <i>ketuba</i> should therefore have some form of financial agreement (and probably so should any other couple). Remember, that is also a halakhically valid option!</span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">What do you think?</span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
Devorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14579018807634647530noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4908170626335283336.post-8814654575914305042013-05-02T16:31:00.000+03:002013-05-13T12:08:37.905+03:00What's the value or use of a ketuba? - Part I<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">When you think of a <i>ketuba</i>, do you think of this?</span></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-05ZeXU3zC_E/UX_CKmTp4FI/AAAAAAAACWo/QoQlH-AIS0Q/s1600/Ketubah.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-05ZeXU3zC_E/UX_CKmTp4FI/AAAAAAAACWo/QoQlH-AIS0Q/s320/Ketubah.jpg" height="320" width="227" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Yale University; image in the public domain</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">or this?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ALgbXFedt_8/UX_Cbyh3Y_I/AAAAAAAACWw/tibeLHoe4gE/s1600/homeless_woman.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ALgbXFedt_8/UX_Cbyh3Y_I/AAAAAAAACWw/tibeLHoe4gE/s200/homeless_woman.jpg" height="190" width="200" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Homeless Woman in Washington D.C., by dbking (originally posted to Flickr as #13), via Wikimedia Commons</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Well, that should get your attention!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I'd really like to start looking at some real cases, but I believe at least some broad-stroked explanation of the <i>ketuba</i> is in order, for those readers who are not so familiar with what it really means (and I bet that includes most people). So, without getting too bogged down in details, multiple versions and customs in different communities, the difficulties of translating the nuances of certain Aramaic words, etc., etc., here goes.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Until a woman wants to collect payment on her </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">ketuba</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> or a man is instructed by the <i>beit din</i> to pay up</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">, I think most people think of the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">ketuba</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> as a lovely romantic document that articulates the loving relationship between a man and a woman. In actuality, though there are some nice words in the </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">ketuba</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> about how the groom stated that he will "work (אפלח literally is "I will work", or "I will worship" - if it is in reference to a god or idol, but you can find it translated many ways in translations of the <i>ketuba</i>), honor, support, and maintain you in accordance with the custom of Jewish men who work, honor, support, and maintain their wives faithfully," that's about as far as the romance goes. After that, it pretty much gets down to the money.</span></div>
<div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="font-size: large;">There are no romantic words about how the bride said that she will work, honor, support, and maintain the groom, because this is basically a one-sided contract. Some will try to use this point to prove how it is all to the wife's advantage. Only the groom has obligations. They are misleading. By accepting the groom's offer of betrothal - it is stated in the <i>ketuba</i> that the bride did so - she consented to everything that <i>qiddushin</i> entails, under Jewish law, and what she is consenting to is not spelled out in the <i>ketuba</i>. Mind you, she is also consenting to the fact that if she is widowed, but her husband does not have any descendants (from any relationship, even a <i>mamzer</i> would qualify as a descendant to absolve her), then she must undergo <i><u>h</u>alitza</i> (see my <a href="http://vatashardevora.blogspot.co.il/2013_04_01_archive.html">Introduction</a>), and if the <i>yabam</i> is a little kid, then she must wait. That, too, is what she agrees to.</span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">The rest of the <i>ketuba</i> spells out how much money the man takes responsibility to pay, </span></span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">even if he has to mortgage everything he owns,</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> if the marriage is dissolved in his lifetime (which would mean if they are divorced), or after his death (to be carried out by his heirs out of the estate). Divorce or death are not actually mentioned. They are implicit.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">The amount of money involved has several components. According to both Sephardi and Ashkenazi custom, there is a</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> gift, the <i>mohar</i>, that the groom gives to the bride (but is actually held for her by the husband), </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">which is set to 200 </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">zuz</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> for a "virgin" and 100 </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">zuz</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> for a widow or divorcee (maybe it is not because she is "used merchandise" but because it is an incentive for a man to marry a widow or divorcee?), of disputed value, but generally considered not worth very much.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">According to Sephardi custom, there is an additional sum that the groom obligates himself to pay. This latter sum is defined by the groom, and it could be very significant.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">According to Ashkenazi custom, there is </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">another sum that represents what the bride brings as a dowry, doubled by the groom, but which has been standardized at 200 </span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">(100 for a widow or divorcee)</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">zequqim</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> - silver coins, also of a disputed value, but probably worth a lot, for which the groom takes responsibility. In addition, the groom sometimes specifies a</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;"> supplemental amount</span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">, which is typically significant, or he woudn't have bothered to add it in. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; font-size: large;">Food, clothing, and sexual relations are also promised by the groom to the bride. Again, the bride's obligation for sexual relations is not mentioned at all. But if she refuses, she is called a <i>moredet</i> (a rebellious wife), and it is grounds for divorce without having to pay the <i>ketuba</i>. And here I use the word <i>ketuba</i> to mean a payment, rather than a contract. You'll see that it is the common use of the word in the proceedings of the <i>batei din</i> (as it is in most halakhic discussion).</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">The reason I bothered to itemize these amounts is that the supplemental amount (or the second amount in the Sephardi custom) is one of the sources of questions that are raised if and when a woman wants to claim her <i>ketuba</i>. However, a look at this particular problem will be deferred to another post.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">We will first look at some cases that will begin to shed light on when a woman is awarded her <i>ketuba</i> and when she is denied it, and on what basis the decision is made. By looking at these cases, we can understand the value of a <i>ketuba</i> today, and how a woman could better protect her financial situation, in the event of either divorce or widwohood.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<u><span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">Case <span style="line-height: 115%;">838835/8 in the Tel Aviv <i>beit din</i> (<i>pesak</i> dated 24/1/2013 - all dates are dd/mm/yyyy)</span></span></u><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><u><span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></u>
<span style="line-height: 18px;">The woman filed for divorce on 19/1/2012 (in every case I cite, pay attention to how much time has passed). Interestingly, she filed suit for her <i>ketuba</i> even before that, on 14/9/2011. But maybe this is because this is actually "round two". The husband first filed for divorce on 11/1/2011, and he claimed that she was a rebellious wife (which would absolve him of paying the <i>ketuba</i>).</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="line-height: 18px;">So what's the problem? They both want to divorce! Here is the situation:</span></span><br />
<div class="a" dir="RTL">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;"><span style="font-size: large;">בתיק הראשון
התקיימו דיונים, ולמעשה הצדדים הגיעו בשלב מסוים להסכמה להתגרש, ואת שאלת תשלום
הכתובה ע"י הבעל השאירו להכרעת ביה"ד שיפסוק לאחר הגט. לאחר מכן הבעל
חזר בו מהסכמתו והודיע כי ללא ויתור של האשה על הכתובה לא יסכים להתגרש. לצורך כך
משך הבעל את תביעת הגירושין.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">In the first filing, there were hearings, and at a certain point the sides came to an agreement to divorce, but the question of payment of the <i>ketuba</i> by the husband was left to the decision of the <i>beit din</i>, which would rule about it following [giving] the <i>get</i>. Afterwards, the husband reneged on his agreement, and informed that without the woman relinquishing the <i>ketuba</i>, he won't agree to divorce. For that reason, the husband withdrew his divorce suit.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">So the court needs to concern itself with the complaints of both sides. If they would both agree to divorce, and the husband were willing to accept the decision of the <i>beit din</i> on payment of the <i>ketuba</i>, they would not have to bother with all the dirt that each spouse will claim against the other. But since now only the wife wants the divorce, the <i>beit din</i> needs to concern itself with what the complaints are.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Maybe this is the juicy stuff that people like to read, but I want to limit the size of these posts, somehow!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">So, in short, the husband claims: the wife refused to have sex with him, starting right after their small child was born, and also during the pregnancy, she refused; she has outbursts of anger, which were supposedly medically treated by a psychiatrist; she filed false complaints against him with the police, but after the last one he did not return home. The woman's parents intervened and disturbed the <i>shalom bayit</i>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The wife claims: until the birth of their child, everything was fine. But then after the birth he forced her to have sex three times. He also had sex with her when she was <i>nidda</i>. The husband asked to have sex together with her and another woman. He cursed her, hit her, slapped her, and kicked her. That's why she complained to the police, who put a restraining order on him for a week. She never went to a psychiatrist or psychologist and did not have any medication, but rather they went for some kind of counseling. The husband's parents said she should be a sex slave for her husband.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">This was all at the first time around, before the husband reneged on his agreement to divorce. The second time around, when the woman filed for divorce, she made new claims.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">She claimed that the husband was having an affair and also sexual relations with even a different woman, and that's why she wants a divorce and payment of the <i>ketuba</i>.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The husband claims he wanted to reconcile, but the wife refused and chased him out of the house. So, once again, he'll agree to the divorce if he doesn't have to pay the <i>ketuba</i>. He admits that he has a girlfriend, a divorcee, with whom he has sexual relations and that they live in Bat Yam. He admits that he had a prior girlfriend (also a divorcee), and that he had sexual relations with her after he left his wife.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Now, here is an important point in determining the status of the <i>ketuba</i>:</span></span><br />
<div dir="rtl">
</div>
<div class="a" dir="RTL">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;"><span style="font-size: large;">ב"כ הבעל
בקש להביא ראיות שבני הזוג הלכו לשני יועצים, גמרו בדעתם להתגרש ושנגמרה מערכת
הנישואין ביניהם, ולכן הבעל לא יחשב כרועה זונות. לשם כך ביקש מועד לדיון להביא
עדים.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">The husband's attorney requested to bring evidence that the couple went to two counselors, were final in their decision to divorce, and that the marriage is over, and therefore the husband should not be considered as someone who "sleeps around" [רועה זונות does not necessarily mean that he goes to prostitutes, per se.] For this purpose he [the attorney] requested to set a date to bring witnesses.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">This is an important point, because if the <i>beit din</i> would determine that he is someone who "sleeps around", then she has justification to receive the <i>ketuba</i>. But if he is not so vile as that, then perhaps his claims against her will be sufficient for the <i>beit din</i> to determine that he does not have to pay her <i>ketuba</i>, because she is at fault. As we can see here, the divorce is no-fault only if both sides agree to divorce and to settle their finances, because then the <i>beit din</i> really doesn't care that much who is at fault. Otherwise, it is all about showing who is at fault.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">So, the husband's lawyer brought a social worker as a witness, who testified that she had thirteen meetings, either with both of them together or with one of them, and to put what she concluded in a very few words, the marriage ain't no good.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">And here is what the <i>beit din</i> concluded:</span><br />
<div class="a" dir="RTL">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;"><span style="font-size: large;">לאור הודאתו של
הבעל שגר יחדיו עם אשה ומקיים אתה יחסים, לפני כן קיים יחסים עם אחרת על פי הודאתו
– הלכה פסוקה באהע"ז סימן קנ"ד סעיף א' בהג"ה דינו של הבעל כדין
רועה זונות שכופין לגרש.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<div class="a" dir="RTL">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: FrankRuehl;"><span style="font-size: large;">טענות הבעל
הוכחשו ע"י האשה בתיק שסגר הבעל וכן בתיק שהאשה פתחה לגירושין. נשמעה עדותה
של העו"ס שקיימה עם בני הזוג שלוש עשרה פגישות ודיווחה על אלימות הדדית
וריבים משותפים. גם אם נצא מתוך הנחה שכל התלונות של האשה היו לשווא אין בכך לומר
שהאשה הפסידה כתובתה.</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Verdana, sans-serif;">In light of the husband's admission that he lives with a woman and has sexual relations with her, and before that he had sexual relations with a different woman according to his own admission - according to the <i>Shul<u>h</u>an Arukh</i> (<i>Even HaEzer</i> 154,1, in the addenda of Rem"a) it is the <i>halakha</i> that the law for a husband who sleeps around is forced to divorce [his wife]. The husband's claims were denied by the woman in the [first] filing, which the husband closed, and [they were] also [denied] in the [second] suit for divorce that the woman started. The social worker's testimony was heard, that she had thirteen meetings with the husband and wife, and she reported on violence and arguments from both parties. Even if all of the complaints that the woman made [to the police] were false, this would not mean to say that she lost her <i>ketuba</i>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Just a note on the Rem"a's ruling. That paragraph cited from the <i>Shul<u>h</u>an Arukh</i> lists the situations in which the <i>beit din</i> would force (somewhere down the road, the term "force" כופין will be clarified) a man to give a <i>get</i>. The Rem"a adds a few more, and generally there is a source for them, indicated in a note. For this situation - the guy who "sleeps around" - the Rem"a states that there has to be testimony or self-admission (as in our case at hand), but there is no note to indicate the source of this ruling.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">So far, so good, you might say. She will get her divorce and the <i>beit din</i> will instruct him to pay the <i>ketuba</i>! Don't open the champagne, yet. Wait for the next post to see what problems are yet in store.</span></span></div>
</div>
</div>
Devorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14579018807634647530noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4908170626335283336.post-68009385417831322352013-04-30T13:38:00.000+03:002013-05-12T18:23:29.754+03:00Welcome and Introduction<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: left;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;"><span style="text-align: justify;">After much urging and encouragement from my “fans” and
friends, I am launching my blog, VaTashar Devora - </span></span><span dir="RTL" lang="HE" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; text-align: justify;">ותשר דבורה</span><span dir="LTR" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; text-align: justify;"></span><span dir="LTR" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; text-align: justify;"></span><span dir="LTR" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; text-align: justify;"></span><span dir="LTR" style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; text-align: justify;"></span><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; text-align: justify;"> (Judges 5,1). My primary focus is to discuss Jewish family
law, through examination of recent </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; text-align: justify;">piskei din</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; text-align: justify;"> (judgments) from the Israeli </span><i style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; text-align: justify;">batei
din</i><span style="font-family: Times, 'Times New Roman', serif; text-align: justify;"> (Jewish courts of law). It is fair to keep in mind that these <i>piskei din</i> represent the contested divorces. We do not see those cases in which a couple has an amicable divorce, such that they both agree to it and they come to the <i>beit din</i> with an agreement about division of property and childcare. Those are duly processed and recorded, but not much of interest is likely to be found in those records. It is the contested cases that show the intricacies of the system.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">I do not believe that there is a vast difference between
application of Jewish family law in the Israeli system of <i>batei din</i> and
application of this law in any other Orthodox <i>batei din</i>, wherever Jews
reside. There certainly is no difference
in the halakhic sources that form the foundation for the decisions of the <i>dayyanim</i>
(judges). There are differences between
Israel and outside of Israel as to how this application of Jewish family law interacts
or interferes with the secular courts, how much power of enforcement the <i>dayyanim</i>
have, and the options before a Jewish couple, at least one of whom wishes to
dissolve the marriage. In each case
– being in Israel vs. outside of Israel – there are some more difficult aspects
and some less difficult aspects, but in neither case do we find a system to be
proud of. Rather, we find a system that
is bogged down in antiquated law and outdated concepts that have outlived their
relevance to the way people live their lives today. We find a sincere, often well-meaning,
attempt to regulate modern lives with an inappropriate set of tools. We find a system in which the power lies
solely in the hands of men, even though, by sheer coincidence, I suppose, half
of the people involved in marriage and divorce happen to be women. </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">And, as anyone who knows me is aware (and even if you don’t
know, me, you probably just became aware), I do not keep my opinions to
myself. Therefore, editorial comments
will be generously included, with my overall agenda being to demonstrate how
Jewish family law, even in the most sympathetic of <i>batei din</i>, is far
from ideal and needs a serious overhaul.
I unabashedly admit to being a feminist, and I unabashedly admit that I
am influenced by modern, humanist, democratic values. </span><o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I readily admit that I <b>do not</b> subscribe to the
following thesis:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"> 1) <span style="text-indent: -18pt;">All of Jewish law is moral and
just, by definition, because it is ordained by a moral and just God.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> 2) </span><span style="text-indent: -18pt;">If you think a particular aspect
of </span><i style="text-indent: -18pt;">halakha</i><span style="text-indent: -18pt;"> is not moral and just, return to rule 1.</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="text-indent: -18pt;"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Rather, I maintain that <i>halakha</i> must change with the
times, and that we have our own, internal, moral compasses that develop with
time that have always been influenced by the society in which we live,
sometimes to our benefit (consider: slavery).
I am inspired by people like Rabbi Hayyim Hirschenson, who wrote:</span><o:p></o:p></div>
<span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="rtl">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="rtl" style="text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: David;">האמנם כל כח לאנשים על הנשים
בימים הקדמונים היה מסבת המצב העקינומי ומסבת המצב המוסרי הבלתי מפותח – במקום
'פרימיטיבי' הייתי צריכה לומר 'בלתי מפותח' - אשר חשבו אז כי יתכן דת בלתי מוסר
בדתי האלילים השונים, ואי אפשר למוסר בלתי דת, היפך ממה שהתפתחות למד לנו, כי <u>אפשר</u>
למוסר בלתי דת, ולא יתכן דת בלתי מוסר, ודת עם מוסר יחד היא דת תורתנו הקדושה,
ואין למדים להלכה מן המצבים הקדמונים ..., ולא ממנהג עקנאמי קדמון, כמו לא למדנו
שאנחנו מוכרחים לשבת באהלים יען שאבותינו ישבו באהל ...</span><span dir="LTR"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div dir="rtl" style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Indeed, all of the power that men have over women
in the ancient times was because of the economic condition, and the undeveloped
moral condition. They thought then that
it was possible to have a religion without morals, such as in the various
idol-worshipping religions, but that it is not possible to have morals without
religion, which is the opposite of what progress [in society] has taught us
– that it is possible to have morals without religion, but it should not be
possible to have a religion without morals, and a religion with morals combined
is the religion of our holy Torah. And,
we do not learn <i>halakha</i> from ancient conditions, … and not from ancient
economic practices, just as we did not learn that we must dwell in tents merely
because our ancestors dwelled in tents …</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">As indicated above, I will be drawing almost all of my posts –
perhaps with some interludes on other Judaism-related topics when the mood
strikes me – from <b>recent</b> cases in the <i>batei din</i>, the <i>piskei din</i> of which
<b>have been made public</b>. This
presents us with an important qualification:
The sample of <i>piskei din</i> that I have (and continue to receive) might not be representative
of all decisions in those courts. The only ones that I receive are those that
the particular <i>herkev beit hadin</i> (the three <i>dayyanim</i> serving for
that case) have agreed to release for publication. I can only surmise – but I have no proof –
that these would be the cases that <i>dayyanim</i> believe put them in a good
light. And, given the amount of
criticism that is heard regarding the misogyny that pervades the <i>batei din</i>,
it is not surprising that many of the <i>piskei din</i> that I shall discuss
show much empathy to the woman in the case.
But, to paraphrase a common saying: that (empathy) and a token will get
me on the subway. It won’t necessarily
get a woman out of a marriage that she’d like to be released from. These women are the <i>mesuravot get</i>,
women who are refused a <i>get</i>. </span><o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Many people today like to distinguish between that term – <i>mesuravot
get</i> - and <i>agunot</i>, women who are “anchored” to their marriages in
what is considered the classical sense, that their husbands disappeared,
perhaps at sea, perhaps in a war, and there is no evidence or testimony about
his death, or, perhaps, abandoned wives – women whose husbands are most likely
alive, but have run off and not been heard from. Some people seem to think there is a value to
distinguish between the <i>mesurevet</i> <i>get</i> and the <i>aguna</i>, as if
the woman who is refused a <i>get</i> is not “anchored” to her marriage. (And how exactly do we categorize the "anchored" widow who must wait for her under-age <i>yabam</i> (levir) to mature, or whose <i>yabam</i> refuses to participate in <i><u>h</u>alitza</i> (or wants a tidy sum for the service), before she can remarry? A rare occurrence these days, but it does still happen, and it is still part of the law. </span><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif;">Deuteronomy 25,5-10<span style="font-size: large;">) But there is a reason that these people want
to distinguish between an <i>aguna</i> and a <i>mesurevet get</i>. Some </span><i style="font-size: large;">mesuravot get</i><span style="font-size: large;">
have a way to get out of the marriage – they “simply” need to give in to the
extortionist demands of their estranged husbands, perhaps relinquish property
rights, agree to absurdly low child-care payments, and the like. Thus, claim some of these people, the women
are “anchoring” themselves, if they do not agree. (In fact, they base this on the opinion of a
16</span><sup style="font-size: medium;">th</sup><span style="font-size: large;"> century authority; you’ll likely see this in a post in the
future.) Further, some of these people
claim, that the phenomenon of a </span><i style="font-size: large;">mesurevet get</i><span style="font-size: large;"> is a modern phenomenon, a
result of the breakdown of “Jewish family values” in modern times, maybe even a
result of that evil influence called feminism.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I maintain that these idealized “Jewish family values” are
actually a myth. I’d need someone to
explain to me what “Jewish family values” mean in a system of law that
permitted polygyny until modern times in some Jewish communities, and was only
forbidden in communities in Christian Europe, where monogamy was the rule of
law. I’d need someone to explain to me
what “Jewish family values” mean, if a man is permitted to marry off his
daughter when she is a small child.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Let’s look at a citation from the Tosafot in <i>Masekhet
Qiddushin </i>(41a), regarding marrying off young daughters. We have a statement in the name of an
uncertain Sage “It is forbidden for a man to betroth his daughter when she is a
minor; rather he should wait until she grows up and says ‘I want
so-and-so’.” This is a rabbinic ruling;
from the Torah, a man is permitted to marry off his young daughter, and this is
derived in a <i>midrash</i> that I will not cite here, lest we get too far off
topic. On this rabbinic statement, the
Tosafot wrote:</span></div>
<br />
<div dir="rtl" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><b style="text-align: right;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: David;">אסור לאדם שיקדש את בתו כשהיא
קטנה</span></b><span lang="HE" style="font-family: David; text-align: right;"> - ואף על גב דאמר לעיל
דאיסורא ליכא משום דטב למיתב טן דו ה"מ בגדולה שהיא מתקדשת ע"י עצמה
דכיון שנתרצית ליכא למיחש שמא תחזור אבל קטנה שמתקדשת ע"י אביה איכא למיחש
שמא אם היתה גדולה לא היתה מתרצית ועכשיו שאנו נוהגים לקדש בנותינו אפי' קטנות
היינו משום שבכל יום ויום הגלות מתגבר עלינו ואם יש סיפק ביד אדם עכשיו לתת לבתו
נדוניא שמא לאחר זמן לא יהיה סיפק בידו ותשב בתו עגונה לעולם.</span><span dir="LTR" style="text-align: right;"></span><span dir="LTR" style="text-align: right;"></span><span dir="LTR" lang="HE" style="text-align: right;"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> </span><span dir="RTL" style="text-align: right;"></span><span dir="RTL" style="text-align: right;"></span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: David; text-align: right;"><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span>(תוספות מסכת קידושין מא.)</span></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"> <b>It is forbidden for a man to betroth his young daughter</b>
– and even though it states above that there is no prohibition, because “it is
preferable to dwell as two than to dwell in widowhood [i.e., alone],” this
latter maxim refers to a woman who has come of age [at the ripe old age of 12
½], who betroths herself, because she is pleased, and there is no concern that
she might change her mind. But a minor
who is betrothed by her father, there is concern that if she were of age, she
would not be pleased. But now that we do
commonly betroth our daughters, even if they are young, this is because every
day the <i>galut</i> [exile] becomes more oppressive, and if someone has enough
in hand now to give his daughter a dowry [he should do so and betroth her],
lest after some time he will not have enough in hand, and his daughter will sit
an <i>aguna</i> forever.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Yes, the Tosafot <b>do</b> use the word <i>aguna</i>, here
to mean a “spinster”! So who is being
overly pedantic about use of the word <i>aguna</i>? But my question to the rabbis of the Jewish
communities of the time of the Tosafot (and for centuries after, as well; we
have historical records of girls being married off at very early ages until
modern times) is as follows: why didn’t
the community rabbis issue a <i>takana</i> - an edict – that prohibits
requesting a dowry of a bride, whether rich or poor? Or, perhaps the rabbis could have issued a <i>takana</i>
requiring an equalization of dowries, where the rich would subsidize the
dowries of the poor. The rich always
paid more communal taxes, in exchange for having the right to participate in
the autonomous communal government. A
similar arrangement could have been made for dowries.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Our responsa literature, the <i>halakhic </i>codes and our
history of the treatment of girls and women do not indicate that once there
were these intact, loving family units – man and woman devoted to each other
(and to their children), and this only changed in modern times. But if I keep
going on about this, I will not get to the real point of this blog. You will see real cases that were presented
before real <i>batei din</i> today, and you will see the halakhic sources used
in the judgments that are rendered. And
you will be able to decide for yourselves what you think.
In fact, sometimes I will pose questions to you – I will be sincerely
interested in what you would consider the most just solution to what are
sometimes truly difficult situations. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">As you shall also see, sometimes men, too, are not able to
be released from their (respective) marriages (one marriage per man, these days;
oh, except when there is a <i>heter me’a rabbanim</i> – permission from one
hundred rabbis). That is because the
Ashkenazi <i>takana</i> became universally applied: a woman has to agree to
accept her divorce willingly, just as a man has to give a divorce willingly. You are likely to see citations of this in
the cases I present, also. But don’t be
fooled – that does not equalize the injustices.
These men are <i>mesurvei get</i>.
But, of course, their situation is not nearly as grave as that of a
woman who is bound to her marriage, unwillingly. The men don’t have problems of <i>mamzerut</i>
if they have an extra-marital relationship, so long as the “other woman” is not
a married woman. And, the gravity of the
sin is not really considered so grave.
You will see examples of how this very significant difference impacts
the judgments of the <i>batei din</i>, in some cases not necessarily to the
benefit of the man, but rather resulting in some very strange marital
relationships.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">A basic question that arises in this discussion, perhaps a
question that you, the readers, can already think about, is:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">What is preferable – marriage and divorce that are private,
contractual matters, as is the case in Jewish law, or marriage and divorce that
are governmental or public, such as in the United States, where a license is
required from the (State) government in order to marry, and the State grants a
divorce?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Let’s take another example, for comparison. In Muslim law, a judicial divorce (faskh) can
be granted to a deserted wife, defined, for example, in the Mamluk legal texts
(it is useful to compare to them when looking at some of our responsa from that
period) as a woman whose husband has been absent for at least six months,
leaving her without property or financial support. (See Yossef Rapoport, <b>Marriage, Money and
Divorce in Medieval Islamic Society</b>, Cambridge University Press, 2007, p.
76.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">On the other hand, except in some very rare cases, Jewish
law did not provide for a judicial annulment, and one can read the plethora of
articles on <i>hafqa’at qiddushin</i> as a solution to problems of <i>agunot</i>
and <i>mesuravot get</i> and the controversy surrounding the proposals to use
this mechanism. It seems, at this point
in time, quite unlikely that there will be widespread acceptance of that
solution in the Orthodox world. And,
even if there were, this would only modify the set of inappropriate tools that
are still only in the hands of men.<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Of course, one could envision marriage and divorce that are private, contractual matters, but that the contract law is different from Jewish contract law, and the contracts are not the ones imposed in Jewish family law.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">What do I expect to accomplish by presenting such a negative
view of Jewish family law? I hope that I
will make people think long and hard about how they want to establish their domestic relationships. But beyond that – since
everyone is convinced that they have found their true love and they will not be
in one of the significant number of marriages that do not last forever – I hope
that I will make people think about how to bring about the prophecy:</span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
<div dir="rtl">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: David;"><span style="font-size: large;">וְאֵרַשְׂתִּיךְ לִי בְּצֶדֶק
וּבְמִשְׁפָּט וּבְחֶסֶד וּבְרַחֲמִים (הושע ב, כא)</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" dir="ltr">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: David;"></span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">I will betroth you to Me in justice and in law, in kindness
and compassion. (Hosea 2,21)</span></div>
</div>
<span lang="HE" style="font-family: David;">
</span></blockquote>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">In our current system, I see the “law” (if I were to use the typical
translation, “righteousness and justice”, I wouldn’t even grant one out of
four). But not the justice, certainly
not the kindness and compassion.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="ltr">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="ltr">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="ltr">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">So far, Kohelet seems to be doing better than Hosea:</span><o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="RTL" style="direction: rtl; text-align: right; unicode-bidi: embed;">
<span style="font-size: large;"><span lang="HE" style="font-family: David;">וְעוֹד רָאִיתִי תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ
מְקוֹם הַמִּשְׁפָּט שָׁמָּה הָרֶשַׁע וּמְקוֹם הַצֶּדֶק שָׁמָּה הָרָשַׁע:</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span> )</span><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span><span lang="HE" style="font-family: David;"><span dir="RTL"></span><span dir="RTL"></span> קהלת ג, טז</span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"><span dir="LTR"></span><span dir="LTR"></span>(</span></span><span dir="LTR"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq" dir="ltr">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span dir="LTR"><span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: x-small; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: HE; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">I also saw under the sun that the place of law –wickedness
is there, and the place of justice – wickedness is there. (Ecclesiastes 3,16)</span></span></div>
</blockquote>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="ltr">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><b>Some technical notes:</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="ltr">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">If there is sufficient interest in a Hebrew version of this
blog, I might make the effort to either write one or recruit some volunteers to
help me translate what I write in English.
(Though I write in Hebrew, it is even slower for me than my pace in
English, and the syntax leaves something to be desired.)<o:p></o:p></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;">Right now I have a backlog of a few dozen <i>piskei din</i> to work with, but I do hope to reach a "steady state", and have relatively short posts with summaries and highlights of any interesting new <i>piskei din</i> that I receive.</span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="ltr">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div>
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" dir="ltr">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: large;"><b>My next post: </b> What is
the value or use of a <i>ketuba</i>, why don’t the <i>mesadrei qiddushin</i>
concern themselves with the problems of <i>askmakhta</i>, and why aren’t brides
taught the really important stuff in <i>kalla</i> classes? </span></div>
</div>
<br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align: justify; text-indent: -18pt;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
Devorahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14579018807634647530noreply@blogger.com1Jerusalem, Israel31.768319 35.21370999999999231.552388 34.89098649999999 31.984250000000003 35.536433499999994