- This topic has 120 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Posts
-
Sam, the point is, this isn’t a psak.
I believe R’ Willig will not be your Mesader Kiddushin unless you have signed a prenup. That’s pretty much a Psak.
Oh, and I looked up R’ Elyashiv’s T’shuvah today. He said that Lechatchilah such things shouldn’t be done. He didn’t say it creates a Get Meuseh.
That’s not a psak, that’s an ultimatum.
No (that’s a response to your last question. I don’t know what the beginning of your post means).
“The Rama paskens that a husband is only responsible for his wife’s expenses while she lives in his home.”
Where is the Remo that he can’t take upon himself extra mezonos? Or tosefes? And since she’s allowed to say “aini nizonis”, then you’d have to argue that any woman who is instead toive’ah her mezonos is forcing him to give a get? Come on.
“It doesn’t even have a clause saying what happens in the event BDA is no loger existing”
That’s with any agreement to go to any beis din. We don’t say, “don’t ever go to beis din because between the time you agree to go and the time you actually go, the BD might be gone.”
“It only financially penalizes the husband if the husband doesn’t give it; it makes no provisions to penalize the wife if the wife doesn’t accept it. “
Wrong. She doesn’t get any money if she refuses to go to beis din or do what the BD tells her to do.
“However, this support obligation shall terminate if Wife-to-Be refuses to appear upon due notice before the Beth Din of America or in the event that Wife-to-Be fails to abide by the decision or recommendation of the Beth Din of America.”
“http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7512&st=&pgnum=101&hilite=
(Last paragraph; It’s not discussing the prenup, but we can easily apply it to the prenup.)”
That’s right. We can easily apply anything that anyone ever said to anything else we want it to apply to.
“It starts taking effect the day she (on her own volition) walks out of his home (or forces him out).”
Not really. “Wife-to-Be waives her right to collect any
“Nachalas Shivah–?????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ????????”
You don’t call that mezonos? And a validation of what’s reasonable? Not that he would be chayav in that, but it’s obviously not an unreasonable shibud for him to accept on himself.
“the wife keeps her own income (even though halachicly it belongs to him if he gives her mezonos) “
Under ordinary circumstances, if he gives her mezonos then he gets her income in order to prevent eivah; but that’s pretty much water under the bridge at this point.
“You know as well as I and anyone else reading this that $55,000 + inflation (post-tax money) for one person – plus her keeping her own earnings – is not any halachic or otherwise definition of “mezonos”.”
So, you’d be happy if the prenup was a smaller figure, or depended on income, or on what standard of living the wife was used to? Or do you just have a shitah of chodosh ossur min hatorah and are looking to scuttle everything written in the last 200 years?
Incidentally, if someone could post the relevent teshuva of R. Elyashiv that would be great, since many of us don’t have access to the sefer. And it’s the only one so far quoted.
It isn’t “extra” mezonos; it is a kenas. And a kenas renders a Get to be a Get Me’usa. Any payment amount above the halachic amount required for mezonos is a kenas. Even the supporters of the prenup admit this. (I asked this of a major prenup supporter whose been a dayan on the BDA and he expressly stated as such.) If the payment amount was $500/day instead of $150/day (and the terms of the prenup were otherwise exactly the same) even R. Willig would admit it is a kenas, and it renders the prenup halachicly invalid and causes a Get Me’usa. But the supporters are being deceitful in claiming $150+/day, $55,000+/year, [plus her keeping her own salary] is not higher than a mezonos amount (as I clearly demonstrated in previous posts on this thread.)
Regarding the lack of reciprocity, her not receiving $150+/day is not much of penalty and certainly isn’t reciprocal to his having to pay her.
Regarding the start date, she can walk out and give him immediate notice he must begin paying her.
The Nachalas Shivah is not designed to force or pressure the husband to give a Get and was not for divorcing cases. It is the pressure of a kenas that renders it a Get Me’usa and potentially causes mamzeirim c’v, an inapplicable issue in the Nachalas Shivah case.
Her keeping her salary while he is paying her mezonos is halachicly effectively an additional kenas, since that salary is his property under halacha while he is providing mezonos.
“So, you’d be happy if the prenup was a smaller figure, or depended on income, or on what standard of living the wife was used to?”
Yes. If the amount were the same amount as Shulchan Aruch specifies a husband is obligated to provide mezonos and the amount was only payable in halachic situations when he is obligated to pay her mezonos, then ???”? it would be halachicly acceptable. Anything above that amount, or applicable in additional situations, renders it a kenas.
Matan1: I read an article which stated that R’ Teitz from Elizabeth won’t be mesader kiddushin without a pre-nup. Not only that, it said that he actually makes an announcement about it at the wedding, before the badekin. He has them sign it at the wedding. He says it’s to show people he is in favor of it, and to encourage others to do it.
Disclaimer: I’ve never seen it in person. I also asked a friend of mine who lives in Elizabeth about it, and he laughed at me – he said R’ Teitz doesn’t like to be mesader kiddushin. His “thing” is to read the kesubah. (I’m sure that he has been the mesader kiddushin when asked, though!)
That’s right. We can easily apply anything that anyone ever said to anything else we want it to apply to.
Rebbe Yid, I can’t be certain considering this is the written word, but my sarcasm detector went off when reading this line. I don’t know if you read the sefer that I linked to, but I was certainly not saying that we can apply anything anyone ever said to anything we want. What I was saying is that if someone had a certain sevara and applied it to case A and the similarities between case A and case B are such that the sevara would be equally applicable to case B, we can apply it to case B even though the originator of the sevara never directly addressed case B. ?????? ????, R’ Yaakov Levinson mentioned an objection to the suggestion that at the wedding, the husband should appoint the wife as a shliach. His objection was not an objection to the halachic mechanism, so there is no issue if the mechanism of the prenup is different; his objection was that bringing up a discussion of divorce/mean husbands during the happiest moment of her life is a bad idea. The prenup and the shliach suggestion are similar in that regard – they both bring up the same discussion at the wedding. The only difference is the halachic mechanism by which it seeks to resolve the potential problems. Thus, it would be very reasonable to assume that R’ Levinson would have the same problem with the prenup as he had with the shliach sugestion. That is not to say that there is no way to avoid his objection, nor is it to say that anyone is bound by his objection. It is simply to say that there is a sevara against bringing up certain discussions during the wedding.
I read the RCA prenup on their website and then
I actually contacted the RCA about the inequality of their pre-nup. I pointed out that it only penalizes the man and makes no provisions to penalize the woman if, for example, she misbehaves by not going to bais din or denying visitation.
I pointed out that if they are looking for universal acceptance than they should produce a prenup that doesnt look like it was written by a feminist.
The email I recieved was “we have such a document/prenup and it is available upon request.
The fact that, that version wasn’t the one posted on the website, IMO is very telling.
Joseph: First of all, R’ Elyashiv did not say it makes a Get Meuseh. He said it shouldn’t be done Lechatchilah because of the Shittos that hold it’s Meuseh. And why are you thinking the $55K is after-tax. Presumably she has to pay taxes on that money, no? So it makes sense.
I assume if they still legally married then not taxable.
Otherwise I don’t know.
Joseph: Again, instead of trying to argue the halachos here, contact a Rav who is knowledgeable and supports the pre-nup, and ask your questions! As I mentioned, R’ Teitz in Elizabeth is a big proponent, so why not ask him about it? I’m sure he’s reachable.
DM: For the umpteenth time, I’ve communicated with multiple rabbonim including ones affiliated with the bda.
Sam: If the husband’s salary is $75,000/year and he is paying $20,000/year in Federal, State and municipal taxes, and then he pays his wife $55,000/year, is what I meant he is paying her with his after tax dollars. In other words, he would need to be earning $75K to pay her $55K. [Actually more since he must pay her $55K + inflation from the time of his wedding. And then he is left with no income to support himself and their children.] Whether she must pay taxes on the $55K she received from him is a separate question that I didn’t intend to address.
And? What did they tell you?
Preposterously, that paying her $55K/year (plus inflation plus her keeping her own salary) isn’t more than what Shulchan Aruch specifies as the amount of mezonos for one person.
When I asked about the times he doesn’t even have a chiyuv to pay her any mezonos at all (yet the prenup makes him pay), they didn’t give me an answer. (Offhand, one of them might have said “but he agreed to it”; all that means is he agreed to pay a kenas.)
Did it occur to you that they are more knowledgeable than you are in Halachah, and you should defer to them?
They’re not more knowledgeable than the rabbonim on the other side. And they didn’t even address all the issues. On the mezonos question, it is so blatantly incorrect. (Read the entire discussion here on mezonos.) They admitted that if the amount is above mezonos then it is a halachicly objectionable kenas even if he agreed to it and even if the terms in the agreement calls the amount mezonos.
Joseph: Mezonos is never about what he earns. It’s about what she is entitled to. And being entitled to $55K can make sense, depending on where she is used to living. (For example, if she grew up on the Upper West Side, $55K is probably far below her living expectations.) In theory the Chiyuv Mezonos should be determined on a case-by-case basis. But then there will always be fighting so they came up with a blanket sum that will almost always be above the minimum and yet not be so large as to be useless anyway.
Sam: The prenup sets the amount to $55K + inflation (plus her earnings) even if she came from a poor family living in Wisconsin and married a poor husband who earned his living as a cashier in the kosher grocery near a far flung Chabad house.
If they would fight over what the Shulchan Aruch mandated mezonos amount should be, that is what beis din is for – to settle that question. (There is no problem if they agreed to a specific beis din before marriage.) Just because they might fight over the appropriate mezonos amount does not give the right to preset an amount that effectively is a kenas.
(Additionally to the above, even if she lived during her marriage in a fancy Manhattan neighborhood [with an average income that the vast majority of frum men don’t come close to earning], $55K [plus inflation plus her earnings] is well above the amount of mezonos S”A would make him mechuyiv in. S”A doesn’t obligate a husband to provide his wife mezonos to reach “her living expectations”, especially when he cannot afford it. And especially when she left the marital home and he’s, as is his right, offering to cover her mezonos in the home but not out of the home.)
Joseph: I read the discussion. But my Rav told me that people should use the pre-nup, and I defer to him in halachic matters.
As was pointed out, R’ Elyashiv’s teshuva does not say the pre-nup invalidates the get, he just points out that there are those who do say that, so therefore l’chatchilah, you shouldn’t use it. That seems to say that b’dieved, even R’ Elyashiv zt”l held it was ok.
My Rav is a student of HaGaon R’ Hershel Schachter, who is definitely big enough to say the pre-nup is fine.
You say they are incorrect about the mezonos issue. That may be your opinion. But don’t you hold that Daas Torah means you should be mevatel your own Daas to that of the Rav?
tz’i maaseh yadayich l’mizonosayich
(wherein popa shows himself to be an MO am haaretz, by not saying tz’i maaseh yadecha l’mizonosecha)
Joseph: False. It’s B’feirush in Kesubos. V’hi Beulas Ba’al.
Which part are you challenging, Sam?
PAA: So you admit that you’re just putting words into a posek’s mouth: “he said it by one mechanism for igun-prevention, so it must apply to a different mechanism as well.” Unconvincing.
Joseph: I didn’t call it “extra mezonos” (maybe the RCA did but that’s irrelevant). Any husband can agree to give his wife whatever he wants, at any time. It doesn’t matter that the effect of that is to make him more likely to divorce her to get out of paying it. Because if you say that, then the whole kesuba is one giant get-meuseh generator, because he has to pay mezonos until they’re divorced!
It doesn’t matter that the effect of that is to make him more likely to divorce her to get out of paying it.
It certainly does matter halachicly. Even all the rabbinic supporters of the prenup admit that if you change the dollar amount in the prenup to $500/day (or any amount more than the obligatory mezonos) and leave everything else in the prenup exactly as is, it halachicly invalidates the prenup.
Because if you say that, then the whole kesuba is one giant get-meuseh generator, because he has to pay mezonos until they’re divorced!
Mezonos is not equal to $150/day, $55,000/year, to support one person (plus inflation and plus giving her her employment income.)
Joseph: I have to review some things in Hilchos Kesubos. I thought that the Minhag nowadays is that it’s assumed that the man was Mochel Maaseha Yadeha but still gives Mezonos.
This statement: “S”A doesn’t obligate a husband to provide his wife mezonos to reach “her living expectations”, especially when he cannot afford it.” is against a B’feirush Gemara.
And, according to you, why doesn’t a Kesubah create a Get Meuseh? The whole reason is to penalize him if he gives a Get. That’s a B’feirush Gemara.
There is certainly no “minhag” to overturn the halacha and be mochel maaseha yadeha but still gives mezonos. In fact the provisions of the prenup attempts to do exactly this because by default there is no such thing.
A kesuba might penalize him if he gives a Get. So it pressures him not to give a Get. Hence no Get Me’usa problem. The prenup penalizes him if he does not give a Get. So it pressures him to give a Get. Hence the Get Me’usa problem.
PAA: So you admit that you’re just putting words into a posek’s mouth: “he said it by one mechanism for igun-prevention, so it must apply to a different mechanism as well.” Unconvincing.
I am not putting any words into anyone’s mouth. I don’t think you read the link. It is clear that R’ Levinson was not objecting to any specific mechanism of igun-prevention. He was objecting to the very idea of bringing up igun-prevention at a wedding. The prenup is igun-prevention. Hence, the objection against discussing igun-prevention would stand against it. If you have a chiluk, I would be happy to hear it. But I don’t see why you think I am making crazy assumptions here.
For reference, a large continuation of this discussion continued at:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/do-mo-believe-in-non-strawman-daas-torah
R. Shlomo Aviner is opposed to the prenup and says the Religious Zionist rabbinite is opposed to it as well on numerous grounds, including potential ?? ????? and multiple other grounds.
Rav Aviner: The Chief Rabbinate Remains Strongly Opposed to Pre-Nuptial Agreement
Here is a translation of another related teshuva from Rav Elyashev (Kovetz Teshuvos vol. 1 #174):
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/men-withholding-a-get#post-566490
I dont understand why Rav Aviner says no Gedolim support it when Rav Ovadia Yosef, Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg and Rav Osher Weiss all gave haskamot. Also why is this more of a get meusa than when the rabbanut jails the husband.
In South Africa, many years ago, our Rabbonim worked with the government to make a law that a civil divorce cannot be given in the presence of a “religious impediment to remarriage”. What this means practically, is that a get-refuser opens himself up to some very serious consequences, such as very substantial alimony (we call it maintenance) and any order the presiding judge in his/her unfettered discretion chooses to make. This theoretically could also include contempt of court and a stint in jail. South African jails are not known for their Daf Yomi programmes or Glatt Kosher cuisine!
I am sure that some would want to say that this is a get-meusah. This is not for certain reasons which distinguish this approach from the case in Rav Eliyashev’s teshuvah. Firstly, we are a unified community and have ONE Beis Din, which means that there is no shopping around (by either side)for sympathetic dayanim, this in and of itself eliminates a big portion of the problem and a lot of fighting. Secondly, things are arranged so that by the time the woman goes to court, the husband is on record as having refused the get AFTER being instructed to give it by the Beis Din and as such any sanction made against him by the court is with the full reshus of the Beis Din and as such the get is not a get meusah.
The upshot of this is that we have developed a culture of not tolerating get refusal. Period. We have very few cases of Agunos and in fact,the most recent case lasted for at most a couple of months and the husband who was placed in Cherem gave in before the matter even got to court, because his lawyers no doubt explained to him what was in store for him. Therein lies the value of this approach, it is a highly effective deterent. Also, it sends an unequivocal message that we do not stand for people abusing the Torah in order to abuse/control other people and that is a genuine Kiddush Hashem.
They only time they use jail is in the rare case where the beit din formally ruled kofin oso. With the prenup, the financial payments are mandatory even in cases where there is no justification and ruling for kofin oso.
ABA: If the secular court imposes any penalty not specifically authorized by the beis din then in fact it causes a get me’usa. It is insufficient that the beis din only authorize he be penalized but it must specifically authorize the extent of the penalty. If the secular court imposes something in excess of beis din’s mandate, it causes a get me’usa. Also, beis din cannot authorize a penalty in every case where the husband declines to give a Get. They can only do so in cases where he has a halachic obligation to give it, he refuses and halacha permits coercion. As a general rule in halacha, a husband doesn’t have an obligation to give a Get simply because his wife wants one. Examples of the rare exceptions where beis din is permitted to order him to give a Get even if he is unwilling to, are cases of his being physically abusive that’s been proven in beis din and unchanged or where he has a physical health deformity.
Joseph: Also, that’s not true. The Mezonos money is never actually forced to be paid unless he is ruled a Mesarev.
Sam: The financial payments are considered a form of kofin oso and halachicly he can only be made to pay the prenup payments if beis din rules kofin oso. Halachicly a beis din can’t order Kofin oso except in extraordinary cases. Yet the financial payments under the prenup are permitted under its provisions in more ordinary cases, even in non-kofin oso situations. Kofin oso can’t be ordered even in every mesarev case.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/men-withholding-a-get#post-566490
It’s not kofin oso if he was mechayev himself in it (we’re back to square one on this issue).
And if you say that he wasn’t really mechayev himself in it because he never expected to actually have to pay it, and therefore it’s an asmachta, how is that different from 200 zuz which he also never expected to have to pay? If in the kesubah he’s mechayev himself to pay 200 if he divorces her, and in the prenup he’s mechayev himself to pay X if he doesn’t divorce her, which one is the asmachta?
Of course, all this may only be relevant if the husband doesn’t want to divorce her. But if he does want to divorce her, and is holding out for money or custody or to be me’agen her, there may not be such a thing as a get me’useh at all:
Igros Moshe EH 3:44
?????? ?? ?? ?? ?????????? ???? ???? ????
??? ????? ???, ???? ???? ???”? ?? ????
????????, ??? ????????? ?????? ?????? ?????
???? ??? ????,??? ??? ??????????????????
????? ???,
Chazon Ish EH 99:2
?? ????? ????
???? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????
???? ????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???
“Here is a translation of another related teshuva from Rav Elyashev (Kovetz Teshuvos vol. 1 #174):
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/men-withholding-a-get#post-566490″
That translation’s been posted all over the internet. It talks about the fact that we aren’t generally kofin in a case of ma’us alai. It has nothing to do with what we’re talking about.
If you have a link to the original teshuva by R. Elyashiv on the prenup that would be great. In Hebrew.
RY,
1) The 200 is ???? ?”? and we don’t need his ???? at all. Better to discuss ????? ?????.
2) Those ????? are ??????. Is this how we should set things up ????????
DY: Thanks. I mentioned tosefes earlier but I think it was ignored. The 200 zuz point was not kefiya but rather asmachta; it’s mayseh beis din, true, but he still has to agree to it voluntarily if he wants to get married.
It’s all bedieved; lechatchila they wouldn’t get divorced at all, or if they did, it wouldn’t come to this point. Bedieved if it was done this way it might be a legit get. In any case I’m not advocating for this particular prenup; I’m just pointing out that some of the arguments against prove too much.
Rav Nochum Eisenstein shlit”a (a godol from Yerushlayim who was originally a Rov in the United States and was one of the closest rabbonim to Rav Elyashev zt’l and frequently Rav Elyashev communicated messages through Rav Eisenstein), was on R. Dovid Lichtenstein’s (who gives a Lakewood shiur on current topics in halacha) radio show this past Wednesday night. The topic of halachic prenups came up to which Rav Eisenstein commented that “Rav Elyashiv was against any type of prenup” because of asmachta, that was a halachic opposition (that potentially renders a subsequent Get to be a Get Me’usa). He further commented that Rav Elyashiv also had a hashkafic opposition that they were “not the derech of yisrael sabbah… not the way kiddushin is done.”
Rav Eisenstein also said that he had an extensive discussion with Rav Dovid Feinstein shlit”a this past summer on various issues, and he is authorized to quote Rav Dovid that “Rav Moshe was against all prenuptuals” halachically and hashkafically.
Of course R’ Moshe was against all prenups. The only prenups that existed in his time told you to go to Conservative Batei Din.
Rav Eisenstein was specifically speaking to Rav Dovid about Rav Moshe’s position on the type of “halachic prenups” bandied about nowadays. He was having a discussion about the halachic issue at-hand today, not wasting Rav Dovid’s precious time on some academic discussion about Conservative prenups. And on the issue of the halachic prenup, Rav Eisenstein said (audio is available) that Rav Dovid gave him full permission in front of eidim that he “should and can publicize in his name that Rav Moshe was against all prenuptials”.
Sam, R’ Dovid didn’t know that?
I’m not gonna comment because it would get deleted anyway, but trust me, I have a good response to these things.
Lashing out against Rav Dovid and Rav Moshe indeed deserves to be deleted.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.