A decision by the Jerusalem Beis Din delivers a blow to the liberal Orthodox organizations in Israel including Beit Hillel and Tzohar Rabbonim, both organizations that urge couples to sign a prenup. However, a prenup is not encouraged by poskim in Eretz Yisrael, and in many cases, a mesader keddushin will not marry a couple that has signed a prenup, unlike in many Orthodox circles in the Diaspora.
The Jerusalem District Beis Din decided in the matter of a ‘get’ that the bill of divorce would not be issued until such time portions of the prenup, which deal with the assets of both bridge and groom, are invalidated. The objectionable portion of the prenup requires the husband to pay 10,000 shekels support monthly until a get is given. This clause is inserted to prevent a husband from making his wife an agunah.
The case in point involved a couple with a prenup that stipulates if a ‘get’ is not given within 120 days after the wife requests it, he will be compelled to pay 10,000 shekels to her every month until the ‘get’ is served without any consideration to the wife’s income or assets.
Av Beis Din Dayan Rav Ariel Lavi, Dayan Shlomo Tam and Dayan David Malka decided the prenup contains a component that might be viewed as compelling him to give the ‘get’ and therefore, it must be disqualified before a ‘get’ can be given.
Piskei halacha from Rav Elyashiv ZT”L, Rav Betzalel Jolti ZT”L, Rav Shaul Yisraeli ZT”L, and others were cited to back the beis din’s position.
(YWN – Israel Desk, Jerusalem)
In the end, how does this help? If she agrees to forfeit the prenup then she gets the get; if she doesn’t, then she gets a boatload of money. It’s still a get me’useh leshitasam.
“A decision by the Jerusalem Beis Din delivers a blow to the liberal Orthodox organizations in Israel…”
Are you sympathizing with the liberals, or proudly declaring adherence to the da’as Torah of Rav Elyashiv zt”l and other choshuve poskim? It’s not in the category of a “machlokes” in halacha. The liberals are like kindergarten kids arguing with Rav Elyashiv zt”l. They are not “barei plugta” at all.
> Rebbe Yid
I don’t understand what theoretical “me’useh” is possible once the prenup is annulled.
This is really a different issue than the “agunah” issues. Traditionally, Beitei Din have ruled on economic matters regardless of any formal agreements if it is in the best interests of everyone (the parties, their kids, the community). An agreement to fix financial terms, unless the agreement is subject to court approval, would be “stripping the court” (what it is called in America) of its authority and as such is against public policy. In the US, a common concern would be that the agreement is abusive to one party, or that the parties are being too clever (e.g. giving all the assets to one spouse, so the other spouse qualifies for welfare, medicaid, etc.).
The issue isn’t validity of a “get”. The issue of validity goes to whether the man is freed of his duty to support the wife, and the wife is allowed to remarry. From the article, the court in question isn’t dealing with remarriage, but with money. That’s a less controversial issue.
Not that I’m any maven BH (married over 40 years) but how else can a woman held hostage by an ex-husband gain her freedom? If there’s a clause in a prenup, or even a legal paper drawn up just stipulating a Get must be given, why is that coercion? Obviously, if the husband signed it he was OK with the idea.
The Beis Din is 100% Halachicly correct. If a Get is given while their is a legally binding prenup such as this one or the RCA type prenup, the Get is a Get Me’usa, invalid, and the wife remains an eishes ish.