Prenuptial Agreement – An Agreement of Mutual Respect
Hello Rabbi,
Regarding the “mutual respect agreement” that is recommended before marriage by various religious rabbis, I saw that you were asked in the past about your opinion and if I understood correctly, you recommend it, but I tried to find reasons and got a little stuck, and I would like to understand better.
I’m asking purely to understand that I have no interest in creating artificial equality or the opposite. I want to understand the spirit of the Torah/Sages and see whether the above agreement promotes this spirit or not.
The purpose of the agreement, as I understand it, is to prevent refusal of a divorce by either party, and it is carried out by paying a continuous monthly fine by the refusing party until the divorce is granted.
I won’t try to analyze it fully, also because I’m really not knowledgeable, but I’ll try in general, and I may be saying nonsense, but right now this is how I understand it:
1. The Torah/Sages have a point against hasty divorces, and therefore divorce is not a very easy thing to do and requires all sorts of things.
2. The Torah/Sages have an interest in opposing coercion in marriage and in favor of a certain freedom of will for divorce.
Accordingly, the question is how the aforementioned agreement affects these two goals of the Torah, which on the face of it seem to be in a kind of zero-sum game.
So regarding goal 1, it is relatively clear that the agreement does not advance it and actually harms it.
Regarding Goal 2, it does sound like he is promoting it.
So right now I remain confused about this agreement.
Now I ask further, regarding goal number 2 of the Torah, which it is ostensibly agreed that the agreement promotes, why are the regulations of the Sages throughout the generations insufficient?
Answers I came across:
A change in a woman’s economic independence increases reluctance because it increases the demand for divorce due to economic independency.
A change in the perception of marriage (it used to be a technical way to start a family, and today people are looking for a personal connection), as mentioned above, increases the demand for divorce.
Change in the legal system, once the court had power, today it is legal procrastination.
So, basically, all of these reasons cause more instability in the marriage, don’t they?
If I were to say that this is a reason to strengthen the stability of marriage and not encourage divorce even more.
Maybe I did it a little superficially, but I would still like to understand where I’m wrong, and maybe a little explanation as to why it’s recommended to sign,
Thank you very much.
Your assumptions are problematic. The fact that the trend of the sages was certain does not obligate us. Trends and policies are a changing and controversial matter. What is obligate is the halakha, not the trends. In my opinion, the change in circumstances today requires a different policy. There is no point in anchoring the woman. It is not helpful in any way for anything.
According to your logic, why is there a boycott of Dervno Gershom? The tendency of the Torah is that every man can have as many wives as he wants. Its tendency is also that a man can divorce a wife against his will. Policy is a matter that changes with the generations. What is appropriate and right for one generation can be terrible for another generation.
Thank you very much for the response and time, I sent a rather long question..
I understand and accept of course the commitment to Halacha and not to trends, I tried to say as you say about a simple and midrashic conservative, because as if in the end I assume that we are aiming for some spirit of the Torah (or of God's will), even if in practice we do the opposite of what is written in it.
In any case, I will try from another direction, without going into what the Torah/God wants.
I agree that there is no point in anchoring, and if the answer that the sages gave to the problem is not good today, then it requires an explanation of what has changed, and if it is not possible to implement today, then an explanation is also required. (From the mutual respect agreement in question, I do not understand these things, and it sounds like they are important for understanding the need for the agreement. I understand that it prevents refusal, but it sounds superficial to me, bordering on manipulative, not to discuss the entire background of the problem)
Regarding the boycott of Rabbi Gershom, I am very much in favor of amendments, even if I did not dig into why it was once legitimate for the Torah to permit multiple wives, nowadays I probably do not need reasons for it, I assume that the spirit of the Torah is correct and that these amendments are correct, how it works out is less critical to me right now, as is a forced deportation that I did not know about.
But here's something else, the agreement in question is actually a forced eviction, if one party wants to get a divorce, they are essentially forcing the other to pay them a significant amount until they get a divorce.
Personally, I would sign it if they asked me because I don't want to force anything or fight with anyone, but if the above agreement is really good and solves problems, it's a shame there isn't a better explanation of it because right now I really can't understand it.
(And I have no religious objection or anything to the matter, I will happily adopt the agreement if I think regardless of religion that it is good).
It turned out to be quite long again, sorry for the length, and thank you very much.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
