Questioner:
I tried to find an agreement of this kind online, and I came across many reservations about such agreements and even many halakhic problems with them, including the issue of a coerced bill of divorce. There are halakhic decisors who hold that as long as such an agreement is in force, all married life is in a state of prohibition, like one who keeps his wife without a ketubah.

Rabbi Rosen wrote in this article:
http://www.zomet.org.il/?CategoryID=262&ArticleID=247

About 15 years ago, several proposals regarding prenuptial agreements were brought before the Council of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, headed by Rabbi Avraham A. Shapira and Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, and on the 15th of Adar I 5746 a clear-cut decision was made to reject those proposals.
About 7 years later, the Chief Rabbis Rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau and Rabbi Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron established a think tank, including veteran rabbinical judges, which was asked to examine in practice several ideas on preventing women from becoming chained wives. To the best of my knowledge, no decision was made to approve any wording of an agreement compatible with Jewish law.

At the end of the article he wrote:

In conclusion: I do not see any remedy in these agreements, and the damage in them is ten times greater than the benefit. And this is aside from the halakhic doubts concerning the validity of the bill of divorce. May God enlighten our eyes in His Torah, and save us from errors, that we not err in a matter of Jewish law.

This article also discusses the issue extensively:

דף הבית

And this article presents the main opinions of the halakhic decisors:
http://din.org.il/2014/11/24/%D7%94%D7%A1%D7%9B%D7%9D-%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%91%D7%95%D7%93-%D7%94%D7%93%D7%93%D7%99/

In other words, it may be that by signing such an agreement I would end up losing more than I gain. I assume I’m not the first to face this dilemma, and therefore I’m looking for an agreement that is halakhically acceptable, if such a thing exists. If you know of such an agreement, I’d be happy if you could direct me to it.

In addition, as I understand it, there is a dilemma here between two values: on the one hand, the woman’s welfare in a case of refusal to give a divorce, and on the other hand, halakhic problems involving serious matters such as mamzerut, the prohibitions of a married woman, and so on. Wouldn’t it be correct to say that a doubt involving such severe prohibitions overrides the woman’s welfare?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
I’m not familiar with the wording of the various agreements, but I completely disagree with the halakhic decisors and rabbinical judges you mentioned. One who keeps his wife without a ketubah does not create mamzerut, nor a problem of a married woman, nor any problem other than the prohibition of keeping his wife that way, and at most intercourse with an unmarried woman—which is what also happens when the Sages retroactively annul a marriage.
If you’re looking for supporting authorities, leading halakhic decisors in the United States have supported these agreements for years, and from what I understand, in the OU they do not officiate at weddings unless such an agreement has been signed.
In my opinion there is no serious concern with a reasonable agreement drafted by rabbis who know what they’re doing. And the benefit is great and definitely justifies it. I’m completely in favor.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Questioner:
I didn’t mean that the concern about mamzerut or the prohibitions of a married woman comes from remaining without a ketubah—that is a separate concern. Rather, according to what the halakhic decisors write, the concern about mamzerut stems from the invalidity of the bill of divorce, because they claim that the bill of divorce is given by the husband under financial pressure and sanctions applied to him in case he refuses to give the divorce, and therefore the bill of divorce is invalid. But in practice, the woman and the husband are not aware that the bill of divorce is invalid, and therefore the woman’s new partner may end up violating the prohibitions of a married woman, and their children will be mamzerim.

I’d be happy to use such an agreement, but first I want to make sure that at least the concern of a coerced bill of divorce does not apply here. I’d be glad to hear why, in your opinion, there is no halakhic concern here of a coerced bill of divorce.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
In order to give an opinion, one has to discuss a specific agreement and not speak in general terms. Each agreement and its mechanisms. As a rule, in the wordings I know there is a condition in the betrothal, and the coercion of the religious court only implements the condition, so there is no concern of a coerced bill of divorce.
And even regarding ordinary coercion without a prenuptial agreement, in my opinion in most cases when a divorce is compelled for justified reasons, the concern about a coerced bill of divorce is merely conservative hysteria. It is proper to compel in appropriate circumstances, and what is appropriate is of course a question of society and time and historical period, and comparing this to the statements of early halakhic decisors is conservatism out of place.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Questioner:
What do you think of the Agreement for Mutual Respect or Tzohar’s Ahava Agreement?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
I read the agreements and everything seems fine to me. There is no coerced bill of divorce here at all, and it does not even state here that the religious court has permission to compel anything. There are proposals in which, if necessary, the husband accepts upon himself that the religious court may write a bill of divorce on his behalf, or compel him by force to write a bill of divorce, and he agrees to that in advance. In this agreement, the husband accepted obligations upon himself, as did the wife, and if those obligations cause him to divorce his wife, then in my opinion there is not the slightest concern of a coerced bill of divorce here. What he undertook, he is obligated to fulfill. If it is difficult for him to fulfill what he undertook, and because of that he divorces her, there is no coercion or lack of consent in that. This is an excellent reason for him to decide to divorce his wife, and it is entirely his own will.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Questioner:
I found a draft of an agreement to prevent a situation of a chained wife in English online at the following link:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/33122968/Broyde-Tripartite-Agunah-Proposal

The draft of the agreement begins from section 12.

In your opinion, at first glance are there any halakhic “red flags” here that one should be careful about?
Also, would you sign such an agreement yourself?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
Unfortunately, due to time constraints it is difficult for me to go through all of this and analyze the issue.
To the best of my judgment, the condition on page 12 is fine, although there are halakhic decisors who would oppose it because according to Jewish law there are no conditions in marriage—that is, after the marriage, conditions attached to the betrothal are nullified. In my opinion this is not binding, because the nullification of the condition once the marriage takes place is only because we estimate the intention of the one making the condition, that he did not intend to leave the condition in force, since activating it would turn his intercourse into promiscuous intercourse, because the betrothal would be uprooted. But if he seriously intends for this condition to remain in force even after the marriage, and does so before an important religious court and in coordination with it, I do not see any obstacle to making such a condition. I did not go over the rest.
———————————————————————————————————————-
Questioner:
Is there any point in signing this agreement even though it is not accepted by most halakhic decisors and by the religious establishment in Israel, and probably would not make it possible to permit the chained wife if they had to activate the agreement? Or perhaps even one rabbi who recognizes the halakhic validity of the agreement would be enough to permit the chained wife?
———————————————————————————————————————-
Rabbi:
I’m not familiar with the practical way things work. I assume that if there is an agreement, it will be hard to ignore it. In any case, there is no reason not to sign and make the effort; at worst, you will be in the same situation as without an agreement.

The definition according to which “if it is difficult for him to fulfill what he undertook, and because of that he divorces her, there is no coercion or lack of consent in that. This is an excellent reason for him to decide to divorce his wife, and it is entirely his own will” sounds very extreme. By the same logic, any person could undertake in advance that he is willing to be beaten until he gives a bill of divorce—would that not be coercion because he had “agreed to it” in advance? Surely it is obvious that we need his consent now.

Not similar at all. According to your approach, any pressure applied to him would make it a coerced bill of divorce. Financial pressure agreed to in advance is not comparable to beatings.