There are other prenuptial agreements to prevent denial of child support signed in the United States. Moshe Tendler offers an alternative version. [citation required] 23 Even if we assume that there are rabbinical judges who support the agreement and are afraid to make their position known for various reasons, in a reality where the rabbinical court is an official court of the state, it is easy to understand that the spouse filing the divorce cannot demand that his case be heard by a particular rabbinical judge. just as litigants cannot choose the judge to hear their cases in the civil courts. In contrast, in the United States, the parties can choose the court, but signing the agreement requires them to appear before a court that supports the agreement. Rabbi Aryeh Klapper testifies: “A large number of marriage contracts have been offered. Everyone had their halachic defenders and detractors, but for better or worse, none received the kind of broad support needed for effectiveness until seven years ago. At that time, a mechanism originally proposed by Rabbi J. David Bleich and developed by Rabbi Mordekhai Willig gained overwhelming halakhic approval throughout the Orthodox rabbinate. Rabbinical organizations such as CAR and Young Israel and secular organizations such as the Orthodox Caucus and the Wedding Resource Center then began to continue their efforts to make the signing of this agreement a universal practice.
These efforts are increasingly successful. The number of couples signing the agreements increased dramatically, as did the number of rabbis who strongly recommended them at wedding meetings or even refused to officiate without them. [5] 97 For a Hebrew rabbinic version of the husband`s obligation in the American agreement, see Auman & Herring, op. cit. Cit. Note 10, page 54. Veteran Rabbi Avraham Sherman presents the argument against the Tzohar Agreement in the broadest terms. Footnote 94 He repeats this argument repeatedly and in many ways, emphasizing how alien he is to the spirit of Halakha. This seems to be the main argument of his article: for example, “the authors of the marriage contract have `excluded` the rabbinical court and the Torah for which it is responsible.” Footnote 95 10 Much has been written about this agreement, its transformations and its halakhic foundations. See e.B. Kenneth Auman & Basil Herring eds., The Prenuptial Agreement: Halakhic and Pastoral Considerations (1996); Rachel Levmore, Minʻi ʻEnayikh mi-Dimʻah [Gardez vos yeux des larmes] 53–67 (2009); Levmore, Rabbinic Responses in Favor of Prenuptial Agreements, 42 Tradition 29 (2009); Levmore, Preventing Get Refuse: From The Beth Din of America to the Israeli Agreement on Mutual Respect, tinyurl.com/z4g2ywq; Willig, Mordechai, The Prenuptial Agreement: Recent Developments, 1 Journal of the Beth Din of America 12 (2012)Google Scholar. De nombreuses informations sont disponibles sur les sites web dédiés à la signature de l’accord : L’Organisation pour la Résolution Agunot (ORA), www.getora.org/#!the-prenup/ctzx (dernière visite le 14 mai 2018) ; The Prenup, www.theprenup.org (dernière visite le 14 mai 2018).
After one of the judges expressed his rejection of Rabbi Prover`s remarks, he revealed the basic principles of his worldview: “I don`t know the phrase `non-existent marriage` in Poskim. I don`t know poskim`s idea of `she doesn`t want him at all`. Footnote 131 In other words, Rabbi Prover understood that the rise of Ma`is Alai`s soil in rabbinical courts is influenced by Western concepts of “easy divorce” or at the request of women, a concept that he believes rejects halakha. We can also understand the position of the opponents of the agreement. The main section of these agreements deals with the husband`s obligation. pay the woman higher monthly spousal support (even though she is not entitled to it under the law) if he refused to give his wife support if she sued him. The agreement was supported by yeshiva leaders at Yeshiva University and by key halachic decision-makers and judges, especially from Israel. Footnote 13 In 2006, the largest rabbinical organization in North America, the Rabbinical Council of America, decreed that its members must ensure that such an agreement exists when performing a wedding ceremony. Footnote 14 Members of the Beth Din of America report that the agreement has a 100% success rate: it has led to quick divorce settlements in most cases and has prevented rejection even in the rare cases where the husband who signed the agreement initially refused to grant the divorce. In other words, it is reasonable to assume that he solved cases where a prolonged rejection by the husband could have followed if he had not signed the agreement. Some rabbis have expressed halachic reservations about the Jewish marriage contract. 82 For the opinion of another rabbinical judge of Beth Din of America in a lesson on the agreement, see Rabbi Michoel Zylberman, Contemporary Topics in Even HaEzer 8: Prenuptial Agreements, YUTorah Online (August 13, 2015), tinyurl.com/z98wob7. Starting at minute 22, Rabbi Zylberman mentions Rabbi Lavi and his opposition to the idea of divorce on demand, as it exists in practice in the agreement (see below), but notes that even though Rabbi Lavi is right in principle, we have no alternative because we live in a society where people separate without any chance.
and we have no way to keep them married. Of course, this presupposes that the reality in the diaspora is a reality that, unlike the situation in Israel, demands clemency. .