Rabbi Avi Shafran, Director of Public Affairs for the Agudath Israel of America, agreed that pre-nuptial agreements are not common in the charedi world. None of his six married children has one, he said. “My understanding of the reason is that detailing what will happen in the event, G-d forbid, of a divorce would start a marriage off on a negative, dangerous note,” Rabbi Shafran explained. “The message a newlywed may take from it, especially in our times, sadly, is that marriage is like any business agreement. Clauses in a contract establishing a legal partnership would understandably deal with the event of the partnership’s dissolution. But a joining of two people into one is qualitatively different, and incomparably important. So, to begin the challenging but holy enterprise of married life amid thoughts of what will transpire at a divorce is neither prudent nor proper.”Ah yes, the holy enterprise of matrimony cannot at all be sullied by the thought that the woman needs to be protected just in case of divorce. A pre-nup makes a marriage too much like a business transaction.
IDIOT! Isn't a marriage sealed with a business-like transaction (kesef or shtar)?? IDIOT! Isn't a ketubah already a pre-nuptial agreement of sorts, as it stipulates the monetary obligations of the husband in case of divorce??
Shafran's rationalization is BULLSHIT, plain and simple.
Posts
7 comments:
It isn't Shafran's idea. I think this idea was first mentioned in the journal Noam years ago. At that time, I think the reason was more because the idea was first brought up by Reform and Cpnservative Rabbis and therefor had to be rejected, the reason given by Shafran being just an excuse.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/love-lessons/201007/prenuptial-contracts-blight-or-just-bright
Rabbi Broyde has said that there is not ONE case of an agunah where the RCA pre-nup was signed, and indeed no RCA rabbi is supposed to officiate at a wedding unless one is signed.
So no, this is not Shafran's idea, but he is a very public figure who - by his refusal to tackle a workable solution to a very serious issue - is perpetuating a great wrong in the Orthodox community.
It depends on the secular courts upholding the agreement which is iffy.
in any case, underlying shafran's point, it the basic truth that no one actually reads or cares what the ketuba is about... it is just another thing to be mumbled, like all other liturgy
It depends on the secular courts upholding the agreement which is iffy.
I recently heard a rav dispute Broyde's claim. But that claim doesn't mitigate Shafran's stupidity.
Post a Comment