Update to Prenups V - Stretching the Hechsher

Author’s note – This post is a review and extension on the issue of endorsements for the BDA prenuptial agreement. It is a follow-up to my post on November 7, 2018. I recommend reading that post first.

One of my long time Yeshiva buddies comes from an East Coast “out-of-town” community. Back when we were in Yeshiva, he told me this story about the local bakery. 

This bakery had the hechsher of the local kashrut vaad but the Jews that owned and operated it were not very Orthodox. It seems the non-religious owners were confused about how many days there are in Pesach and began baking the chametz in advance of the conclusion of the Yom Tov. The aroma alerted the entire neighborhood.

The owners were indeed Jewish and, as such, this infraction would render the resulting baked products as unfit for consumption by G-d fearing Jews (actually, by any Jews). As to be expected, some concerned community members voiced their complaints to the local kashrut vaad. How can they certify that the products of this bakery can be eaten if some of them certainly cannot?

The response of the vaad was to brush off the complaint by saying: our Hechsher applies only to the ingredients.

This story opened my eyes to a kashrut “alert” that is, quite unfortunately, all too common. Sometimes the endorsement only goes part way. In order to make it fit the entire product, it needs to be stretched.

This happens a lot in regard to food kashrut. A restaurant claims to use only Mehadrin products. But is there anybody who makes sure that vegetables are checked, dishes are toveled, and that the cooking process is not conducted exclusively by non-Jews? The butcher claims to be under the hashgacha of Rabbi Ploni but Rabbi Ploni is actually the mashgiach in the slaughterhouse where the meat comes from. Or Rabbi Ploni is only certifying that the meat comes from reliable sources. Nobody is certifying that the butcher kashers or trabers properly. Or a vaad gives a hechsher on one branch of a restaurant or bakery chain or one product of a food line and there is some kind of an implication that the hechsher is in effect for other branches or other products. This misconception is bolstered by a lack of clear communication from the vaad.

It even happens that some people assume that one can eat at the affairs in a given hotel because last month another [more] trustworthy Jewish person or organization had an affair there using a private caterer.

The point is that the hechsher per se may be totally authentic and trustworthy, but they only go part way. They don’t cover the finished product. Whether the intentions are sinister or not, the hechsher is “stretched” to cover the deficit.

The concept of “kashrut” does not apply only to what we eat. There are other Jewish paradigms that must be “kosher”. Tefillin and mezuzos, mikvaos and eiruvim.

Eiruvim in particular suffer from incomplete kashrus standards. This was the message I related in a post I wrote long ago about the eiruv controversy in my home town back in the 1990s. You can see the entire story in this post.

To summarize, the story tells of a local Rabbi that I called Rabbi Rosencrantz. Rabbi Rosencrantz initially supported the construction of the eiruv but he later withdrew his support. In a Shabbos morning speech in his shul, he presented three reasons for withdrawing support:

1.   The purpose of the eiruv was to enable women with small children to attend shul and kiddushes and simchas, thus enhancing the Shabbos experience. It was not intended to enable people to play tennis or to go rollerblading in the parks on Shabbos afternoon or to use umbrellas. These activities weaken the Shabbos experience. The eiruv committee had assured him that they will ensure that the eiruv is not used for the wrong reasons. His support was based on this assurance. However, it seems that the abuses were being committed and the committee was not taking any of the promised measures. He could not let himself be seen as one who can look the other way when the eiruv is being abused and Shabbos is being denigrated.

2.   The eiruv was erected in compliance with the halachic standards of HRHG Rav Moshe Feinstein, ZT”L.  However, some breaches developed and, instead of being properly repaired, they were neglected by relying on some lenient shitos which did not live up to the Halachic standards of Rav Moshe, ZT”L. Thus, although the eiruv was built in accordance to the standards of Rav Moshe, ZT”L, it was not being maintained in accordance to those standards.

3.   There was a movement to link this eiruv with those of some adjacent neighborhoods to form one big “kosher” domain. Unfortunately, the Halachic standards of the other eiruvim did not match up to those of the original eiruv. As such, Rabbi Rosencrantz was afraid that his endorsement of the original eiruv will be seen as if he likewise endorses the kashrut of the newer eiruvim. He could not allow this, either.

Amazingly, all of the three reasons had one common denominator. They were all different examples of “stretching the hechsher” or something I call “kosher by association”.

In the first case, the “hechsher” on the appropriate activities was being “stretched” to give an ipso facto hechsher to the inappropriate activities. In the second case, the hechsher on the construction was being stretched to give an ipso facto hechsher to the maintenance. And in the third case, the hechsher on the original eiruv was being stretched to give an ipso facto hechsher on the other adjacent eiruvim.

And now we come to the main topic that I wanted to discuss. The BDA prenuptial agreement.

If you are a loyal follower of my blog, you may be having a case of déjà vu. Yes, I already discussed all of this in my blog post last November. In that post, I strongly criticized the impression of endorsements that is presented on the BDA Prenup web site. I described two problems with the “endorsements”. The first is that there does not seem to be any endorsements by the renowned Gedolim on the “finished product”. Here is what I wrote:

Well, it is definitely true that Rav ZN Goldberg, Shlita, Rav Ovadiah Yosef, ZT”L, Rav Chaim Zimbalist and Rav AZ  Weiss, Shlita endorse the concept of the PNA. Further, the basic language of the agreement, more or less a copy of the Toras Gittin, was endorsed by Rav ZN Goldberg, Rav Ovadiah and three others back in 1992. Rav Asher Zelig Weiss wrote an undated letter where he outlined the mechanics of reasonable mezonos and ruled that there is no problem of coercion in this case. He clearly implies that if the allowance for mezonos is not reasonable, we are in trouble. We have no idea from his writing at what point the mezonos are considered unreasonable. Of course, we can always ask him (AMV”Sh).

However, there have been a few changes since 1992. Did anybody endorse those?

What we have here is that we may have a reliable hechsher on the ingredients – dated 1992, but not on the current finished product of 2019. This is akin to Rabbi Rosencrantz’s second issue with the eiruv. There may have been an “Igros Moshe hechsher” on the initial construction but not on the current status.

The second endorsement issue concerned how the prenup is used. I wrote:

There was a strong resolution in 2006, another in 2013 and the strongest yet in 2016. Each one takes the question of get meuseh up one notch. Did any Gadol endorse any of these resolutions?

The resolution in question, that of 2016, is one that mandates all RCA Rabbis to insist that a chosson should sign a prenup such as the BDA one. Here is what I wrote in the previous post:

The 2016 resolution that mandates all RCA Rabbis to require a PNA for every wedding they officiate at, or refuse to officiate, is very scary. As it is, the PNA is treading on thin ice in the area of coercion and many are those who invalidate it for this reason. But even those who do not – and we know that Rav Asher Zelig Weiss’s letter of endorsement only addressed the issue of coercion – may feel that this resolution crosses the line. It certainly invokes the words of the Rema in Even HaEzer 134:4 who stated that bidiavad, if the husband gives a get while under the influence of a self-imposed penalty, the get is still valid “since initially he was not compelled to do this…”. The obvious implication is that if the fellow was compelled to accept this fine, it is a forced get by all opinions. In line with this remark in the Rema, even though we are now dealing with mezonos and not a fine, for one to be compelled to accept upon himself an exaggerated amount of mezonos is very problematic to say the least.

So here we have an example of Rabbi Rosencrantz’s first issue. The eiruv may be kosher l’mehadrin when used properly. But it can also be abused to include activities that are not Halachically sanctioned (or at least, אין רוח חכמים נוחה בם). Here, as well, perhaps the prenup is kosher if used properly. But if it is used in a way that reinstates the problem of get meuseh, the endorsement won’t apply.

As such, I thought it is a good idea to check it out. So I accessed the website for the Beis Horaah of HRHG Rav Asher Zelig Weiss, Shlita and asked this question. Here is my exact question (you can see it online HERE):

Many of us have seen the teshuva from Moreinu Harav that states that an agreement for a husband to provide reasonable mezonos for his wife even after they separate will not facilitate a get meuseh. It seems that Mo”HR encourages this procedure.

We are aware that numerous poskim of today’s generation indeed view this payment of mezonos to be a “Knas in disguise”. It appears that Mo”HR does not agree with this shita.

However, the Rema in 134:4 that is quoted, when he says that bediavad the get is valid, ends his words: “since he was not initially forced into this.”

In light of this, my question is: it seems that some rabbinic bodies are making this agreement compulsory as opposed to voluntary. They state that a member Rabbi must refuse to be mesader kiddushin if the groom refuses to sign this agreement.

Does Mo”HR maintain that since this is mezonos it does not adversely affect a get even if the agreement was compelled, or do we need to be choshesh like the other poskim that this is truly a knas and as such even the Re,ma will not validate a get bediavad because the groom was forced? Or does Mo”HR maintain that this type of compulsion is not considered being “initially forced into this” and is not the intent of the Rema?

In short, does the endorsement of Mo”HR stand even in a case where the groom is pressured or compelled to sign the agreement or only if it is totally voluntary?

And here is his exact answer (through an emissary):

The Rav’s endorsement for this practice is only when it is done voluntarily. The choson should in no way be compelled or forced into this agreement.

I rest my case.

Or so I think. But the promoters of the BDA prenup do not back down very easily. One person to whom I sent this teshuva put up a battle. He wrote:

I am confused.  Everyone agrees with Rabbi Asher Weiss's response.  No one is forcing or coercing.  Rabbis are refusing to perform seder kidushin without it -- but that is hardly "force" or "coercion" either as a matter of halacha or as a matter of secular law in America. 

Indeed, one who reads this English teshuva sees exactly that Rabbi Asher Weiss approves of the use of the agreement when voluntarily entered into.  The desire to have "Rabbi X" perform one's seder kidushin is NOT COERCION AT ALL.  Consider the following case: I want Rabbi X to come to my son's brit, but he tells me that he will only come the brit if I give him $100.  Is that coercion?  Of course not.  This is halacha 101. 

In brief, he wants to claim that the RCA approach would not be considered coercion. The chosson is free to choose another Rabbi.

I responded:

I incorporated your view in the question. I was hoping he would be more specific, but I guess he doesn't want to. In any case I gave him a full "out" to be able to declare that this practice does not constitute coercion and he did not want to take this route. My personal feeling is that many MO boys do not have rapport with a long list of Rabbis and are not in a position to go shopping for a non-RCA (or Young Israel) rabbi. Also, the choice of rabbis may not even be theirs (it could be their parents and sometimes from the other side). Also, chassanim are often married in the girls' town, not on home field. This cannot be brushed off by "just find another Rabbi." Also, there is obviously a collusion of Rabbis to insist on signing.  

I am not with you.  

Regardless, at the very least, BDA has a responsibility to formally assert that it must be voluntary and that nobody should sign it if he doesn't want to. They are treading on very thin ice. 

My correspondent simply wrote me back that he does not agree with me. Still one thing is certain – regardless of whether the RCA resolution is Halachically considered coercion, Harav AZ Weiss, Shlita does not endorse it. 

My purpose in these posts is not to discredit the validity of the BDA prenup. It is to explain why the Chareidi community will not sign on to it. Both Rabbi Rosencrantz and HRHG Rabbi Weiss have illustrated our problem:

When one stretches a hechsher, the hechsher is on a stretcher.

Sidenote – I contacted my cousin who is a West Coast RCA Rabbi. He told me that the RCA has no means or program to enforce their resolutions and that this resolution is largely ignored by most RCA Rabbis. He has never implemented it personally.