Prenups X: More Trei Gadya - A Consumer's Guide to Halachic Prenuptial Agreements

 

Yes, I am still writing about “Halachic” prenuptial agreements. I am fully aware that with all the craziness that is going on now – this weird Covid-19 pandemic and even weirder elections, both here in Israel and in the US – this is not a currently hot topic.  

Yet, Parshat Chayei Sara is here. This week the Torah teaches us how to get married.

Marriage is a primary part of our lives, and this dreadful pandemic is bringing out both the best of us and the worst of us. Marriages are being initiated (barely), sustained, and even dissolved under very unfamiliar, challenging, and stressful circumstances. Shalom Bayis is under assault. People who may never have considered pre-thinking marital discord may be seeing it more and even experiencing it themselves.

And the drumbeats for “Halachic” prenuptial agreements are beating louder and stronger.

So we continue (and, hopefully in another post or two, we conclude).

All through this series we have been discussing the Beis Din of America (BDA) Prenuptial Agreement (PNA) exclusively. This is because this is the creature that is being mass marketed in North America. But, as I repeatedly wrote in the previous posts, the BDA PNA is fraught with baggage. Here is an updated list. (This list will be in numbers instead of bullets so we can refer to the individual items by number. The hyperlinks will access the post where it is discussed.):

1.  Asmachta
   
   
2.   Waiver that is not binding
   
   
3.  Reliance on a distorted kim li
   
   
4.  Question if supra-mezonos is called mezonos
   
   
5.  What happens when mezonos is not obligatory (moredes or adultress)
   
   
6.  Court enforcement with no regard for Halachic nuances
   
   
7.  Coercing the chosson to sign the prenup
   
   
8. Automatic Get meuseh (Mishkanos Yaakov and Chazon Ish)
   
   
9.  The whole mechanism is a catalyst for divorce

For sure, the powers-that-be have responses to almost everything (I still haven’t gotten anything on the waiver issue) but this list does show us why this is so controversial. Fortunately, for prenup advocates, we are not stuck with this PNA as our sole option. There are quite a few alternatives.

Here in Israel, the Modern Orthodox community is marketing the Agreement for Mutual Respect designed by Dr. Rachel Levmore. It is very similar to the BDA PNA but there are some notable differences which we will discuss.

These two are the front runners because various progressive pro-prenup groups are promoting them. Yet, aside from these, there are quite a few other options. Here is a sample list:

• BDA
  
  
• Levmore
  
  
• HRHG Rav Moshe Feinstein
  
  
• Rabbi Bleich/Spira
  
  
• Rabbi JD Bleich Tenayim Prenup
  
  
• RCA Liquidation
  
  
• Rabbi SY Cohen
  
  
• Rabbi Judah Dick
  
  
• Rabbi Ariel Zvi-Rosen
  
  
• Rabbi Haskel Lookstein
  
  
• Yashar coalition

Let’s get back to the BDA. Why does it carry so much baggage?

The answer is: it is trying to achieve several conflicting goals. It is trying to pressure a husband to give his wife a get while not crossing the line into get meuseh. It is trying to be totally binding and fool-proof and that it should and remain practical and user-friendly. And they need it to be halachically sound.  

That’s a tall order, it is next to impossible to get all this in one contract. The only way they can do it is by employing some innovative Halacha and misrepresenting the concept of Kim Li.

All the other options are aware of these problems and they either forgo some of the goals or make themselves more complex and imposing upon the groom and less practical and user-friendly. One thing is certain: the mere existence of the other alternatives and the issues that they are designed to fix testify to the flaws of the competing ones!

Let’s look them over.

 

Rav Moshe Feinstein

I want to start with this one because it is the shortest and simplest. Also, it is from the pre-BDA era (1980). And, lastly, because and it is the polar opposite of the BDA PNA.

In Igros Moshe Even HaEzer IV:107 Rav Moshe ZT”L writes:

As to your question if it is acceptable to add to the tenayim this text:

If, after the marriage, the sides separate, Ch”v, the husband will not withhold giving a get piturin and the wife will not refuse to accept it as will be mandated by the Beis Din of <name of BD>.

Such a thing is permissible and will not cause a get meuseh.

The experts generally agree that the primary inhibitor to recalcitrance is merely getting the couple to agree to show up and abide to a Beis Din. Any qualified BD. So, this incentive is basically a pre-arbitration agreement to abide by the ruling of a predetermined Beis Din.

In most acrimonious divorces, there is a lack of cooperation from the get-go and it is next to impossible to even get both sides to show up in front of a Beis Din. Quite often each side insists on a different Beis Din. Once they both show up to a Beis Din, it is very difficult to maintain a recalcitrant façade. Eventually, the stubborn side cracks. Only the few and mightily stubborn succeed in snubbing Batei Din for years on end.

As such, the first part of all of these commercially marketed prenuptial agreements is that the sides agree to bring their quarrel in front of a predetermined Beis Din. In the case of the BD prenup or its Chicago affiliate, it is specifically the “local” BDA BD or, in Chicago the RSF/RYR BD.

This is what Rav Moshe Feinstein’s prenup does as well, but it does nothing more than this. There is no penalty or financial pressure or waivers so there are no problems with asmachtas, kim lis, or mezonos. It’s totally Halachically sound.

Of course, it is not recalcitrance proof, but it is not meant to be. It does not aim to solve the problem once and for all, only to reduce the cases. It’s meant for people with integrity who keep their word and honor their signatures.

The arbitration agreement part of the BDA, Yashar and some of the other prenups are written in a way as to be able to force the couple into arbitration, even by way of the secular court if necessary. Rav Moshe’s prenup doesn’t even do that. It relies on the integrity of the parties and the assumption that they are G-d fearing and will live up to the terms of the tenayim. The fact that it is written into the tenayim give it also a “divine spiritual” force due to all the charamim and kelalos that are lavished upon those who do not uphold a marriage tenayim.

Of course, the question arises if a secular court is used to enforce the agreement to go to binding arbitration in BD, does this constitute a get meuseh? It seems that most poskim won’t consider it as such. This may also be Rav Moshe’s intent, but it isn’t clear.

What is noteworthy is the way Rav Moshe concludes his teshuva. Although he says this clause is perfectly acceptable in the tenayim, he remarks:

Of course, the objective to shield a couple from the fetters of igun is a great thing, nevertheless, at the outset (l’chatchila), it is not appropriate to arbitrarily recommend this stipulation to every couple that marries. The mesader kiddushin must assess the bride and groom to ascertain if there is a risk that the nature of the couple will, Ch’V, bring about disputes and quarrels between them.

Clearly, Rav Moshe Feinstein was aware of the inherent dangers of a prenuptial agreement and was wary of them.

All told, it looks like Rav Moshe Feinstein’s “prenup” is clear on all 9 issues. This is why it is the polar opposite of the BDA PNA.

 

Dr. Rachel Levmore – Agreement of Mutual Respect

We will next discuss the Levmore initiative and leave the others for a future post.

The Levmore prenup is the Israeli version of the BDA PNA. It is being promoted by the International Young Israel Movement (IYIM) and is available in English, Hebrew, French, Spanish and Russian. I am assuming that there is no intrinsic difference between them so I will only discuss the English version. (Aside from the Hebrew one, it’s the only version I can read.) You can read it HERE.

I would say that it is a tad more modest than the BDA prenup in that it does not call itself a foolproof solution and does not boast “100% success rate”. It calls itself an agreement “for the Prevention of Get-Refusal” – not the “eradication” of it. As is indicated on their website, they are closely allied with the BDA and, indeed write in their prenup that if the couple is residing outside of Eretz Yisrael, the agreement defaults to the BDA PNA. I assume this can work in the US and Canada, but its hard to say if it is valid anywhere else.

What makes this alliance so important is the fact that, on their website, the IYIM does not display a letter of endorsement from a single Orthodox Rabbi. Not a one. It goes without saying that the current “brass” at the BDA or RCA will vouch for it, and you may say that they are piggybacking on the Rabbinic endorsements for the BDA prenup – HRHG ZN Goldberg, ZT”L, Rav Ovadia Yosef, ZTL, Rav AZ Weiss, Shlita, Rav Chaim Zimbalist, etc. -  to imply that they can be applied to theirs. Yet, there are differences and each version really needs to be endorsed. This is aside from the fact that, outside of their own Rabbinate, even the BDA prenup has no endorsements on the total product.

The Levmore prenup works on the same principle of enticing the husband to promptly give a get subject to the “penalty” of continuous excessive mezonos obligations. Since this is based in Israel, the given amount is more modest to the tune of USD $1500 per month (currently about NIS 5100) or 50% of the husband’s income of the previous month, whichever is greater, for as long as the couple remain married.

Here’s the twist. The BDA prenup works on a straightforward future obligation wherein no part of the prenup agreement even begins to take effect until the marriage is on the rocks and the couple goes into separation. It is totally “futuristic”. This brings about all the problems of asmachta and a deferred waiver and instituting a new level of mezonos which can be seen as a knas in disguise.

In order to circumvent some of these issues, the Levmore agreement employs the Chachmei Sefard method that was first discussed in this post (HERE). This is a roundabout technique wherein we immediately (i.e., from the day of the wedding) implement a monetary obligation and automatically suspend the obligation with an exemption for as long as things are good between them. When things go south and the obligation is meant to be put into effect, the exemption is cancelled. As such, the Levmore PNA divides the marriage into three time zones:

        (A) The suspended obligation period – When they are living in harmony or trying to. The aforementioned monetary obligation ($1500 or half salary per month) is theoretically in effect but is held in probation by the exemption like a suspended jail sentence.

     (B)  The “Period/Extended Period” (may or may not be what you think) – This is a time period of six to nine months after things start to turn sour and one party wants to separate. At this point, the one who wants to separate must serve formal notice to the other of his/her desire to separate and from that date the clock starts ticking. The agreement allows for a mandatory six-month period which is meant to be spent undergoing couples’ counseling and attempts for reconciliation. This period may be extended another three months if a marriage counselor recommends it. After this, only the Sender of the notice can decide whether or not to allow more time.

       (C)   The active obligation period – When rehabilitation has failed, it is now like violating probation and the earlier dormant obligation is activated with no further exemption.    

So here is what the agreement stipulates: The husband obligates himself to the exorbitant monthly “support” payment ($1500 or more) immediately at the time of the marriage. But, to postpone that for the time being, the wife agrees that she will be satisfied with whatever she receives and will not demand this exorbitant amount. If she wants to separate from him, she has to first give notice and make some effort to patch things up. Afterwards, she is allowed to demand the complete amount. This comes along with a waiver for his claim to her earnings almost the same as the PDA. So, at this point, he will be stuck with a heavy cost for staying married and will not make too much fuss about delivering a get – just like Toras Gittin recommends.

So this is almost exactly like the BDA PNA and the only main difference is that instead of writing in a futuristic obligation to take effect at some unknown point of marital strife, it takes effect immediately but is suspended until it is appropriate to implement it.

What is the advantage of this method?

Firstly, it basically eliminates issue number 1 – Asmachta. Remember, the Rema is very fond of the Chachmei Sefard system and says that it “always works”.

I also think it makes many of the other issues less problematic. We may be able to explain away issues 4 and 5 which are: “Can exaggerated ‘support’ be called ‘mezonos’”? and “What if the woman is a moredes or adulteress and not entitled to mezonos”?

Firstly, we are not changing the amount of the man’s obligations for mezonos at the breakup because he had always obligated himself to this amount. This is a bit closer to the trei gadya that Yitzchok promised Rivka from day one.

Secondly, the same argument that I used to challenge Rabbi Willig and the BDA prenup – that Yitzchok’s endowment to Rivka is a perk of the ketuba and not mezonos – can be the saving grace in the Levmore PNA. Since this amount is awarded from the start of the marriage like Yitzchok’s two goats, we can say that this obligation is not really mezonos and neither is it a knas. It is a bonus hitchayvut (perk or tosefet ketuba) that the husband is giving his wife gratis. Except, perhaps, in exchange for this, she foregoes her claim of mezonos. In the BDA prenup, this would look like a knas since it only takes effect at breakup. In the Levmore prenup, it can be argued that it was always part of the marriage agreement and can’t be called a knas. This is great, but it may come back to bite us later!

I also think that this “immediate obligation” prenup has less issues with get meuseh.  This system may not invoke the opinions of the Mishkanot Yaakov and Chazon Ish who would call any BDA-prenup-inspired get a get meuseh. Likewise, I think if the chosson was pressured to sign this before the wedding, it is not as serious in this prenup for the same reasons (i.e., that the obligation is immediate and not a knas imposed later on). And, again, since this obligation began at the marriage and is not dependent on whether the wife is Halachically entitled to mezonos, it could be said that even if a non-Jewish court enforces the “support” obligation, there is no concern of get meuseh. Actually, Rav Moshe Feinstein seems to write this explicitly in IgM Eh”E IV:106. All this can potentially alleviate issues 6, 7, and 8!

The Levmore PNA makes no mention of relying on kim li to put this thing in effect. Actually, in Clause D, it goes the opposite direction and directs the party under obligation to forgo any defensive claims that could be based on kim li. This alleviates issue number 3.

So, what’s left?

Well, issue number 2. In my opinion, it doesn’t do anything to help the problems with the waiver. Moreover, it does not even have the vacuous “will be deemed to have repeated this at the time of the wedding clause”. You might want to counter that, here in Israel, it is rare that a wife earns enough to really offset the obligation. Maybe yes and maybe not.

The only other issue is number 9 which is not a Halachic problem but a philosophical one that applies to almost any prenup – the prenup itself is a catalyst to ensure that the breakup winds up in divorce. But even this is alleviated with the mandatory reconciliation period which is not required in the BDA prenup. Basically, this obligation only kicks in when almost all hope is lost.

So, at this stage, the Levmore PNA is scoring much higher than the BDA prenup in Halachic integrity. And, in truth, of the two models, I do think it is the better one. You “get” more with Levmore! (All puns intended.)

So, what’s the downside and why is it playing second fiddle?

Yes, indeed, there are a number of flaws.

First and foremost, I already noted that there are no prominent poskim who directly endorse this prenup. It may be safe to assume that any posek who endorses the BDA prenup will certainly endorse this one because it’s even better but, still, there are no official endorsements on record (or on display).

Another problem is that this prenup has absolutely no preliminary arbitration agreement. There is no agreement to take their quarrel to any BD at any point in the process. The Rav Moshe Feinstein agreement and the Yashar Coalition agreement (not this post) are nothing but let’s-go-to-BD arbitration agreements. The BDA agreement is both an arbitration agreement and a financial obligation agreement. The Levmore PNA is nothing but a financial obligation agreement with no prerequisite mention of any direction or supervision of Beis Din!

[Note - Beis Din does make a cameo appearance in clause E-5 (Man’s obligation) and F-5 (Wife’s obligation) solely regarding the wife’s appearance or lack thereof as a determining factor to her eligibility or liability after the fact, but there is no previous stipulation for her to show up or any talk of the husband showing up to BD at all in the entire document.]

As such, in clause D, the part about the interim rehabilitation period, the determination on whether the marriage is salvageable is left strictly to the discretion of a “marriage counselor” with no involvement of a Beis Din whatsoever.

Moreover, on the side that this $1500 obligation does have all the trappings of Halachic mezonos, then it is subject to the conditions of eligibility to mezonos. The BDA promoters (e.g., Rabbi Michael Broyde) acknowledge that their Beis Din may determine if the wife is not eligible for mezonos, but the Levmore agreement does not entrust anything to Beis Din!

You might want to answer that this agreement is designed for Eretz Yisrael and, in Eretz Yisrael, the Rabbanut BD oversees all matters of divorce automatically. Fine and dandy, but this is only after they have opened a file in the Rabbanut. This agreement does not stipulate opening a file and seems to already set the terms. Indeed, once they open a file in BD, BD will determine if they look at this obligation as mezonos or not and, besides, if they are there already there and they are Israeli citizens, there is no need for any of this. It’s very hard to be recalcitrant here. Thus, if the wife is not eligible and the “obligation” is deemed a knas, it can likely make more problems than it solves.

Let’s take a closer look at the Levmore prenup. We will start at Clause E (1-5).

Clause E-1 sets the husband’s financial obligation for the active post-counseling period at USD $1500 or half his salary. Sub-clause E-3 is the waiver which isn’t binding. Sub-clause E-4 says that the wife gets her money regardless. It does not matter if she is a moredes or adultress or otherwise not Halachically eligible for mezonos – but it is subject to E-5. Sub-clause E-5 presents the sole exclusion to E-4: if the wife does not show up to Beis Din as required or refuses to accept a get, only then is the husband exempt. It does not indicate any other form of non-cooperation from the wife such as showing up to BD but not listening to them and/or dragging out proceedings or reaching a settlement.

To summarize this part, the husband’s dormant obligation comes to life when the wife wants to separate and they undergo an interim counseling period which could possibly be torpedoed by said wife. Thereupon, as long as she shows up to Beis Din and claims she is willing to take a get, he needs to keep paying her until things are settled regardless of who is holding out for better terms and regardless if he is arguing for Shalom Bayis.

Got it?

Now let’s look at “the better half” – Clause F. Clause F is the reciprocity clause wherein the woman is also obligated to pay her husband the greater of $1500 or half her monthly income after the interim period for no reason whatsoever!

We do not understand why she should pay her husband until we reach sub-clause F-5. There it gives the counter-exemption that this obligation is not enforced if the wife shows up to Beis Din as expected and agrees to take a get. Here again, showing up to Beis Din is her way out of this obligation regardless of any other misbehavior on her part.

Notice that this part is also set up with the Chachmei Sefard early-obligation method. But why?

Unlike the husband’s obligation (Clause E) which takes effect immediately at the wedding, the wife’s obligation, even if applicable, is not even born until the breakup. As such, what do we need a Chachmei Sefard maneuver for and how does it even help? This is a futuristic conditional obligation declared at the wedding which goes into effect later. This has the exact same asmachta problem as anything in the BDA prenup. The Chachmei Sefard remedy is worthless!

As an aside, it’s nice to have reciprocity, but if the wife is a housewife or very low wage earner, there is nothing for her to offer the husband. Of course, the same goes for her if the husband is broke. She won’t get the $1500 either, and if there are kids, she can forget it. Poor husbands are much more common here in Israel.

After Clauses E and F comes Clause G which explicitly affirms what I just wrote above that the husband’s obligations are enforced and the wife’s are exempted based on the wife’s consent to accept a get regardless of the wife not consenting to settle on collateral issues. They even spell out a long list of collateral issues.

Clause R is where it says that if the either party is no longer residing in Israel, or is somewhere where there is no jurisdiction on this agreement, then they are defaulting to the BDA prenup as a substitute.

I am not a lawyer, but I wonder if such a clause is really enforceable to subject someone to an agreement that they did not actually sign. Moreover, as I brought up way earlier, could this be enforced outside of the US and Canada? In Mexico? South Africa? Australia? Europe?

The only other clauses I want to bring up is the Q and L paradox. Clause Q is the standard legalese that says that the parties acknowledge that they read and understand the agreement and consulted with the experts and are not being coerced.

Going back to Clause L, we have the Halachic legalese which puts in all the anti-asmachta disclaimers of m’achshav and Beis Din chashuv and kinyan hamo’il – the usual suspects. All this is fine and makes sense per the Halachic shitos that recommend these. But there is one part that doesn’t work. This is the bitul modaah.

What is a modaah and what is a bitul modaah and why won’t it work here?

Chazal were aware that in our cruel dog-eat-dog business world, people may be forced into agreements they don’t want to make. The Sapranowitzes may make an offer they can’t refuse like: “In three minutes, either your signature or what’s left of you will be on this contract.”

To protect an honest Joe from this thuggery, Chazal determined that a person can notify – i.e., give a verbal “modaah” or notification­ – to two witnesses on the sly that he is being forced to sign a contract against his will. Later on, he can bring these two witnesses to Beis Din to testify that even though he clearly signed the contract, he didn’t want to and Beis Din will invalidate the contract. This can be done for any contract that requires the free will of the party including a get.

But this open’s a Pandora’s box since, now, any unscrupulous husband can give a get today and, theoretically, he can later bring two witnesses – real or fake – and claim that he notified them that he was forced to give this get and it will invalidate the get. This can cause big problems especially if the wife married somebody else and had children.  

To prevent this from happening, Chazal mandated that as part of the ceremony in every single get proceeding, the husband must first make a declaration that he never gave a modaah to any witnesses and he is cancelling any modaah that comes forth as well as invalidating any witness that tries to claim such a thing. Only then do we allow him to give the get. This sub-ritual is called a “bitul modaah”.

The Levmore prenup wants to insert a bitul modaah into their agreement by writing it in as a clause in the agreement. Problem is, you can’t write a bitul modaah into the very document that you are trying to protect. If you were really forced to sign this document, then you can claim that you were forced to sign the whole thing including the written bitul modaah as well. It’s part of the document so it’s part of what you were forced to sign. If you really produce a modaah, it will invalidate the document including the bitul modaah that is in it.

A modaah works as a verbal notice that is given to witnesses outside of the document in question. And a bitul modaah is done verbally in front of Beis Din. It is never part of the document and it can’t be.

As such, the bittul modaah portion of Clause L is totally worthless. That said, if the husband actually does bring witnesses that he made a modaah that he is being coerced, it is going to nullify Clause Q as well. Subsequently, it will nullify the entire prenuptial agreement.

So now we see the Achilles Heel of the Levmore PNA. It may be on a little better Halachic footing (except for the waiver and the bittul modaah) but it is a much harder sell. It is less user-friendly and much more imposing upon the husband to be.

The BDA prenup does not require any commitments to be put into effect right away. This is what makes it so popular. It is one of the most user friendly prenups. Everything – the expanded mezonos and the waiver of the wife’s income – only takes effect when trouble is a brewin’. This puts people at ease because they don’t anticipate any trouble. Alas, it is also a part of its undoing. The delay for implementation brings out the problems of asmachta and exaggerated or undeserved mezonos.

In order to alleviate the asmachta and mezonos problems, the Levmore prenup uses the Chachmei Sefard method which saddles the chosson with a whopping support obligation right out of the starting gate. Sure, the obligation is held back by the automatic exemption, but psychologically, the chosson will feel under constant threat. The suggestion that this obligation is not really mezonos and not subject to eligibility limitations can work against us because then it can be said that the wife can collect it even if she is the “shtinker”. And, lastly, it seems even easier for a secular court to enforce this obligation and force the husband to pay it than it is with the BDA prenup.

So let’s play this out. At the chosson tish:

Masader Kiddushin (MK): Mazel Tov, Chaim. You must be very excited.

Chasan d’nan (CD): Sure am, but a bit nervous. I hope I am doing the right thing.

MK: Sure you are. We already did the tenayim. Now we need to fill in the ketubah and I want you to sign this.

CD: What is this?

MK: It’s a Prenuptial Agreement of Mutual Respect for the Prevention of Get-Refusal.

CD: I am not planning to give a get.

MK: Of course you’re not. That’s why you need to sign this. Sometimes plans change. You wouldn’t want your sweet lovely kallah to get hurt, would you?

CD: Well, what does it say?

MK: It says that you must fork over to your wife either USD $1500 (NIS 5100) or half of your income (whichever is more) every month starting tomorrow.

CD: USD $1500 (NIS 5100)? I’m going to Kollel. She’s the one who’s working.

MK: Good for you. Listen, don’t worry about it. She needs to sign it too and it says that she won’t ask you for more than you give her.

CD: What if she does?

MK: You don’t have to give her. She agrees not to ask.

CD: Then why am I making this ridiculous obligation?

MK: In case she wants to leave you, then she’s allowed to ask.

CD: Let me get this straight. When we are living together and I need to feed her she will be happy with whatever I can come up with, but if she runs away from me and I don’t really need to feed her, I need to give her half of what I make or more?

MK: Chaim, you’re such a special guy. She would never run from you unless you’re not getting along. This is meant so that you can end it quickly with get.

CD: I could end it quickly with a get without paying USD $1500 every month.

MK: It’ll just go even quicker. Also, you may have second thoughts about giving a get.

CD: Well, maybe because I want to work it out.

MK: You get six to nine months to pull that off.

CD: And then?

MK: If she wants out, you give a get or pay up.

CD: If I still want to work it out?

MK: Her choice.

CD: Just like everything else. Look. I have no plans of mistreating her. I plan to live happily ever after.

MK: I told you, plans can change.

CD: Hers or mine?

MK: You never know.

CD: What’s in it for me?

MK: Well, if you want to give her a get and she doesn’t want to take it, she will have to pay you.

CD: Also starting tomorrow?

MK: No. Her obligation only starts at showtime.

CD: Look. I’m not planning on divorcing my wife and I hope she’s not planning on divorcing me. I’m not interested in writing her a $1500 monthly check starting tomorrow even if she won’t cash it. I don’t want to give her any ideas. I’ll pass on this and just write my wife a ketuba like my father did and his father did.

Quite frankly, this is not the kind of conversation a chosson wants to have at his chosson tish or even a week or month before it. It can put some dark clouds in the sunshine and can actually tarnish the entire relationship. Like Rav Moshe Feinstein says, it can do more harm than good.

At the end of the day, this prenup is just a variation of the BDA prenup. Better in some ways and worse in others. Of the two, I still think it’s the better one (I live in Israel). So, if you are in favor of prenups, go for it.

There are several other “also ran” options on the list. And I would like to run through them. We’ll do it in an upcoming post.

In the meanwhile, Eliezer Eved Avrohom gave Rivka a gold nose ring and two bracelets and camel-fulls of goodies in the name of Yitzchok, and he gave her a ketuba with two goats a day - but he didn’t write her a “Halachic prenup”.