Website containing information on the Beth Din of America prenuptial agreement, the only most effective solution to solve the Agunah problem, including the forms of the agreement. Critics of the policy say that not all rabbis believe that Jewish law allows the use of a Halaïssian prenupe. Some authorities believe that the wise men of Israel have already introduced the Ketubah and that it is inappropriate to add new documents that go beyond their original guidelines. Some believe that forcing a man to give a path through the prenup can lead to a null divorce, since the get must be given voluntarily. In addition, some fear that couples who do not want to sign the agreement will turn to unorthodox rabbis to marry them. It is also possible that “not yet Orthodox” couples working with an Orthodox rabbi may be rejected by asking that they choose not to have Orthodox marriages, or even to reject Orthodox Judaism altogether. Beth Din of America director Yona Reiss, has repeatedly stated in public arenas (orally and weekly in The Jewish Press) that “the marital agreement is 100% effective to her knowledge. In any case, a couple who had already signed a marriage pact and subsequently divorced was delivered on time. [Citation needed]. The BDA-Prenup and the Tzohar-Prenup have much in common and, unlike the Na`amat version, they do not reduce the authority of the rabbinate.
These two agreements create an obligation of financial support from the spouse (and, in some versions, on the part of the wife) that an aggrieved party may recover in the event of opposition from the other party. In other words, if a man refuses to send a letter to his wife, the woman can garner considerable financial support from her until he decides to take her out of the chains of a dead marriage. This obligation of assistance creates a serious financial deterrent for the husband to persevere in his indiscreet. It is important to note that this mechanism is based on a halakhic obligation of marital support that exists during a halakhic marriage and is not a punishment. Instead of challenging the issue of the enforced execution of a spouse for the purpose of accepting an agreement, it is likely that the parties will indict the applicability of the premarital/arbitration agreement. Ultimately, it remains to be seen whether, in the years to come, we can see a decrease in acceptance of a “get” process and an increase in litigation over the applicability of marriage/arbitration agreements. The standard rabbinical agreements adopted by the CAR have a language it calls “arbitration agreements” and contain optional sections that haunt beth Din to decide all custody and/or finance matters. “The parties agree that Beth Din of America has the authority to adjudicate on all monetary disputes (including the division of ownership and maintenance). . .
. states an optional box on the “contract of engagement” form. Ultimately, the question of future enforceability may depend on whether the courts treat these mandate-related agreements as private arbitration agreements to deal with issues of fair distribution, assistance and conservation, or marital agreements.