[Avodah] kesuvah

[Micha Berger]

On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 08:40:12AM +0200, Arie Folger wrote:
:> This is the problem with the Leiberman clause. Which is not only
:> restricted to covering the case of divorce, but only to the case of
:> civil divorce with no get forthcoming -- a very rare resolution of the
:> contract.

: I don't see what my explanation has to do with Lieberman or with codicils.

I asked why having a minhag of not paying the kesuvah when giving a get
didn't make the document an asmachta.

Your answer, to the best I can tell, was that it wouldn't be an asmachta
because the issue only comes up if the marriage ends with a get. Your
words were:
> Because the ketubah isn't only about what the wife will get when she
> gets a get (puns intended), but both the support owed while married and
> the maintenance owed after her husband dies.

Well, the kesuvah isn't only about the case of a mesareiv get, and in
fact far more rarely ends in siruv than in get, and a codicil about this
possibility /is/ ruled as being able to turn the whole thing an asmachta.

So if a very rarely invoked clause could invalidate the contract, why
wouldn't a more frequently invoked one that gets routinely ignored do
the same thing?

I admit, the difference between honoring the get clause in the kesuvah
is about the same as ignoring it -- we're only ignoring it because she
is getting more money "on the side" anyway -- but I am confused about
a minhag to regularly ignore a contract (even by mutual agreement) vs
the definition of asmachta. If going in, the chasan knows it would be
ignored if they ever ended up giving a get, how is that phrase in the
kesuvah not enough of an asmachta to void the whole contract?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
micha at aishdas.org        and her returnees will come in righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org   
Fax: (270) 514-1507