[Avodah] Keshuvah

[Shoshana L. Boublil]

> From: Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org>
> Subject: Re: [Avodah] kesuvah

> 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?

First of all, the clause is NEVER ignored.

A. If the wife is suing for divorce -- she doesn't get the ketubah money. 
The funds were designated for payment when the husband wants a GET.

B. The formula used during the actual GET ceremony refers to the fact that 
by that time the parties have agreed what to do about the ketubah funds and 
therefore they are not an impediment to performing the GET.

So, there is no "minhag of not paying the ketubah", rather, the financial 
issues between the parties include many items (apartment, child support, 
pension and savings plans etc.) and the ketubah funds are just one such 
item, owed if the husband is the one seeking a GET.

The Ketubah has become more valuable in Israel over the last 15 years as 2 
things have changed:
a. Mesaderei Kiddushin are putting more emphasise on making sure that the 
Chatan knows the meaning of the Ketubah, and therefore limit the sum written 
there to a reasonable sum (in the past it was customary to write imaginary 
sums as a 'sign of love').

b. More and more lawyers are using the ketubah and it's related laws during 
the divorce process.

Another side issue is that the ketubah is being used more (over the last 15 
years) for cases of Chalitza and rights for widows.  Here are 2 case 
summaries (I'm not going into all the details):

A. A man died while saving someone from drowning.  The family decided that 
they wanted the couple's apartment and told the widow that she could hand 
over the apartment in return for the Chalitza, otherwise she could sit and 
wait.

The case came before the Dayanim who heard the sides (who didn't admit in 
court that they wanted the apartment) and they gave excuses for not giving 
the Chalitza.  The Dayan told the brother of the deceased that as she was 
considered his wife until he gave Chalitza, he was going to impose Mezonot 
on him to the sum of 10,000 NIS a month (legal lowest salary in Israel is 
around 4,000 NIS) plus all her utility expenses.

The brother gave chalitza the same day...

B. A widow (2nd marriage) was about to be thrown out of the apartment by the 
deceased's kids, not b/c they needed the apartment (they already took all 
the money etc., and they had their own homes and were very well off), but 
b/c they hadn't liked the fact that their father had remarried.  The widow 
had sufficient income to live on, but not to obtain living quarters.

Using the Ketubah as a basis, she sued to remain in the apartment, without 
paying rent, for as long as she was a widow.  Also, based on the Ketubah, 
she sued for maintenance from the estate.

The kids realized that they were going to lose everything, and they settled 
with the widow to allow her to live peacefully in the apartment and she 
would leave the rest of the inheritance alone.

The problem is not the Ketubah, it's that most lawyers don't know enough 
about it to take advantage of it.

Shoshana L. Boublil