RSS Feed
Haifa, Israel - What is The Monetary Value of "200 zuz" In A Kesubah |
|
| |
Text Size
|
The ketubah (or more accurately, the" ketubah addition") is not an easy topic, and research has shown that is one of the most ambiguous, least clear concepts in Jewish law. Rabbis, lawyers and lay people can be divided into two categories- those who are convinced that the ketubah payment will never materialize and consequently the monetary amount set within it carries no real significance, and those who are positive that one can make use of the fixed monetary sum in the ketubah.
The Rabbinic Court rulings are likewise divided along similar lines. According to all opinions, an excessive ketubah amount is viewed as meaningless and invalid, for it is clear that the husband did not intend to obligate himself to such an exorbitant sum. The million dollar question, obviously, is what constitutes an "excessive amount"?
Not only are there questions surrounding the amount fixed in the ketubah addition, but the amount set in the ketubah itself is unclear as well. Who knows what is the monetary value of "200 zuz", the sum that is traditionally promised to every virgin bride? How should we obtain that information? Even the rabbinic court judges themselves do not have a definite opinion on the amount.
Regardless, the sum does not amount to more than a few thousand shekels (between 120-960 grams of pure silver), a long way off from constituting an amount that can support a woman for a year, as it appears in Jewish sources. The notion that a man is obligated to provide for his ex-wife's welfare for a year after their divorce is a nice idea, but is an irrelevant one nowadays, in light of silver's decreased value. As such, the ketubah and its addition are unclear, erroneous, and confusing; they certainly do not give or add honor to Judaism or to the rabbis entrusted with the task of making the Torah "a Torah of life".
The principal victims of this situation are men, who discover one bright morning that they brought financial disaster upon themselves during a moment of weakness. However, women are affected as well, particularly due to the fact that they rely on this money which they will likely never receive. Most of these women assume that they will succeed in getting the "ketubah money" from their husband, if he was the one responsible for the family breakup. However, only a minority of these women succeed, and the attorneys or private investigators that they hire often give them false hope.
Hard and fast rules
In 2007, Rabbi Daichovsky, sitting as a rabbinic court judge at the High Rabbinic Court, accepted the appeal of a husband who had been required to pay a ketubah sum of NIS 1 million, stating that the ketubah was invalid since it was an "excessive ketubah". In his decision, he explained that the ketubah addition was introduced in order to compensate for the disparity that had been created between the value of '200 zuz' during the rabbinic times, and its current monetary value. In his opinion, every sum fixed in the ketubah that exceeds NIS 120,000 is excessive and should not be taken into consideration.
The rabbinic court decision establishes a number of hard and fast rules on this issue. In his ruling, Rabbi Daichovsky criticizes the custom that has taken hold in a number of Jewish communities of stipulating excessive sums in the ketubah, which is often done as a way of showing off. He explained that nowadays, when women receive half of the marital assets, there is no reason for a woman to receive such a high ketubah. He also notes that the husband certainly did not intend to obligate himself to such a high ketubah in addition to his wife receiving half of their joint property.
Moreover, Rabbi Daichovsky pointed out that in most cases, the woman was not even involved in the decision to set the ketubah sum, and she often hears the amount for the first time under the chuppah.
The ruling is both sharp and clear, and reflects the approach of preserving the original rabbinic conception of the ketubah (providing for the woman financially for a year) in addition to preserving the ketubah's relevance in today's society (limiting the monetary amount) where a husband and wife are legally bound to split their joint property. However, it is also known that one rabbinic court ruling is not binding upon other rabbinical courts. Therefore, Rabbi Daichovsky's words will not solve this the problem.
What's a realistic sum?
So where are the rabbis that marry these couples? We can imagine who the foolish groom is who writes a NIS 1 million sum in the ketubah - but who is the wise rabbi who allows such a thing to occur? Doesn’t the person in charge of the wedding ceremony have a responsibility not to allow a groom, in a moment of arrogance or social pressure, to fix a sum that he can never realistically pay, if and when that day should come? Where is the Chief Rabbinate that should be issuing a decree in this matter?
Indeed, I have been told that Tzohar rabbis provide a general guideline that the ketubah amount should be reasonable and realistic, and that the maximum allowed by some of these rabbis is NIS 180,000. On the other hand, the Ramat Gan Rabbinate sets the limit at NIS 999,000. This seems to come from a belief that any number below one million is a realistic sum that the husband intends to pay(!).
There are those who believe that the ketubah addition should be limited to a strictly symbolic amount. Those who argue for this approach (largely in the United States), seemingly rely on the civil system to protect women’s' financial needs. On the other hand, Tzohar rabbis, who limit the ketubah amount, have stated that the ketubah money should not be relinquished and that the amount should be no lower than NIS 50,000. Regardless, the time has come to put this issue on the table and discuss it in depth.
More of today's headlines
“Williamsburg, NY - Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum joined Queens Councilmember Eric Gioia and members of New Yorkers For Parks, urging the city Parks Department to create...” Williamsburg, NY - Calls to Remove Artificial Rubber Pellets Turf
Tehran - EU Warns Iran With Strong Response After Arrest Of UK Embassy Staff
Total54
Read Comments (54) — Post Yours »
1
Jun 28, 2009 at 12:47 PM Anonymous Says:
If it is a nulled ketuba doesn't that nolify the merriage to begin with? Does that mean that we all got married non-holochically?
2
Jun 28, 2009 at 12:23 PM Anonymous Says:
So guys think twice before making the decition
3
Jun 28, 2009 at 01:55 PM Anonymous Says:
What if the husband can't pay up?
4
Jun 28, 2009 at 01:54 PM Anonymous Says:
“ So guys think twice before making the decition ”
just be sensible and try to make a marriage work!!!!!!!
5
Jun 28, 2009 at 01:46 PM Milhouse Says:
“ If it is a nulled ketuba doesn't that nolify the merriage to begin with? Does that mean that we all got married non-holochically? ”
Did you write $1M in your ketubah? I've been to many chupahs, and NEVER heard such an outrageous sum. In fact I've never heard anything but the traditional "mosayim zekukim kesef tzoruf". If you stuck to the traditional text, your kesuba is valid.
6
Jun 28, 2009 at 01:44 PM poor husband Says:
its a chutzpa that if the assets are split in half that the laidy still get money. back in the days of the g'mura all the woman got was ksuba and her nechsay m'lig and now assets and now they wana give assets plus k'suba? why? no wonder its hard for a woman to recive a get these days!!
7
Jun 28, 2009 at 01:01 PM wife who has been there Says:
Nice change of the regular where the husband blackmails the wife for money, in exchange for the get (divorce)
8
Jun 28, 2009 at 02:03 PM harav shach tzodek Says:
Before everyone starts offering their unsolicited halachic opinions, let's remember that this is a sitting bais din of dayanim mumchim.
Other botai din may disagree but please, let's try to speak in a mechubidik way. If not for their sake, then for our own sake.
9
Jun 28, 2009 at 02:42 PM anonymous Says:
Let's not forget that it's the woman's parents who many times pay for most of the apt. and support the couple while the "masmid" son-in-law is sitting and learning. So, if the couple does get divorced, the pele is not that the woman gets half of the assets, but that the man does.
10
Jun 28, 2009 at 02:39 PM Anonymous Says:
honest, I don't begin to chop the problem! if someone is gonna learn rambam hilchos tzedaka which says that someone that has less than 200 zuz can get tzedaka... do some research there make the math with the 'sela' and how many 'prutes' there is in it, you'll come to a cheshben the 200 zuz, is aprox. 3-4 thousand dollars!
what's the bes din's question? did the husband intend more? is it a 'slang' the 200 zuz?
if it says 200 zuz, it means 200 zuz, according to poskim today the above rambam by tzedaka is about $3-4K! what's the problem in chaifa?
11
Jun 28, 2009 at 02:10 PM harav shach tzodek Says:
Before everyone starts offering their unsolicited halachic opinions, let's remember that this is a sitting bais din of dayanim mumchim.
Other botai din may disagree but please, let's try to speak in a mechubidik way. If not for their sake, then for our own sake.
12
Jun 28, 2009 at 02:10 PM harav shach tzodek Says:
“ its a chutzpa that if the assets are split in half that the laidy still get money. back in the days of the g'mura all the woman got was ksuba and her nechsay m'lig and now assets and now they wana give assets plus k'suba? why? no wonder its hard for a woman to recive a get these days!! ”
There are already too many 'good' excuses for not giving a get but that is all it usually is, an excuse, so no one needs this new excuse.
We don't know 1% of 1% of what the bais din knows about this psak din, not about the facts and not about the halachah, so there is no reason for any of us to have anything to say against the psak or c"v against the bais din and dayanim themselves.
13
Jun 28, 2009 at 03:31 PM Anonymous Says:
“ Did you write $1M in your ketubah? I've been to many chupahs, and NEVER heard such an outrageous sum. In fact I've never heard anything but the traditional "mosayim zekukim kesef tzoruf". If you stuck to the traditional text, your kesuba is valid. ”
the traditional kesuba says that a husband must provide for his wife . no where does it mention in the kesiuba about long term kollel or short term kolllel
14
Jun 28, 2009 at 03:35 PM Milhouse Says:
“ honest, I don't begin to chop the problem! if someone is gonna learn rambam hilchos tzedaka which says that someone that has less than 200 zuz can get tzedaka... do some research there make the math with the 'sela' and how many 'prutes' there is in it, you'll come to a cheshben the 200 zuz, is aprox. 3-4 thousand dollars!
what's the bes din's question? did the husband intend more? is it a 'slang' the 200 zuz?
if it says 200 zuz, it means 200 zuz, according to poskim today the above rambam by tzedaka is about $3-4K! what's the problem in chaifa? ”
Read the article. This has NOTHING TO DO with the 200 zuz of the kesuba. It's about a husband who, not satisfied with the traditional "mosayim zekukim kesef tzoruf" (however much that is), promised $1M in tosefes kesubah. The problem is that it's an asmachta. He never expected to pay it.
15
Jun 28, 2009 at 03:53 PM Milhouse Says:
“ the traditional kesuba says that a husband must provide for his wife . no where does it mention in the kesiuba about long term kollel or short term kolllel ”
Huh? Where did that come from? What has your comment got to do with the topic? Or do you just shove your agenda in at random places to see whether you can start a fight?
16
Jun 28, 2009 at 04:13 PM Anonymous Says:
The husband should simply declare bankruptcy under Israeli law and render the bais din decision irrelevant. The rav who was masader kiddushim should never have allowed such a committment into the supplemental ketubah documents to begin with. Its hard to see why this bais din didn't simply nullify the promise but given their error, declaring bankruptcy would be a simple fix.
17
Jun 28, 2009 at 04:02 PM harav shach tzodaik Says:
“ honest, I don't begin to chop the problem! if someone is gonna learn rambam hilchos tzedaka which says that someone that has less than 200 zuz can get tzedaka... do some research there make the math with the 'sela' and how many 'prutes' there is in it, you'll come to a cheshben the 200 zuz, is aprox. 3-4 thousand dollars!
what's the bes din's question? did the husband intend more? is it a 'slang' the 200 zuz?
if it says 200 zuz, it means 200 zuz, according to poskim today the above rambam by tzedaka is about $3-4K! what's the problem in chaifa? ”
There is no problem in Chaifa. There is a problem in America where bloggers read half an article that in its entirety tells a miniscule portion of the whole story and based on those crumbs of information cast cast aspersions on dayanim mumchim half a world away.
18
Jun 28, 2009 at 03:55 PM Farmer Bob Says:
I say it's worth the value of 100 goats... And we can just leave it at that.
19
Jun 28, 2009 at 04:25 PM Shmuel Says:
why not simply write the amount in a currency unit we can all understand ..this way there is no debate after the fact as to what the husnads obligations are...if in israel it says say 400,000 shekels then its easy...if it was 100, 000 dollars in the usa again its easy...lets face it noone knows for sure the value today of 200 zuz...when God brings the redemption we willl then know...in the meantimee lets use some seichel..
20
Jun 28, 2009 at 04:55 PM Anonymous Says:
“ Read the article. This has NOTHING TO DO with the 200 zuz of the kesuba. It's about a husband who, not satisfied with the traditional "mosayim zekukim kesef tzoruf" (however much that is), promised $1M in tosefes kesubah. The problem is that it's an asmachta. He never expected to pay it.
”
Would the woman have to pay the husband the $1 million if she was the one who left the husband and wanted the get or is this a one way comittment?
21
Jun 28, 2009 at 05:43 PM Anonymous Says:
After more than ten years of marriage, and several children, I got one big zero for kesuba and even though my family paid for most of the marital assets, and I worked,
I also got zero for "equitable distribution". Not to mention the fact that my ex husband was an adulterer.
22
Jun 28, 2009 at 05:43 PM Anonymous Says:
After more than ten years of marriage, and several children, I got one big zero for kesuba and even though my family paid for most of the marital assets, and I worked,
I also got zero for "equitable distribution". Not to mention the fact that my ex husband was an adulterer.
23
Jun 28, 2009 at 05:34 PM Anonymous Says:
In the Ashkenazi world this is not a problem: it is always m'asayim zekukim kesef tzaruf. This varies with the value of silver, but is currently (rough calculation) in the 50K to 100K range. This was a sum adopted in Europe to replace the 200 zuz. In most western countries, this amount is subsumed, and probably dwarfed, by the court settlement.
The issue only arises in some Sefardi minhagim, where indeed it is an issue of kavod/simcha/ga'avah when the kesuvah is read under the chupah.
As far as asmachta, it does not apply to a kesuvah: otherwise, the entire concept of tosefes kesuvah would be moot.
There are gedolim (Rav Scheinberg comes to mind) who insist on the choson reading - and understanding - the kesuvah before the kaballas kinyan. This is despite the inyan that the standard ashkenazi kesuvah, even with the modified sum, is considered to have the status of tnai bes din. I suspect that if every choson truly understood "afilu mi'glimah da'al ksaifo'i", there might be fewer marriages.
There is also a spreading minhag that the eidim read the kesuvah before signing it. What a novelty!
And yes, this takanat chazal is indeed a one-way street. One reason is to protect the wife in light of the (former) absolute right of the husband to unilaterally terminate the marriage. Another reason, emphasized many times in Chazal, is to provide a financial incentive to women to get married.
I had a friend in Yerushalaim, a well-respected kollel yunger man, who was supported by his very competent wife. However, every day he would take some of his kollel earnings and purchase and prepare breakfast for her before she went to work in her clothing store. Le'kayaim Mah Shene'emar: Va'ana eflach ve'ozin...
24
Jun 28, 2009 at 05:16 PM harav shach tzodaik Says:
“ Huh? Where did that come from? What has your comment got to do with the topic? Or do you just shove your agenda in at random places to see whether you can start a fight? ”
What agenda? He has raised a very valid consideration.
25
Jun 28, 2009 at 05:15 PM harav shach tzodaik Says:
“ The husband should simply declare bankruptcy under Israeli law and render the bais din decision irrelevant. The rav who was masader kiddushim should never have allowed such a committment into the supplemental ketubah documents to begin with. Its hard to see why this bais din didn't simply nullify the promise but given their error, declaring bankruptcy would be a simple fix. ”
So there is no reason to keep one's word? I feel bad for your wife, but even worse for your kids who will grow up thinking a person's word means nothing.
26
Jun 28, 2009 at 06:14 PM Milhouse Says:
“ why not simply write the amount in a currency unit we can all understand ..this way there is no debate after the fact as to what the husnads obligations are...if in israel it says say 400,000 shekels then its easy...if it was 100, 000 dollars in the usa again its easy...lets face it noone knows for sure the value today of 200 zuz...when God brings the redemption we willl then know...in the meantimee lets use some seichel.. ”
Good grief. This has NOTHING TO DO with 200 zuz. VIN's headline is very misleading. If you read the article you'll see very cleraly that the kesuba in question did exactly what you want. It DID "write the amount in a currency unit we can all understand": it said "one million united states dollars".
27
Jun 28, 2009 at 06:16 PM Milhouse Says:
“ Would the woman have to pay the husband the $1 million if she was the one who left the husband and wanted the get or is this a one way comittment? ”
A kesuba is by definition a one-way commitment. If she leaves the husband and demands a get without good cause, she gets nothing; and she's not entitled to a get without his consent, so she will have to pay him whatever he demands.
28
Jun 28, 2009 at 06:19 PM Milhouse Says:
“ After more than ten years of marriage, and several children, I got one big zero for kesuba and even though my family paid for most of the marital assets, and I worked,
I also got zero for "equitable distribution". Not to mention the fact that my ex husband was an adulterer. ”
Let me guess: he did nothing to break up the marriage, and you're the one who decided to break it up and demand a get. There were no grounds to force him to divorce you, so you had to persuade him to agree. Well, them's the breaks.
Oh, and the halacha doesn't call it adultery unless the other woman was married. It is not adultery for a man to be with a single woman, even if he has a wife. And it's not grounds to force him to give a get.
29
Jun 28, 2009 at 06:21 PM Milhouse Says:
“ What agenda? He has raised a very valid consideration. ”
And the terrible situation in Darfur is also a valid consideration, but it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
30
Jun 28, 2009 at 06:32 PM Milhouse Says:
“ So there is no reason to keep one's word? I feel bad for your wife, but even worse for your kids who will grow up thinking a person's word means nothing. ”
In any case, I doubt bankruptcy would get him out of this.
31
Jun 28, 2009 at 07:41 PM Anonymous Says:
“ why not simply write the amount in a currency unit we can all understand ..this way there is no debate after the fact as to what the husnads obligations are...if in israel it says say 400,000 shekels then its easy...if it was 100, 000 dollars in the usa again its easy...lets face it noone knows for sure the value today of 200 zuz...when God brings the redemption we willl then know...in the meantimee lets use some seichel.. ”
if im not mistaken sefardim actually put a dollar amount in the kesubah
32
Jun 28, 2009 at 07:35 PM Anonymous Says:
“ In any case, I doubt bankruptcy would get him out of this. ”
Under the law in EY, my understanding is that one can escape alimony (or equivalent support for the spouse whether imposed by a family court or incurred as in this case pursuant to a private contract which is what a katubah really is). However, you cannot escape any support for children via bankruptcy so if there are kids involved, maybe she could claim the bankruptcy doesn't apply.
33
Jun 28, 2009 at 08:02 PM green Says:
this is a serious problem within jewish law - the entire marriage and get and what the husband should pay his wife - how is it that we do not know the law? how is it that we allow husbands not to pay their wives and support their children? ( this according to jewish law) while civial law requires the husband to pay to support his ex wife and children....seems to me that the civil law is ahead of the times while the jewish rabbis are stuck in the ice age and not getting out anytime soon.
34
Jun 28, 2009 at 07:50 PM Shmuel Says:
“ Good grief. This has NOTHING TO DO with 200 zuz. VIN's headline is very misleading. If you read the article you'll see very cleraly that the kesuba in question did exactly what you want. It DID "write the amount in a currency unit we can all understand": it said "one million united states dollars". ”
that part is ofcourse reasonable with what you state although these amounts should be clearly understood by both the bride and groom weeks before the wedding and not disclosed for the first time on the day of the wedding.... ...
do you agree that in 5769 we should eliminate the use of 200 zuz period?
35
Jun 28, 2009 at 09:05 PM Milhouse Says:
“ if im not mistaken sefardim actually put a dollar amount in the kesubah ”
Which is precisely the problem.
36
Jun 28, 2009 at 09:32 PM Anonymous Says:
“ Which is precisely the problem. ”
So according to Millhouse, all the Sephardeshe gittin are pasul? I doubt that is true.
37
Jun 28, 2009 at 09:07 PM Milhouse Says:
“ that part is ofcourse reasonable with what you state although these amounts should be clearly understood by both the bride and groom weeks before the wedding and not disclosed for the first time on the day of the wedding.... ...
do you agree that in 5769 we should eliminate the use of 200 zuz period?
”
The 200 zuz of ikkar kesuba is takonas chazal, and cannot be changed. The tosefes kesuba can be changed, but you have to be careful, as this story proves.
38
Jun 28, 2009 at 10:53 PM Anonymous Says:
Since the 200 zuzim traditionally stated in the ikkar ksuba is not md'doraysa, it definitely can be changed. A takana from chazal is given great respect but under certain cirumstances can be modified by rabbonim of a later generation.
39
Jun 28, 2009 at 11:14 PM Milhouse Says:
“ Since the 200 zuzim traditionally stated in the ikkar ksuba is not md'doraysa, it definitely can be changed. A takana from chazal is given great respect but under certain cirumstances can be modified by rabbonim of a later generation. ”
What are you, Conservative? Reform? What conceivable authority could rabbonim have to alter Chazal's takono?
40
Jun 29, 2009 at 09:52 AM Bruce Says:
“ What are you, Conservative? Reform? What conceivable authority could rabbonim have to alter Chazal's takono? ”
Have you ever been to a Sfardische Chasuna they write tosefes kesuba.
(BTW please respone to my latest about SF )
41
Jun 29, 2009 at 09:44 AM Harav Shach Tsodaik Says:
“ What are you, Conservative? Reform? What conceivable authority could rabbonim have to alter Chazal's takono? ”
What are you, incapable of discussing anything with anyone without challanging their frumkeit?
42
Jun 29, 2009 at 09:26 AM yossi Says:
My wife can get my Food stamps,Medicaid card and all my debts.....I will sleep in Shomer Shabbos 13th ave. and 53rd street....
43
Jun 29, 2009 at 12:53 PM Holy Cr*p Says:
I can not remember the last time I saw someone "enlightening" the public with such an abundance of half truths and incomplete information. What is the sequel going to be? A three hundred word summary "claifying" the dissonance between the standard model and quantum physics?
44
Jun 29, 2009 at 01:57 PM Anonymous Says:
“ I can not remember the last time I saw someone "enlightening" the public with such an abundance of half truths and incomplete information. What is the sequel going to be? A three hundred word summary "claifying" the dissonance between the standard model and quantum physics? ”
Care to give us all ahint - To who or what was your comment directed?
45
Jun 29, 2009 at 01:53 PM Anonymous Says:
“ that part is ofcourse reasonable with what you state although these amounts should be clearly understood by both the bride and groom weeks before the wedding and not disclosed for the first time on the day of the wedding.... ...
do you agree that in 5769 we should eliminate the use of 200 zuz period?
”
No, for what reason?
46
Jun 29, 2009 at 02:41 PM Milhouse Says:
“ Have you ever been to a Sfardische Chasuna they write tosefes kesuba.
(BTW please respone to my latest about SF ) ”
And therefore? What's your point?
47
Jun 29, 2009 at 02:41 PM Milhouse Says:
“ So according to Millhouse, all the Sephardeshe gittin are pasul? I doubt that is true. ”
Another moron heard from.
48
Jun 29, 2009 at 02:43 PM Milhouse Says:
“ What are you, incapable of discussing anything with anyone without challanging their frumkeit? ”
Obviously I am, since I do that all the time. But when someone says we can alter chazal's takonoh, he is by definition not orthodox.
49
Jun 29, 2009 at 03:02 PM Milhouse Says:
“ Have you ever been to a Sfardische Chasuna they write tosefes kesuba.
(BTW please respone to my latest about SF ) ”
I responded yesterday at 5:55pm. There isn't anything from you since then. If you would like to take this up further in email, please contact VIN for my address. They don't like me giving it out in public.
50
Jun 29, 2009 at 08:38 PM harav shach tzodaik Says:
“ Obviously I am, since I do that all the time. But when someone says we can alter chazal's takonoh, he is by definition not orthodox. ”
Better get those reading glasses checked. The poster did not write that WE can change takanos chazal. The poster wrote that rabbonim may modify takanos chazal.
If you think it is OK to declare the writer non-Orthodox for this somewhat unorthodox (for Orthodox Jews) view I am sure you won't mind when others Declare those who believe in a dead moshiach coming back to life non-Orthodox for their unusual (for all Jews) belief.
51
Jun 30, 2009 at 12:06 AM Milhouse Says:
“ Better get those reading glasses checked. The poster did not write that WE can change takanos chazal. The poster wrote that rabbonim may modify takanos chazal.
If you think it is OK to declare the writer non-Orthodox for this somewhat unorthodox (for Orthodox Jews) view I am sure you won't mind when others Declare those who believe in a dead moshiach coming back to life non-Orthodox for their unusual (for all Jews) belief. ”
Who are rabbonim but "we"? What power do they have that "we" don't? We, including all rabbonim alive today, do not have the power to meddle with takonos chazal. Ikkar kesuba is 200 zuz, because they said so.
Besides, if we WERE to bring the kesuba up to date, we would scrap it altogether. Since Cherem d'Rabbenu Gershom, Ashkenazim have not been able to divorce their wives without their consent. The whole point of the kesuba is to give the husband a disincentive to divorce his wife without just cause; now that that is impossible for Ashkenazi men, they shouldn't have to write a kesuba at all. But of course we can't change takonos chazal, so the kesuba continues, 200 zuz and all. The only room for change is in the tosefes kesuba, and as this story shows one must proceed with caution even there.
52
Jun 30, 2009 at 07:25 AM harav shach tzodaik Says:
“ Who are rabbonim but "we"? What power do they have that "we" don't? We, including all rabbonim alive today, do not have the power to meddle with takonos chazal. Ikkar kesuba is 200 zuz, because they said so.
Besides, if we WERE to bring the kesuba up to date, we would scrap it altogether. Since Cherem d'Rabbenu Gershom, Ashkenazim have not been able to divorce their wives without their consent. The whole point of the kesuba is to give the husband a disincentive to divorce his wife without just cause; now that that is impossible for Ashkenazi men, they shouldn't have to write a kesuba at all. But of course we can't change takonos chazal, so the kesuba continues, 200 zuz and all. The only room for change is in the tosefes kesuba, and as this story shows one must proceed with caution even there. ”
It never occured to me that the poster meant me when he wrote that today's rabbonim can modify takanos of chazal and it sure never occured to me that he meant HGHR Milhouse, GRBDTK"Z dekehilla kedosha VIN.
Either way, you failed to respond to the main point of my comment, i.e. your labeling the writer of that idea (with which I disagree) as not an Orthodox Jew.
Your need to toss around insults like 'shaigetz' and 'moron' and to denounce as outside the realm of Orthodoxy those who differ with you keeps raising its ugly face, to the point that to my mind, and perhaps to the minds of other loyal VIN readers, that ugly face is the one I think of when I see the name Milhouse. (Mith apologies to R' Richard Milhouse Nixon, a"h.)
The second you start deciding to exclude from the fold those who express differing ideas you open the door for Lakewood to write off YU, Brisk to write off Lakewood, Modern Orthodoxy to write off Satmar and the rest of us to write off Chabad.
Not what klal yisrael needs right now.
53
Jun 30, 2009 at 08:28 PM Milhouse Says:
“ It never occured to me that the poster meant me when he wrote that today's rabbonim can modify takanos of chazal and it sure never occured to me that he meant HGHR Milhouse, GRBDTK"Z dekehilla kedosha VIN.
Either way, you failed to respond to the main point of my comment, i.e. your labeling the writer of that idea (with which I disagree) as not an Orthodox Jew.
Your need to toss around insults like 'shaigetz' and 'moron' and to denounce as outside the realm of Orthodoxy those who differ with you keeps raising its ugly face, to the point that to my mind, and perhaps to the minds of other loyal VIN readers, that ugly face is the one I think of when I see the name Milhouse. (Mith apologies to R' Richard Milhouse Nixon, a"h.)
The second you start deciding to exclude from the fold those who express differing ideas you open the door for Lakewood to write off YU, Brisk to write off Lakewood, Modern Orthodoxy to write off Satmar and the rest of us to write off Chabad.
Not what klal yisrael needs right now. ”
So where do YOU draw the line? Or don't you have one, in which case what's wrong with reform, reconstructionist, conservative, etc? Presuming to change takonas chazal is the sign of a non-orthodox Jew.
54
Jun 30, 2009 at 09:48 PM harav shach tzodaik Says:
“ So where do YOU draw the line? Or don't you have one, in which case what's wrong with reform, reconstructionist, conservative, etc? Presuming to change takonas chazal is the sign of a non-orthodox Jew. ”
I'm not much into drawing lines. If I needed to know where to draw one I would ask my manhig where to do so.
Perhaps there was a need to draw clear and bold lines 100 ago when we were losing ground to Reform and Conservative. Today it is they who are on the decline, not us. We have no need for a va'ad hadai'os and if we did need someone to draw lines between us and Reform you can rest assured the job will not fall to you.