The Parshah in a Nutshell, Bamidbar

The Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), which is the largest Orthodox rabbinic group in the world,
and the Beth Din of America have announced the publication of an updated edition of their widely used Halakhic Prenuptial Agreement.

The purpose of the agreement is to avoid, as much as possible, situations in which a spouse withholds a get - a Jewish divorce - from his or her spouse. The original agreement was issued more than a decade ago, and the RCA says it has been "responsible for a dramatic drop in the incidence of so-called 'agunot,' or 'chained women' among those who made sure to sign it prior to marriage." 

Agunot are Jewish women whose husbands refuse to grant them a Jewish divorce, thus leaving them in a situation whereby they are not living with their husband, but cannot get remarried. An abusive husband may refuse to grant his wife a get because he wants to leverage his power in civil court so that she may be willing to give him custody or visitation with the children or perhaps be willing to ask for less spousal support or other economic support for granting her a get.

Some rabbis have stated that they will not officiate at a marriage whose partners have not signed the agreement.

The updated version of the prenuptial agreement, which can be downloaded at www.rabbis.org, incorporates a number of procedural improvements and enhancements to the original document. It encourages consultation with legal counsel and comes with detailed implementation instructions to the bride and groom. It also allows for a number of choices by the couple, by mutual agreement.

There are also a number of available variations, including one designed specifically for the community property marriage provisions of the State of California, as well as a so-called "reciprocal version." Another available version can be inserted into general prenuptial agreements.  The agreement is valid under both United States law and Jewish law (Halakhah).

Rabbi Basil Herring, Executive Vice President of the Rabbinical Council of America, expressed his organization's gratification that "the prenuptial agreement has been so effective in limiting the incidence of recalcitrance among couples whose marriages have failed."

"We urge every couple about to be married, no matter their love and regard for each other leading up to the wedding day, and irrespective of their background, to utilize this very important and valuable tool, to benefit not only themselves, but the entire Jewish community," Rabbi Herring said.

Some rabbis oppose pre-nuptials on the grounds that they make divorce too easy, or because the monetary fine that the recalcitrant party must pay monthly renders the divorce "forced" and thus not valid.

Rabbi Elyashiv Knohl, the rabbi of Kibbutz Kfar Etzion, a marriage counselor, and a driving force behind the formulation of Halakhic prenuptial agreements, answered these claims:
"Regarding the first point, it is certainly true that it makes it a bit easier. But we believe that we have put in sufficient brakes in order to make it fairly difficult: There must first be a six-month waiting period after the time that one side informs the other of intent to divorce, and there must be at least three counseling sessions if the other side wants, and then there is an option to extend the six months by another three - and then, on top of all that, a professional must declare that the marriage is in fact, essentially 'dead.'"

As far as the Halakhic claim that the monetary fine - $1,500 each month, or half the payer's salary, whichever is higher - is a form of coercion, Rabbi Knohl said there are many Rabbinic opinions that a fine that one voluntarily took upon himself, as is done at the signing of the prenuptial agreement, is not considered a form of coercion.  "In addition," he explained, "the renowned Rabbi Zalman Nechemiah Goldberg, who has accompanied us every step of the way, insisted on a formulation in the agreement that not only does not even mention the word 'divorce,' but frames the fine as merely an increased obligation to support the wife that he takes upon himself at the time of the marriage, while the wife, for her part, 'forgives' this obligation for as long as they are living together."

In any event, the website of the Council of Young Israel Rabbis in Israel states, "The signing of prenuptial agreements for the prevention of get-refusal has been recommended by [Israel's Chief] Rabbinate several times. It is included in the Resolutions of the Rabbinical Council of America which were adopted in June 1993, entitled “In the Matter of Prenuptial Agreements”. A year later, in 1994, “The Endorsement of Prenuptial Agreements” was reaffirmed.  Furthermore, the leading Roshei Yeshiva of Yeshiva University issued "A Message to Our Rabbinic Colleagues and Students" in 1999, strongly urging "rabbis to counsel and encourage  marrying couples to sign such an agreement. The increased utilization of pre-nuptial agreements is a critical step in purging our community of the distressful problem of the modern-day Aguna and enabling men and women to remarry without restriction." In May 2006, the Rabbinical Council of America once again reaffirmed its previous resolutions, declaring “that no rabbi should officiate at a wedding where a proper prenuptial agreement on get has not been executed.”

Fair fares

By Rabbi Dr. Asher Meir

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Q: I recently got into a cab and the driver offered a flat price instead of the meter. I learned from bitter experience that when they do this, if you ask for the meter they go the long and slow way. Do I have to give in to this extortion?

A: There are two sides to this question — your side and the driver's side. Let's start with your side.

Given that cab rides are regulated with standard fares, and cab drivers are required to take customers by the shortest route, the cab driver's demand for a fixed fee above the standard rate is extortion. He is taking advantage of the fact that he has you "over a barrel" since he knows it is not worth the extra few dollars (or shekels) he is demanding for you to get out of the cab and hail another one (who in all likelihood will offer you the same deal). Jewish law takes a dim view of such extortion, and in many cases holds that when a person is taken advantage of in this way, he is required to pay only the going price. Here is an example:

"If someone is fleeing and found a ferry before him, and said to him, take a dinar [a very large sum] and ferry me across — [the ferryman] is entitled only to his [usual] price. [The passenger] can say, I was only kidding." (1)

Judith Apter Klinghoffer http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/50886.html

THE JEWISH VOTE IN 1968 AND 2008

Can Barack Obama hold on to the Jewish vote in 2008 in numbers sufficient to secure his elections? It is the same question asked in 1968. Then, as now, polls revealed that the average Jew was disconcerted by the Democratic candidate attitude towards Israel. And, then, as now, Jewish Democratic party activists spared no effort to return them to the fold. Then as now, they asked Jews to trust that the "heart" of the candidate is in the right place. Then, as now, the Republicans are actively competing for the Jewish vote. Then, Jewish Republican had an Israeli ambassador on their side. Today, they have a formidable candidate to aid their cause.

On the other hand, Barack Obama is no Hubert Humphrey though in a recent Barack Obama even had the "audacity" to ask Jewish voters to judge him by what he says and what he does. The trouble is that he has done very little beyond convincing the enemies of Israel and America that he is the man they wish to see elected. And Jews would have to be really stupid to believe anything any politicians says and which in his case is not all that comforting. What Jews should do is consider the strategic vision of the presidential candidate and that of his advisers. And those of Obama leave much to be desired.

The newly released LBJ's Secret Israel Tapes are an excellent case in point. In it Lyndon Johnson waxes lyrical about his love for Israel and his contention that he told Kosygin that he supports the Jewish state because it is the right thing to do, should not be taken at face value. Arthur Goldberg was one of Johnson's court Jews and he played him like a fiddle mainly by appealing to his vanity and an exaggerated sense of self importance. First, Johnson convinced Goldberg to leave the supreme court by promising to make him a "second" secretary of state and, then, used him to give harsh anti-Israeli speeches at the UN.

During the Middle East crisis which preceded the Six Day War Johnson told Goldberg that anti Israeli Dean Rusk was pushed aside and had no role in managing the crisis for the administration. Anyone studying the documentary evidence knows it to be a lie though I must confess I used that comment to secure an interview with Dean Rusk. Rusk understandably was livid. Three times he returned to the subject despite my assurances that I knew Goldberg was fooled and not for the first time.

Johnson saw Goldberg as the representative of the Jewish community and, believed that what was acceptable to Goldberg would be acceptable to the Jewish community at large. Goldberg, like the rest of his Jewish cronies, was charged with selling Johnson's policies to the Jewish community. By early 1968 when the reported conversation between President Johnson and Arthur Goldberg took place, that community was fed up with Johnson. Not only did his Arab appeasement policy during the crisis lead to the 1967 War, he had also left Israel standing alone and embargoed during the war and was in the middle of trying to use Israel's territorial gains to improve America's negotiating position in the Paris peace talks on Vietnam. To that end, Johnson refused to follow through with his commitment to sell Israel Phantom jets until he was forced to give up on the package deal idea because the USSR refused to cooperate.

In one of the newly released phone discussions, Johnson told Goldberg about an exchange he supposedly had with Kosygin in Glassboro. Kosygin, he relates, could not understand the reason the US would stand by three million Israelis "when there are a hundred million Arabs." Johnson said: "I told him that numbers do not determine what was right. We tried to do what was right regardless of the numbers."

However, the verbatim transcript of his conversations with Kosygin does not include such an exchange. Kosygin did demand that Israel withdraw from the Sinai so that Nasser would be able to reopen the canal and Moscow's aid to North Vietnam would not have to be sent around Africa. He never mentioned the Syrian territories. When Kosygin drew a sketch of the Suez Canal, Johnson responded by drawing one of the DMZ.

Be that as it may, by the time Johnson was calling Goldberg he knew that disgusted Jewish voters were drifting away from the democratic party. Matters got even worse once Hubert Humphrey, who supported Johnson's withholding the sale of Phantoms to Israel, became the party standard bearer. Robert Kennedy and Eugene McCarthy supported the Phantom sale as did all the Republican candidates. A Gallup poll taken between May 25 and June 3, 1968 showed Humphrey with 79% and Nixon with only 4% of the Jewish vote. But a September poll gave Nixon 31% of that vote.

Nixon did not necessarily love Jews or Israel but he argued that the Six Day War proved that merely maintaining the military balance between Israel and it's neighbors ran the risk of Arab miscalculation. It was much safer to provide Israel with a technological advantage. NYT editors fumed that the American commitment to Israel was "clear and outside the political debate" and chided Nixon's willingness "to go well beyond that basic pledge to project a new and dangerous, open ended and ultimately self defeating commitment." An incensed Democratic activist Phillip Klutznick complained that it was "abnormal" for Israeli military needs "to be aired in a national campaign."

To the annoyance of Jewish democrats, the Six Day War hero and Israeli ambassador to the US, Yitzhak Rabin, attended the Republican convention and to the horror of Jewish Democrats, liked Nixon's strategic thinking and said so.

Johnson worked hard to get his court Jews to sell his foreign policies to their constituencies. When they reported that "the man in the street" resented Johnson's policies towards Israel, Goldberg got long phone calls. Others were bullied. Califano reports that spotting Barry Levinson in the White House corridor, "Johnson was jutted out his right fist and yelled down the hall, 'You Zionist dupe! You and Wattenberg are Zionist dupes in the White House!".

In the end, Jewish leaders swallowed their pride and mobilized to secure the Jewish vote for the Democratic party. Arthur Goldberg became the co-chairman of the Humphrey-Muskie campaign. Another activist, Jacob Kanter, organized a group of "opinion makers" into the National Coordinating Committee for Humphrey-Muskie.

An Ad supporting the Democratic ticket was placed in the Jewish press which reached 90% of the Jewish voters. It made a reference to JFK but not to LBJ. It emphasized Humphrey's commitment to law and order, human rights, social reform, Israel ("we know that his commitment is heart-felt and not an election year pasture") world peace and peace in Vietnam. Jews are not and have never been single issue voters. Indeed, when I asked what it was like to be in the White House during those fateful days prior to the Six Day War when Israel stood alone seemingly readied for the slaughter, Walt Rostow answered: "I was a Socialist, not a Zionist!" In the end 81% of the Jews voted for Humphery (Johnson got 90%) 17% voted for Nixon.

It should be noted that when push came to shove in 1973, Nixon, unlike Johnson in 1967, stood by Israel. Both presidents did what they thought was best for the United States. Neither domestic politics not their personal feelings mattered. Lyndon Johnson may have loved Israel. His good friend, Arthur Krim, refused to give me an interview but when he met my brother in law at a party, Krim asked him to tell me that he really did. The same was probably true about Hubert Humphrey. I very much doubt it is true of Barack Obama. Richard Nixon was certainly no John McCain.

Still, in 2008 as in 1968, the Jewish vote is in play and Democratic operatives are working hard to convince "the man in the street" that voting for Obama does not mean throwing Israel under the bus. I hope they fail. Obama is an appeaser and appeasers do not make trustworthy allies. It is not difficult to imagine who Rabin would recommend. The question is what is the percentage of Jewish Democrats who will heed his advice.