More on HPAs...

I was very interested in, impressed by and agreed with most of what Hadassah Fidler wrote in “Should prenuptial agreements be compulsory? (Comment & Features, February 23). However, her statement that a halachic prenuptial agreement (HPA) “may not count as the most romantic gesture on the eve of a wedding” is misleading.

An HPA should be written before the couple gets engaged or married, when there’s no presumption of duress and both sides can end the relationship before it’s halachically/legally contractual.

A scenario of disagreeing on basic issues is a precursor to disagreements during the marriage. They can arise due to a change in circumstances (e.g., receipt of an unexpected inheritance, a reversal in finances, issues in dealing with respective biological/mutual children, etc.), and if the married couple then decide to do a post-nuptial agreement, there’s a presumption of duress. That’s why post-nuptial agreements are costlier and require signing before a rabbinical court.

HPAs do not “exclusively deal with the provision of a get [Jewish religious divorce] without addressing financial arrangements postget.” They are contractual and can state whatever the two parties agree to adhere to them before, during or after marriage.

It is also not true that “making HPAs a prerequisite to getting married... could be problematic from a halachic point of view...” because “a get must be granted willingly, and forcing people into a prenuptial agreement may invalidate it.”

No unmarried couple is “forced” into marriage, since they can easily not get married if one party doesn’t agree to sign. The presumption of duress exists only once they are married and decide/need to do a post-nuptial agreement. In fact, there are many Orthodox rabbis who will not perform a wedding ceremony without a prenuptial agreement in place.

TIRTZA JOTKOWITZ Jerusalem

The writer is a halachic estate planning attorney who executes pre- and post-nuptial agreements.