Most people seem to like the idea of marriage being a reciprocal and equal relationship, but traditional law, including the ketuba, do not really fit well with that idea. We can ask why traditionally marriage was not seen as an equal relationship, and if today we should make changes to the ketuba given the greater expectation of equality. But as it is, the ketuba makes a completely different statement. It obligates the man financially to his wife, without saying anything about what he gets in return.
Today, given the practical changes to Jewish marriage law, the ketuba is an instrument of inequality and instability. Many modern perversions have been accepted by the Israeli Rabbanut and by many other religious courts, either directly or by passively accepting decisions from secular courts, and they must be considered when understanding the marriage relationship. Today the woman is guaranteed a minimum of equal division in case of divorce, and the ketuba is used to add on further obligations. While it was instituted to make sure that a woman would not be left on the street in case of divorce or widowhood, today it is more likely to be the husband who is left impoverished by his wife.
Today the ketuba serves three purposes, none of which were intended originally, and none of them are good for marriage. The first is the direct payment of the ketuba in case of divorce. Given a division of property there is no reason for an additional payment, which really should be included in any division. The cost of divorce was supposed to prevent the husband from divorcing frivolously, not to make it too expensive to divorce at all, and not to punish him for being a less than 100% perfect husband. The high cost of divorce today allows many women to take it for granted that they will not be divorced of they do not want it, encouraging the idea that women need not invest in marriage. Marriage is destabilized by this, while the original intent was to secure the marriage.
The second use of the ketuba is to force the husband to support his wife if he wants to divorce her. The support was meant to be while they were married, and not in case of the failure of the marriage. The ketuba actually does not require the husband to pay support if he states he wants to divorce her, and very often what he is made to pay is in gross disregard of the halacha. Again, the ketuba has been perverted from being a support for healthy marriage, to being a weapon to use against the husband if he wants to divorce.
The third use of the modern ketuba is moral, not legal. In case of marital discord many rabbis simply dump on the husband that they willingly signed a commitment, and now they must keep it. The wife, they explain, did not sign a ketuba, and has no commitment to her husband. The ketuba allows the rabbi to easily shame the husband, and to block any relevant discussion of marriage problems. At the same time he reassures the woman that she does not need to invest in the marriage, because marriage is a one-sided commitment. Needless to say, any rabbi who takes this approach will not save any marriages, and any woman who is comforted by this lie will not stay married very long.
The modern use of the ketuba is immoral, and generally in violation of a proper understanding of the ketuba and the relevant laws. Yet when people get married, they are told about the importance of equality and reciprocity, as they are signing a document which will later be used to guarantee a very non-equal approach in case they have any problems in their marriage.
The ketuba can easily be rewritten to account for modern realities, without violating any traditional principles. No one is pushing for this, because equality and reciprocity are only important when entering the marriage. In case of trouble, the only guiding principle seems to be standing by the woman, as a gallant white knight, making sure she comes out unscathed from the failed marriage.
Recognizing the unequal nature of the ketuba would force us to look at marriage differently. We would see it not as a romantic relationship based on full equality, but as a practical, long-term institution. Romantic reciprocity would be a goal, but not a prerequisite. Instead many people prefer to simply force their romantic ideas onto the traditional ceremony. The ketuba, a one-sided commitment, given in recognition that a husband is the head of the family and fully responsible for it, is presented as a statement of reciprocal love.
No comments:
Post a Comment