Comment: Today, it is very popular to make marriage contracts, which are a bilateral agreement that regulates property relations in the event of a divorce. Before getting married, people are already dividing property and providing for the option that their family will break up.
My Response: It has always been that way. There is nothing to be surprised about here. The Jews, for example, have a Ktuba—a legal document in which they clearly state what and how much the wife is entitled to in case of divorce, and how the husband should provide for her in the event of a normal married life.
A marriage contract, like any contract between two parties, regulates everything, not only monetary relations, but also the husband’s obligations to his wife.
Comment: You are speaking specifically about Jewish law. But other nations are now also beginning to build their relationships with a marriage contract.
My Response: That’s good! Because earlier in Russia we went to the registry office and signed on a piece of paper that we were husband and wife. And then what? What are our responsibilities? Who told us about this?
I signed it with my wife, but what I signed, I did not know. After all, between us there are some responsibilities, some kind of relationship that the state accepts, approves, and takes responsibility for their implementation. If someone for some reason does not fulfill them, the other party can complain about him, and then the state will already understand in court what is happening.
But this is a very small part of what the contract should be. And the fact that serious agreements are being undertaken today is probably a good thing. I believe that everything should be built on a healthy, serious relationship.
I meet a woman and am going to live a long life with her, give birth to children, raise them, accumulate property, and be together in sorrow and in joy, in health and in ailments. I must somehow resolve this relationship. It cannot hold on to love alone, to some kind of feelings.
From KabTV’s “Close-up” 8/19/09