Bruker`s lawyers responded that the agreement was a binding contract. They claimed financial damages on the grounds that Ms. Bruker had not been able to remarry and that not all of the children she may have were considered “legitimate” in her faith. Q: 2. Is it true, based on the answer to this question, that “there is no conflict between the two systems”,” as you write in the first paragraph? [I acknowledge that you write that “most (but not all) of the rights and obligations imposed by law may vary by the contracting parties. What will happen if there is no such independent agreement between the couple – what does Halacha say about asset sharing and how would Canadian law treat a P`sak of Beis Din in this regard?] The problem of refusal was more prevalent when Jews lived in countries where civil divorce was possible, separated from religious divorce. The earliest marriage agreement to prevent refusal to refuse to revoke was developed and adopted on December 16, 1953 by the Rabbin Council of Morocco (“Sefer Hatakanot,” No. 1, Institute of Moroccan Jewish Tradition, Jerusalem). In 1981, Chalom Messas, Chief Rabbi of Jerusalem (“Sefer Tevuot Shemesh”, Jerusalem in 1981), gave his additional approval.
After Messas` participation, the Rabbinical Council of America actively addressed this issue (“The RCA Commission: Solving the Problem of Gittin,” Hamevaser, No. 22, October 27, 1983). The latest in a series of RCA resolutions – “since there is a significant problem of Agunah in the United States and in the Jewish world, should not be a rabbi at a marriage where no marriage contract has been executed” was adopted on May 18, 2006.  However, when they separated in 1980, Mr. Marcovitz, 65, refused to abide by the agreement he had signed. He also denigrated his wife`s dedication to their religion, accusing her of restricting her access to her daughters. He said the courts could not intervene in the dispute without infringing on his religious freedom, guaranteed in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Steinmetz says he has seen “unfortunately several times” during his 20 years as rabbi that a spouse refused to accept a religious divorce and only a few times when the couple refused to sign the marriage contract. Another agreement, developed in Hebrew in Israel, called Heskem L`Kavod Hadadi (the mutual respect agreement, was concluded by a team of two rabbis and a rabbinic lawyer – David Ben Zazon, Elyashiv Knohl and Rachel Levmore – in consultation with experts in different fields (Jewish law, rabbin courts, family law, women`s organizations, B. This special agreement is recommended by relevant organizations, both rabbinic and feminist, including the director of Israel`s rabbinical courts, Eli Ben-Dahan.  The marriage contract essentially operates according to a similar principle of assistance to the spouse in case of recalcitrance as that of Beth Din of America.  However, in the mutual respect agreement, the obligation is reciprocal.
Both the bride and groom agree to support their spouse, the amount of which varies between US$1500 per month and half of his net monthly income. The obligation is activated after notification, followed by a defined waiting time, if the couple is still married to Halacha. If a spouse is willing to give/accept a condition at that time, their commitment is extinguished. In this way, only the obligation of the recalcitrant spouse is maintained. If a get was administered during the waiting period, neither spouse is clearly liable to the other. There are other issues that are covered by this agreement, such as: if one of the spouses requires marriage therapy, the other must undergo up to three visits; The common property right of the State of Israel is accepted as halacha for those who sign the agreement….