Halachic Prenup vs Binding Financial Agreement — Why You Should Have Both

What each document does

A halachic prenup — typically the RCA form or a Beth Din equivalent — addresses the agunah problem in advance. It records the husband's binding undertaking to grant a get if the marriage ends, and provides for substantial ongoing maintenance to the wife from the moment they separate until the get is granted. The economic pressure created by the maintenance clause effectively removes the leverage that would otherwise enable get refusal.

A BFA, by contrast, is a civil contract under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) recording how property is to be divided between the parties if the relationship ends. It can deal with the home, super, inheritances, business interests, spousal maintenance, and contributions made by parents or third parties. Properly drafted with independent legal advice for each party, it is civilly enforceable.

Why both

Without a halachic prenup, an observant Jewish couple risks the agunah problem. Without a BFA, they risk full Family Court property litigation if the marriage ends.

The two documents do not conflict — they sit side by side. The halachic prenup goes to the Beth Din or the parties' rabbi. The BFA stays in the family law file. Each party should have independent legal advice on the BFA (this is a statutory requirement). Both documents are signed before the marriage.

A note on cost

A halachic prenup is typically modest in cost — sometimes nominal or pro bono through the Beth Din. A BFA is more substantial because it involves drafting, independent legal advice for each party, and detailed disclosure of assets. The total cost is usually a small fraction of what the alternative — full Family Court property litigation — would cost.