Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Moshe Shulman <mshulman AT ix.netcom.com>]

At 10:18 PM 1/29/01 -0500, Shoshanna Walker wrote:
> > At 07:53 AM 1/29/01 -0500, Shoshanna Walker wrote:
> > > In the Ketuba, marriage contract, the word Betula refers to a woman who 
> > > was not previously married.
> > > They could have used a different word, they use this word, Betula
> > > Shoshanna
> > That actually is incorrect. A ketubah which would say 'betulah' for a 
> > women who was not is probably invalid. That is because the value of the 
> > ketubah of a virgin and a non-virgin is not the same, and hence needs to 
> > be reflected in the ketubah.
> Moshe, this is not correct.  From all that I have researched, including, 
> but not limited to, the consulting with rabbis during the past 27 years 
> during which I have been writing and illuminating Ketubot, the value of 
> the ketuba is one thing if the woman has never been previously married and 
> is not a convert, and another thing if she is a divorcee, widow, or convert.


If you write 'betulah' in a ketubah, the man signing it has now agreed to 
give her the value of a 'virgin'. It is not rocket science here. Any 
'rabbi' or otherwise would not know that cannot be familiar with the talmud 
and codes. Such an error if documentable woudl nullify the ketubah, like 
any other such error in a legal contract could.

> No one asks if she is a virgin or not.  In your community it may be 
> different, but this is not widespread, nor is it the original 
> intent/practice of the Ketuba.

While it is not asked, that does not change the law. (It should be asked, 
or the person making the contract should be told so that he can make the 
adjustments.)

> The distinction between marital status has to do with how much money she 
> is entitled to in the case of a divorce, if she was previously married, it 
> is assumed she has a previous divorce settlement, and therefore she is 
> entitled, from her present husband HALF of what she would be entitled to 
> (because she does not "need" as much as a woman who had no previous 
> divorce settlement) if  this was her first marriage.  If what you say is 
> true, then that means that she is being MONETARILY punished just for not 
> being a virgin, this is not just, nor was it intended, nor does it have 
> anything to do with the purpose of the Ketuba.

What do you think a ketubah is? It is no more then a legal contract.

> HOWEVER, if the bride, even though she was never before married, happens 
> to have a child, and then it is obvious to all, that she is not a virgin, 
> Rav Riskin has ruled that she cannot write "betula" in the Ketuba, and she 
> should write "Itteta" (Aramaic for "woman") instead.
> I have researched this extensively.

That is fine. It seems that you are a bit deficient.



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
moshe shulman mshulman AT NOSPAMix.netcom.com    718-436-7705
CHASSIDUS.NET - Yoshav Rosh       http://www.chassidus.net
Chassidus shiur:                  chassidus-subscribe AT chassidus.net
Chassidus discussion list:        chassidus-subscribe AT egroups.com
Outreach Judaism                  http://www.outreachjudaism.org/
ICQ# 52009254    Yahoo/MSN Messaging: mosheshulman