Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Shoshanna Walker <rosewalk AT concentric.net>]

> 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'.


The value of a woman not previously married


> 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 relevant legal status has to do with her marital status.

> > 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.


Yes, that is exactly what I have been describing - a legal contract, 
and your retort  has nothing to do with my description of the 
intentions of Ketuba

Moral judgements, whether a woman is chaste or not, is not the point.

The point being, how much money will she need if she is divorced.

The Ketuba was instituted to protect the woman, NOT male pride.

> > 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.


Whatever you say, Moshe

But talking down at me, disrespectfully, does nothing to convince me 
of your superiority.

You could just as well have cited sources for your position.

I know for years, that you cannot STAND that a woman might, Chas 
Vechalila, know more than you

Shoshanna