Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Christian M. M. Brady" <cbrady AT tulane.edu>]

On 1/31/01 11:07 AM, "Moshe Shulman" <mshulman AT ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> At 09:33 PM 1/30/01 -0500, Shoshanna Walker wrote:
>>> Mehullelet (a woman who has been profaned).  Incidently  Moshe Shulman is
>>> perfectly right that when the Ketuba was a real contract and not a
>>> ceremonial one,
>> I never disputed this, the Ketuba IS a legal document, and I never ever
>> said or implied that it was a ceremonial one.  Not at all.  And the word
>> Betula was used to denote a woman not previously married, because her
>> LEGAL status and rights according to Ketuba and the rabbis who instituted
>> it, are different than those of a woman who was already married and
>> widowed or divorced.
>> The Ketuba was not a document whose purpose was to morally judge a woman's
>> virtue - the rabbis were wise enough then, to leave that as a private 
>> matter.
> 
> 
> I am sorry but you are just wrong. A women who is found out not to have
> been a virgin (and in Jewish law there is a description) can be divorced
> the next day and lose all benifit from the ketubah. You just do not know
> what you are talking about.  This appears in the talmud and in Shulchan
> Aruch. It may be that you are not aware of any people who still take it
> seriously. But there are.

But today presumably one would still need to get the civil authorities to
annul the marriage, yes?

Cb
cbrady @ tulane.edu
-- 
"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
   -- Thomas Edison