Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

At 12:08 PM 1/31/01 -0600, Christian M. M. Brady wrote:
> 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?


That is not hard to do.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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