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?
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.