Maybe. But that would be an assumption, not the working definition.
Just as today, it is an "assumption" - but we know very well that it
is not always the case - that an unmarried woman is a virgin.
And it is only the distinction between a woman who was previously
married, whether she was widowed or divorced, and a woman who was
never married, which makes a big difference in the conditions in the
Ketuba (ie the money she is entitled to, from the groom and/or his
family, if he divorces her). No one really probes into her private
life, to determine if she is a virgin or not, in order to designate
the conditions in the Ketuba.
Also, whether or not she is a convert to Judaism - but that is a
different matter.
But - if she had a child, and was never married - then they use the
word "It'ta" - which simply means "woman" - since they cannot pretend
that she is a betulta - which "assumes", as you say, that she is a
virgin. I don't remember off hand, in this case, whether the money
she is entitled to, is the same as if she had never been married, or
the same as if she had been widowed or divorced or converted - I can
look it up, not now - it's after midnight.
Shoshanna
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.