CCAR RESPONSA
Contemporary American Reform Responsa
187. Virginity and the
Ketubah
QUESTION: The traditional ketubah classifies a
bride as a virgin or places her in a number of other categories. Nowadays, many couples have
lived together before marriage. Should this fact be taken into account in writing the
ketubah? Should an inquiry be made by the officiating rabbi? What would the
consequences be if the bride is called a “virgin” and this is not so? (Rabbi R. Marcovitz,
Pittsburgh, PA)ANSWER: Chastity before marriage has been urged by both the
Bible and the Talmud (Proverbs; Lev. 19.29, 20.10; Tos. Kid. 1.4, etc.). These and
other sources, of course, apply to both men and women. However, virginity has only been
mentioned in the marriage document in the case of women. Virginity determines the
mohar, in other words, the amount of the legal purchase agreement, which has been an
age old portion of the marriage document. A difference in the sum to be provided exists between
virgins and those who are not virgins. In the Bible the price seems to have been fifty
sheqel for virgins (Ex. 22.15; Deut. 22.29; Ket. 10, 29b, 30b). In the later rabbinic periods,
the mohar for a virgin was two hundred zuzim, which seems to have been the
equivalent of fifty sheqel (Ket. 10a, 110b), while a non-virgin had a mohar of one
hundred zuzim (B. K. 36b; Ket. 10a, b; Tos. to Ket. 10a 11a ff; Yad Hil.
Ishut 11.3). The priestly aristocracy established a mohar of double this amount (L. M.
Epstein, The Jewish Marriage Contract, pp. 73 ff). In more recent times, the ring
symbolizes the former cash mohar without the pejorative overtones of a purchase
agreement. We have interpreted the ring as a symbol of mutual love. The status of
the bride is not only reflected in the mohar but also through the descriptive term used with
her name in the ketubah. We must now ask whether the ketubot of the past made
an effort to accurately reflect the status of each bride. They were, of course, to contain no false
material (Git. 10b, 87b; Yad Hil. Ishut 3.8). No problem ever existed for women who were
widowed or divorced; they were so designated in the ketubah. Their status was public
knowledge and there was no reason to hide it or to be ashamed of it. If a woman was no longer a
virgin, due to accident or intercourse, this should have been so designated. Yet we find that in
ancient Judea, where premarital intercourse seems to have been frequent, the Judeans did not
permit such a reflection to be cast on their women and insisted on a mohar of two
hundred zuzim for everyone including the widowed and divorced. In other words, all women were
automatically classified as virgins. It seems that at this time it was not customary to mention the
status of the bride when her name appeared in the ketubah (Ket. 10b, 12a; Tos.
Ket. 1.4; J. Ket. 25c). There were a number of other periods in Jewish history when loose
standards of conduct were widespread. However, this does not seem to have affected the
wording of the ketubot (Isaac b. Sheshet quoting Nahmanides #6, 395, 398, 425; L.
Epstein, Sex Laws and Customs in Judaism, p. 128). There is some likelihood that the
joining together of erusin and nisuin, which occurred in the Middle Ages, was due
to illicit intercourse which took place during the longer interval between the two ceremonies,
which were often separated by as much as a year (Z. W. Falk, Jewish Matrimonial Law in the
Middle Ages, pp. 43 ff; A. Freiman, Seder Qidushin Venisuin). Let us now
look at the document itself and the various categories of non-virgins, such as widows and
divorcees. In the case of a divorcee, this designation is placed in the ketubah in order to
indicate that she is prohibited from marrying a priest. In the case of someone who has been
raped or seduced, this lack of virginity may be omitted in the ketubah in order to refrain
from shaming her through this memory; some scholars insisted that it be mentioned and made
public knowledge (Nahalat Shivah 12.15). However, we should also note that no
authorities demand an inquiry to see whether the individual involved is in fact a virgin. B.
Schereschewsky states that if the bride is neither widowed nor divorced, the ketubah
should indicate “virgin” (Dinei Mishpahah, p. 99). We should also note that the
traditional ketubah makes no demands of virginity upon the groom. There is no statement
about his virginity or lack of it, nor was this reflected in the economic segment of the
ketubah. Now let us go one step further and see what is the consequence of
writing “virgin” in a ketubah when this is not so. It is clear from the Biblical text (Deut.
22.14) that an accusation of non-virginity could be brought by the groom after the wedding night.
The parents would then proceed with the defense of their daughter. If indeed she was not a
virgin, the death penalty was involved (Deut. 22.20, 21). If she had been accused erroneously,
then her husband was fined a hundred pieces of silver and forfeited the opportunity of ever
divorcing her (Deut. 22.13 – 19). All of this has been discussed further by the Talmud and
later literature (Ket. 10a, 46a; etc.) One authority, however, indicated that if such an accusation
was brought before him, the young man was to be whipped, as the accusation indicated that he
himself had engaged in illicit intercourse earlier. Another limited such a challenge to a man
previously married since he possessed legitimate experience (Ket. 10a). Furthermore, after a girl
is more than twelve years and six months old (bogeret), the hymen may disappear
naturally and no sign of virginity remains (Ket. 36a). Should she have lost her virginity by
accident, then the only change would be a reduction in her ketubah by 100 zuzim;
no such reduction is made if she claims rape after betrothal (Yad Hil. Ishut 11.10 ff).
It was generally made almost impossible for a groom to file a complaint of non-virginity (Ket. 10a
b; Yad; Shulhan Arukh). We should also note that if there was any kind of
misrepresentation of a physical defect on the part of the wife, without the knowledge of the
husband, then this is grounds for divorce or for the annulment of the marriage (Tos. Ket.
7.8 – 9; Ket. 72b ff). This is also true if the groom found that his wife was not a virgin. In order to
accuse her, he had to show that he had never been together with her without a chaperon. The
laws concerning chaperonage are extremely strict (Ned. 20a; J. Kid. 66b; Git. 81a; Ket. 27b ff;
Yad Hil. Is. Biah 21.27; Arukh Hashulkhan Even Haezer 119.25 –
28). The husband has to bring his complaint to a court immediately (Ket. 3b, 11b, 12a;
Yeb. 111b). Such an accusation does not necessarily reflect illicit intercourse. The woman could
claim that she lost her virginity due to an accident, without intercourse (Ket. 13a). Her only
penalty then is a reduction in the mohar. Before we leave the subject we
should note that the Gaonim composed a special berakhah to be recited by the
groom on his wedding night if his wife was a virgin (B. Lewis, Otzar Hagaonim, Vol. 8,
Ket. pp. 14-15; Lawrence A. Hoffman, The Canonization of the Synagogue Service, p.
136). The recital of such a blessing if the wife was not a virgin would be levatalah. The
ritual was, however, not continued and no post-Gaonic discussions exist. From this
we can see that with our modern system of dating it would be absolutely impossible for any man
to bring a successful accusation of non-virginity against his wife. Therefore, there are no legal
consequences which can be drawn from a statement of virginity made in the ketubah or
represented by the mohar when, in fact, the bride is not a virgin. In summary,
we realize that there were periods in our history when female virginity was very important.
However, we can also see that during other times looser moral standards prevailed, and the
ketubot written during them were not changed. We must also express our
modern concern for equal rights for men and women. If we expressly name the status of the
female, we should also do so for the male. We might also view the entire matter
differently and see the marriage as already taken place, through the intercourse of the couple
who lived together. This form of marriage is legal, bediavad, although frowned upon since
the Talmudic period (Kid 9b; Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 33.1, 42.1) . The marriage
subsequently conducted in the synagogue, and the resultant ketubah, would confirm an
already existing status. The bride may very well have entered into the original relationship as a
virgin. On all these grounds, it would be wise either to refrain from any kind of
designation of status for the woman in the ketubah (for which there is ample precedent),
or simply to use the designation “virgin” as part of a standard formula. We may standardize it in
exactly the same spirit as some of the economic elements of the ketubah which no longer
possess significance for us.March 1984
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.