VIRGINITY AND THE KETUBA

Question: The traditional ketuba 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 ketuba? Should an inquiry be made by the officiating rabbi? What would the consequences be if the bride is called a “virgin” and actually this is not so? (Rabbi Richard Marcovitz, Pittsburgh, PA)

Answer: Chastity before marriage has been urged by both the Bible and the Talmud (Proverbs; Lev. 19:29; 20:10; Tos. to 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 deter- mined the mohar, in other words, the amount of the legal purchase agreement which has been an age-old portion of the marriage document. There was a difference between the sum to be provided for virgins and for those who were not virgins. In the Bible the price seems to have been fifty shekels for virgins (Ex- od. 22:15; Deut. 22:29; Ket. 10, 29b, 30b). In the later rabbinic period, the mohar for a virgin was two hundred zuzim, which seems to have been the equivalent of fifty shekels (Ket. 10a, 110b), while a non-virgin had a mohar of one hundred zuzim (B.K. 36b; Ket. lOa-b; Tos. to Ket. lOalla ff; Yad, Hil. Ishut 11:3). The priestly aristocracy established a mohar of double this amount (L.M. Epstein, The Jewish Marriage Contract, pp. 73ff). 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 was not only reflected in the mohar but also through the descriptive term used with her name in the ketuba. We must now ask whether the ketubot of the past made an effort to reflect the status of each bride accurately. 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, who were so designated in the ketuba. Their status was public knowledge and there was no reason to hide it or to be ashamed of it. A woman who was no LONGER a virgin because of accident or intercourse, 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 against 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 ketuba(Ket. 10b,12a; Tos. to 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 wording ketubot (Isaac b. Sheshet quoting Nahmamdes #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 nisu-in, which occurred in the Middle Ages, was due to illicit intercourse which took place between the couple during long interval between the two ceremonies, often separated by as long as a year (Z.W. Falk, Jewish Matrimonial Law in Aees pp 43ff; A. Freiman, Seder Kidushin veNisu-in).

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 is placed in the ketuba in order to indicate that she is prohibited from marrying a priest. In the case of someone who has been raped or seduced, the lack of virginity may be omitted in the ketuba in order to refrain from shaming her through this memory; some insist that it be mentioned and made public knowledge (Nachalat Shiv-a 12:15). However we should also note that no inquiry to see whether the individual involved was, in fact, a virgin was suggested. B. Schereschewsky suggests that if the bride is neither widowed nor divorced, the ketuba should indicate “virgin” (Dinei Mishpacha,p. 99).

We should also note that the traditional ketuba made no demands to virginity upon the groom. There about his virginity or lack of it, nor was this reflected in the economic segment of the ketuba.

Now let us go one step further and see what the consequences of writing “virgin” in a ketuba are when this was 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 his wedding night The parents would then proceed with the defense of their daughter. If indeed she was not a virgin, the death penalty was invoked (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 (Deu. 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 (Ket. 10a).

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 was grounds for a divorce or for the annulment of the marriage (Tos. to Ket. 7:8-9; Ket 72b ff). This was 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 chaperone. The laws concerning chaperonage were extremely strict.

The husband had to being his complaint to court immediately. Such an accusation did not necessarily reflect that she had lost her virginity because of an accident, without intercourse (Ket. 13a). Her only penalty then was a reduction in the mohar.

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 ketuba or represented by the mohar when, in fact, the bride was not a virgin.

As we summarize the facts, 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 that the ketubot written during those periods were not changed.

We must also express our modern concern 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, bedi-avad, although frowned upon since the talmudic period (Kid. 9b; Shulchan Aruch, Even ha־Ezer 33:1; 42:1). The marriage subsequently conducted in the synagogue, and the resultant ketuba, 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 ketuba (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 ketuba which no longer possess significance for us.

 

Walter Jacob, Chairman CCAR Responsa Committee

 

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.