10

In a Ketubah, the Rabbis instituted that a man should obligate himself to pay his wife, should he chose to divorce her (or he dies). If she had never been married before, he obligates himself to pay 200 zuz. If she was previously married, he obligates himself to pay 100 zuz. (See Rambam Hilchot Ishut 10:7) [That is the minimum, he could offer more if he wants]

The Bartenura on Mishnayot Peah 8:8, says that 200 zuz is enough to support someone for one year.

If that's the reason the husband promises 200 zuz, why is he only obligated to pay 100 zuz to a widow/divorcee? Why did the Rabbis feel it was enough to support her for only half a year?

If that's not the reason, what is the reason for the discrepancy between a previously unmarried woman, and a previously married woman?

Menachem
  • 44,362
  • 6
  • 127
  • 247
  • To get 200 she has to be previously unmarried AND a virgin. (Logical AND) – Double AA May 13 '12 at 21:51
  • 1
    1)Already got 200 zuz from previous marriage so has some money. 2) It is a bigger incentive if price is cheaper in order for them to get get re-married. – sam May 13 '12 at 21:54
  • @DoubleAA: I believe I read somewhere that these days we consider every girl who was never married a virgin for the purposes of the Ketubah, I'll have to find it. -- saw it here: http://jewishlaw.wordpress.com/2011/03/14/be-betrothed-unto-me-%e2%80%a6/ – Menachem May 13 '12 at 22:00
  • 1
    @sam: if point 1), then after the year is up the price should go back to 200 again – Menachem May 13 '12 at 22:01
  • @menachem that's why there is point 2 – sam May 13 '12 at 22:02
  • @Menachem Your link clearly gives some modern cases where we do not give 200 to an never-married girl. And moreover, you have to analyze the original decree from the perspective of how they dealt with it then; modern practice is not relevant. – Double AA May 13 '12 at 22:09
  • @DoubleAA: I don't see where it says that. See the paragraph that starts "The case of a non-virgin bride appears in traditional sources. Maimonides rules that the husband ‘writes her Ketubah like all other young maidens.’ [MT Na’ara Betulah 1:3]" – Menachem May 13 '12 at 22:12
  • 1
    @sam: do you have a source for those reasons? – Menachem May 13 '12 at 22:13
  • "However, where the wife is known in public as a married woman, referring to her as a virgin is inappropriate. In this case, the generic term ittata – literally ‘woman’ - is used. This is what is done in the case of a woman who has children or is a divorcee from a previous civil marriage." Also, that rambam is referring to the case of mefuteh, where the original mefateh is continuing to marry her. Not clear this would apply to someone else marrying her. – Double AA May 13 '12 at 22:20
  • 2
    I think @sam's point 2 can be substantiated based on Kesubos 12a-b: at one point the Sages made a kohen's widow's kesubah 200 zuz (double that of a Yisrael's widow), but then they changed it back to 100 because then these women were unable to get married - people figured that for that price, they might as well marry a Yisrael's virgin daughter. – Alex May 13 '12 at 23:07
  • @Alex, sounds like the makings of an answer.... – msh210 May 13 '12 at 23:17
  • @DoubleAA: so if the woman not halachically married, but obviously married in the eyes of the world, we only give her 100 zuz, barring that, a non-virgin would get 200. Or in other words, only an obvious non-virgin would get 100. – Menachem May 13 '12 at 23:34
  • @Menachem But I think that is only nowadays when we try not to embarrass people. In the original takkana that concern didn't exist and any non-virgin would get 100. Nowadays we try to avoid embarrassing people and only are forced to state her non-virginity when it is patently obvious. – Double AA May 13 '12 at 23:51
  • @sam: your reasons are brought here (in the explanation of the second mishna), without a source: mishnahyomit.org/ketuboth/Ketuboth.doc – Menachem May 14 '12 at 18:01

1 Answers1

10

I'm not sure if I understood this correctly, feel free to point put any mistakes.

The Yad Eliyahu, after much back and forth, seems to say that:

  • The reason for a monetary obligation is, as the Rambam (Hilchot Ishut 10:7) says, in order to make sure that it should not be of little import for a man to kick his wife out of the house.

  • The Rabbis agreed that 100 zuz is enough to ensure this. (even though if a person is wealthy 100 zuz is nothing, this is a substantial sum for a poor person and therefore the Rabbis settled on this sum, so that law would equally apply to everyone)

  • There is an argument in the Talmud (Ketubot 10A) if the money obligated by the Ketubah is a Biblical or Rabinical Decree. According to the one who says it is Biblical, we learn it out from Exodus 22:15-16, "he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.". From Devarim 22:29, we learn that the dowry of virgins is 50 Shekalim.

  • [It would appear that everyone agrees that the monetary obligation for a widow etc. is Rabinical, the only discussion is whether the monetary obligation for a virgin is the same]

  • However, most agree that (at the very least the amount of) the monetary obligation is Rabinical. The Rabbis who instituted the amount would have settled by 100 for everyone, but because the verse does mention that a virgin's price is 50 Shekalim (200 zuz), the Rabbis made that the monetary obligation for a virgin, leaving the monetary obligation of a widow etc. at the price they already thought was enough.

See Kobetz Al Yad HaChazaka as well.

Menachem
  • 44,362
  • 6
  • 127
  • 247