💾 Archived View for scholasticdiversity.us.to › scriptures › jewish › t › Mishneh%20Torah%2C%20Marri… captured on 2024-05-10 at 12:43:25. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
11 [1] [The following laws apply when a man] weds a virgin who was widowed or divorced or who underwent the rite of *chalitzah*. If she was widowed or divorced or underwent the rite of *chalitzah* after *erusin* alone, the *ketubah* [to which she is entitled from her second husband] is 200 *zuz*. If, however, she had been wed, the *ketubah* [to which she is entitled from her second husband] is 100 *zuz*. Once she is wed, she is considered to be a non-virgin.
Similar [rules apply when a man] weds a virgin [bride] who is [a Canaanite maidservant] who has been freed, who is a convert, or who was held captive [by gentiles and freed]. If the maidservant had been freed, the convert had converted, or the women held captive had been redeemed before they reached the age of three years and one day, they are entitled to a *ketubah* of 200 *zuz*. If [this took place after they reached that age, their *ketubah* is [only] 100 [*zuz*]. [2] Why did our Sages ordain that these women receive a *ketubah* of [only] 100 [*zuz*] even though they are virgins? Because it is a presumption that can be accepted as fact that a woman who is wed will engage in marital relations, and similarly, that a maidservant, a gentile woman and a woman held captive by gentiles will have engaged in relations. Hence, they ordained that such women would be entitled to [only] 100 [*zuz*],whether they engaged in relations or not. With regard to all matters, they are considered to be non-virgins. [3] A *mukat etz* [is granted] a *ketubah* of 100 [*zuz*]. Even if [her husband] wed her under the presumption that she was a virgin and then he discovered that she was a *mukat etz*, she is entitled to a *ketubah* of 100 [*zuz*].
When a girl of less than three years of age engages in sexual relations, even when her partner is an adult male, she [is entitled to] a *ketubah* of 200 [*zuz*]. Ultimately, she will heal and be a virgin like all others.
Similarly, when a boy below the age of nine engages in sexual relations with an adult woman, she [is entitled to] a *ketubah* of 200 [*zuz*], as if she had never engaged in relations. For it is only after a boy reaches the age of nine years and one day that relations with him are of consequence. Before that age, they are of no consequence. [4] Whether a virgin is a *bogeret*,, blind, or an *aylonit,* she [is entitled to] a *ketubah* of 200 [*zuz*]. By contrast, no provision was made for a *ketubah* for a woman who is a deaf mute or mentally incompetent. [The rationale is] that no provision has been made for the marriage of a mentally incompetent woman at all.
With regard to a woman who is a deaf mute, although our Sages made provision for her marriage, they did not entitle her to a *ketubah*, so that a man would not refrain from marrying her. Just as she is not entitled to a *ketubah*, so too, [her husband] is not [obligated to provide] her with her livelihood or grant her any other [of the ordinary] conditions of the marriage contract.
If one wed a woman who was a deaf mute and her difficulty was remedied, she is entitled to a *ketubah* and to the other conditions of the marriage contract. [The amount of] her *ketubah* is 100 *zuz*. [5] When a man marries a woman who is a deaf mute or mentally incompetent and writes her a *ketubah* for 10,000 [*zuz*], the obligation is binding; it was he who desired to diminish his assets. [6] [The following rules apply when] a deaf mute or a mentally incompetent man married a woman who was mentally competent. Even if afterwards the deaf mute's disability disappears and the mentally incompetent person gains stability, they are under no obligation to their wives. If, however, [the men] desire to remain [married] to [the women] after their own wellbeing has been restored, [the wives] are entitled to a *ketubah*, and its value should be 100 *zuz*.
If the deaf mute's marriage was made by the court, and they write [his wife] a *ketubah* against his assets, she is entitled to everything that the court has prescribed for her. A court will not arrange a marriage for a mentally incompetent person at all. Since the sages' injunction will not be maintained in his instance, they did not ordain marriage for him at all.
Similarly, our Sages did not ordain marriage for a male below the age of majority; [the rationale is that] ultimately he will gain the potential to enter into a comprehensive marriage bond.
Why then did they ordain marriage for a girl below the age of majority although she too will ultimately gain the potential for a comprehensive marriage bond? So that she will not be treated in a wanton manner.
A youth should not be [allowed to] marry until he has been examined, and it has been determined that he has manifested signs of physical maturity. [7] When a male below the age of majority marries a woman, she is not entitled to a *ketubah*, even if he is already nine years and one day old. If he attains majority and remains [married] to her, she is entitled to the fundamental requirement of the *ketubah*.
Similarly, when a man converts together with his wife, she is entitled to a *ketubah* [of 100 *zuz*]. It was with this intent that he maintained their marriage. [8] Whenever a virgin bride is entitled to a *ketubah* of 200 [*zuz*], there is [the possibility of issuing] a claim against her, [denying] her virginity. Whenever, by contrast, a bride is entitled to a *ketubah* of [only] 100 [*zuz*], or the Sages did not entitle her to a *ketubah* at all, there is no [possibility of issuing] a claim against her [denying] her virginity. [Similarly,] if [a groom] enters into privacy with his *arusah* before their wedding, there is no [possibility of issuing] a claim against her [denying] her virginity. [9] What is meant by a claim [denying a woman's] virginity? [A man] married a woman on the assumption that she was a virgin, and [after the wedding] claims that he did not find signs of virginity. For there are two signs of virginity: a) [hymenal] bleeding at the conclusion of her first sexual experience; b) tightness that is felt during sexual relations at that time. [10] When [a man] weds a virgin who is granted a *ketubah* of 200 [*zuz*], and claims that he did not discover signs of her virginity, the woman is questioned [regarding the matter]. If she says, "It is true that he did not find me a virgin, but this is because I fell, and I was struck by a piece of wood or the ground, and my hymen was damaged," her word is accepted and she is entitled to a *ketubah* of [100 *zuz*].
Although [her husband] claims: "Perhaps you engaged in intercourse, and I am under no obligation to you," his claim is not accepted, for his claim is not absolute. He may, however, have a ban of ostracism issued, conditional on her having engaged in relations with another man. [11] If [the woman] says, "It is true that he did not find me a virgin, for another man raped me after I had been consecrated by him," her word is accepted, and she is entitled to a *ketubah* of 200 [*zuz*] as before.
If [her husband] claims: "Perhaps you were raped before you were consecrated, and the agreement I entered was based on false premises. Or perhaps you willingly engaged in relations after you were consecrated" [his claim is not accepted]. He may, however, have a ban of ostracism issued conditionally against anyone who makes a false claim to have him incur a financial obligation for which he is not liable. [12] If he claims, "I did not find her a virgin," and she claims, "He has not had intercourse with me and I am still a virgin," she should be examined. Alternatively, he should have relations with her under the surveillance of witnesses [and the truth will be clarified].
If she claims, "He had relations with me and he found me a virgin like all others, and his claim is false," he is questioned [and asked to clarify his statements]. We ask him: "Why do you say that she was not a virgin?" If he answers: "Because she did not have hymenal bleeding," we check her family [history]. Perhaps [the women of] this [family] are known not to have [vaginal] bleeding at all: neither menstrual bleeding nor hymenal bleeding. If this was found to be true, we presume [that she was a virgin, and she is entitled to a *ketubah* of 200 *zuz*].
If the women in her family are not known to have such a condition, we check her [physical state]; perhaps she is afflicted by a serious infirmity that has parched her body's natural fluids, or [perhaps] she was afflicted by hunger. Therefore, we have her bathe, eat and drink until she becomes healthy. At which point, [the couple] engage in relations again to see if she manifests hymenal bleeding or not.
If she is not hampered by sickness, hunger or the like, the [husband's] claim that she was not a virgin [is accepted]. [This applies] even if he felt tightness during relations. Since there was no hymenal bleeding, her hymen was not intact. For every virgin will manifest hymenal bleeding, whether she is a minor or above the age of majority, whether a *na'arah* or a *bogeret*, unless [this is prevented by an external factor,] illness or the like, as explained.
If [the husband] said: "[I claim that she was not a virgin,] because I did not feel tightness [during intercourse]. Instead, I found an open passageway," we inquire with regard to [the woman's] age. Perhaps she is a *bogeret*, and most *bogrot* do not have tightness that can be felt substantially [during intercourse], for as she grew older [the adhesion of] her limbs lessened, and the virginal [tightness] disappeared.
If she had not become a *bogeret* yet, we ask him: "Perhaps you leaned on the side or [entered] gently during intercourse, and therefore you did not feel any tightness?" If he replies: "No. I found an open passageway," [his] claim that she was not a virgin [is accepted] with regard to any woman who has not reached the age of *bagrut*, regardless of whether she was a minor or a *na'arah*, or whether she was healthy or sick. For the vaginal channel of every virgin is closed. Even if she manifests hymenal bleeding, she is not considered to be a virgin, because the vaginal channel was open. [13] There are *geonim* who rule that for a *bogeret*, the claim that she did not have hymenal bleeding is not valid, but the claim that her vaginal channel was open is valid. This does not appear [to be based on the proper text of] the Talmud. They had inaccurate versions of the text. I have investigated many texts, including those of an early era, and I have discovered the version to be as I ruled. For a *bogeret*, the only valid claim is [that she did not manifest] hymenal bleeding. [14] Our Sages were those who instituted the fundamental requirement of a marriage contract for a woman and they also instituted [the following consideration]: Whenever [a man] makes a claim that his wife was not a virgin, and the woman disputes his claim, [the husband's claim] is accepted. It is the woman's responsibility to bring support for her claim, not the man's. [The rationale is] that we assume that a man will not labor to prepare a [wedding] feast and then mar it, turning his celebration into mourning. [15] Until when may a husband issue a claim denying his wife's virginity? If [the couple] went into privacy, only immediately [thereafter]. If they did not enter into privacy, he has this option even after 30 days. [16] All the *geonim* have ruled that our Sages' statement that the husband's statements are accepted even though his wife disputes his claim applies only with regard to nullifying the obligation for the fundamental requirement of the marriage contract. Nevertheless, the woman is entitled to the additional amount [to which her husband committed himself] unless there is clear proof that she was not a virgin, or she admitted that she was not a virgin before she was consecrated and that she deceived him.
Therefore, [the husband] may require her to take an oath while holding a sacred article, as must be done by all others who must take oaths before they collect [the money due them]. Afterwards, she may collect the additional sum.
She, by contrast, does not have the option of requiring him to take an oath that he did not discover her to be a virgin, before she must forfeit the fundamental requirement of the marriage contract, for it is a presumption accepted as fact that a person will not labor to prepare a [wedding] feast and then mar it. She may, however, have a ban of ostracism issued conditionally, applying to anyone who lodges false claims against her. [17] If [the husband] desires to remain married to [his wife] after causing her to forfeit the fundamental requirement of the marriage contract, he must write her [a new *ketubah* for] 100 [*zuz*]. For it is forbidden for a man to live with his wife for even one moment without a *ketubah*, as we have explained.
Version: Mishneh Torah, trans. by Eliyahu Touger. Jerusalem, Moznaim Pub. c1986-c2007
Source: https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001020101/NLI
License: CC-BY-NC