Your Kesubo – is it kosher? Why not? Probably, some reliable person supervised the Kesubo writing at your wedding. Torah scholars were present. So, what is the problem? We list below three problems. One is Reb Moshe Feinstein’s ruling that in large cities some kesubose may be invalid. And today most people are probably in such cities, certainly those in New York City. Another problem is that our Kesubose don’t really assure a woman that she will be paid. And the Talmud considers this an invalid Kesubo, and the marriage is considered Zenuse. This is even if the Kesubo is a proper legal document but the wife is not sure of that. Surely if there are real problems in making her sure of herself with the Kesubo. The third problem is that the Kesubo is read publicly, and some information in it may be hugely humiliating. Rabbeinu Yona considers such a humiliation to be worse than murder.
One is Reb Moshe Feinstein’s ruling that in large cities some kesubose may
ReplyDeleteMaare makom? What is Rav Moshe's concern about large cities? Rav Moshe himself lived in Manhattan.
be invalid.Another problem is that our Kesubose don’t really assure a woman that she will be paid.
How so? How is she not assured of payment when the kesuba specifically obligates him.
And the Talmud considers this an invalid Kesubo, and the marriage is considered Zenuse.
Nowadays, the marriage is made on shtar, mammon and biah (yichud with eidus). Surely one of the three were sufficient for the marriage to be halachicly effective, thus avoiding a problem of znus, even if hypothetically there was a problem with the kesubo (shtar).
The third problem is that the Kesubo is read publicly, and some information in it may be hugely humiliating. Rabbeinu Yona considers such a humiliation to be worse than murder.
Obviously we don't pasken like the Rabbeinu Yona. That being said, what part of reading a kesuba does the Rabbeinu Yona consider humuliating?
David, I am quoting you and your quoting of me, and I will answer.
ReplyDeleteI said, One is Reb Moshe Feinstein’s ruling that in large cities some kesubose may be invalid.
David said, Maare makom? and I reply to you: Even Hoezer Vol I #178.
David said, What is Rav Moshe's concern about large cities? Rav Moshe himself lived in Manhattan.
I reply to you - Manhattan is a big city, meaning, many Jews live there who have similar names, and if one person in the city has the same name as the husband on the kesubo, the kesubo may be invalid. That is Reb Moshe's pesak. Other than that, why can't Reb Moshe, even if he lived in a small city, write a pesak for those living in big cities?
I said, Another problem is that our Kesubose don’t really assure a woman that she will be paid.
David said, How so? How is she not assured of payment when the kesuba specifically obligates him.
And I said in my blog at torahhalacha.blogspot.com that one reason is that nobody knows what a zuz is. So I suggest writing a kesubo with dollars and not zuzim, that is, to write both and to say that the larger sum of the two is the kesubo. Another reason that the woman may not feel comfortable with collecting her kesubo is that the kesubo states clearly the marital status of the woman, which to some is embarrassing. Maybe she is not comfortable with presenting that document to others. Another reason the woman is not assured of payment because Reb Moshe paskened that when another person in that vicinity has the same name as the husband the Kesubo is invalid. She thus has no faith in the kesubo knowing that there is such a problem. She is no longer sure of her kesubo.
I said - And the Talmud considers this an invalid Kesubo, and the marriage is considered Zenuse. The source for this is Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer 66:9 See also Mishneh Kesubose 54b opinion of Rebbe Mayer. and gemora there 66b and Tos 52a Moni.
David said, Nowadays, the marriage is made on shtar (kesuba), mammon (ring) and biah (yichud with eidus). Surely one of the three were sufficient for the marriage to be halachicly effective, thus avoiding a problem of znus, even if hypothetically there was a problem with the kesubo (shtar).
And I reply to you that you are right that min haTorah the kiddushin is valid, but the rabbis considered the lack of a proper kesubo, meaning one that the wife trusts will get her her money, to be an invalid marriage, bias zenuse.
I said, The third problem is that the Kesubo is read publicly, and some information in it may be hugely humiliating. Rabbeinu Yona considers such a humiliation to be worse than murder.
David said, Obviously we don't pasken like the Rabbeinu Yona.
And I answer, What is so obvious that we don't pasken like Rabbeinu Yona? See Shaarei Teshuva of Rabbeinu Yona 139 that he talks about humiliation being worse than death, and he quotes two gemoras, Bovo Metsiah 58b and 59a.
David said, That being said, what part of reading a kesuba does the Rabbeinu Yona consider humuliating?
I reply to David that if a woman is embarrassed to have her marital status read in public or seen by others, she no longer has confidence in the kesubo and this disqualifies the kesubo as per Shulchan Aruch EH 66:9.
Here is my material from the blog torahhalacha.blogspot.com.David • 6 hours ago
ReplyDeleteOne is Reb Moshe Feinstein’s ruling that in large cities some kesubose may be invalid.
Maare makom? What is Rav Moshe's concern about large cities? Rav Moshe himself lived in Manhattan.
Another problem is that our Kesubose don’t really assure a woman that she will be paid.
How so? How is she not assured of payment when the kesuba specifically obligates him.
And the Talmud considers this an invalid Kesubo, and the marriage is considered Zenuse.
Nowadays, the marriage is made on shtar (kesuba), mammon (ring) and biah (yichud with eidus). Surely one of the three were sufficient for the marriage to be halachicly effective, thus avoiding a problem of znus, even if hypothetically there was a problem with the kesubo (shtar).
The third problem is that the Kesubo is read publicly, and some information in it may be hugely humiliating. Rabbeinu Yona considers such a humiliation to be worse than murder.
Obviously we don't pasken like the Rabbeinu Yona. That being said, what part of reading a kesuba does the Rabbeinu Yona consider humuliating?
i understand that RMF when he came to america, rewrote the ashkenazi ketubah in america, and standarized the wording so everyone in america uses this version now. (If so, can you give me a a source?)
ReplyDeleteAlso, a ketubah must be enforceable under local law to be valid halachically. Therefore, must be signed by husband andwife. And notarized in NYS If so, it invalidates any prenup, which may or may not be desirable, depending which gives more money to whatever side, but makes the marriage 'znut'.
"if one person in the city has the same name as the husband on the kesubo, the kesubo may be invalid. That is Reb Moshe's pesak."
ReplyDelete"May be invalid" is not a pesak.
Snag,
ReplyDeletePsak is not a hundred percent decision. Psak could be a warning to be aware, or it can be a pesak that strictly observant people should be careful. If a kesubo "may be" invalid in certain circumstances, then this can also be a pesak, to be aware of such things. And since when a woman knows that there is a chance her kesubo is invalid, and since Kesubose must be clearly supporting the woman's demands to get paid what she is owed, the pesak surely has relevance, as even a doubt could destroy the kesubo.
Ketubah is read publicly: no halachic need to read it publicly. Its only done to separate the 'nisuin' (giving of ring) from the ?sheva berachot?
ReplyDeleteHaving said this, a ketubah is a 'shtar' that has two 'eidim' witnesses. Two witnesses, per 'chezkat habatim' (third perek of 'baba batra') is to publicize the 'shtar' (chavra it lei, ve'chavrecha de'chavrecha, chavra it lei').
So the argument about publicity is not halachically valid. In fact, its the opposite.
Also, the get itself also has two witnesses for same reason.
If I understand you correctly, the monetary part of the English version would say include something like "husband's name] and [wife's name] hereby agree that "200 zuz" is defined to be $XX,000, annually adjusted in accordance with the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI."
ReplyDeleteIs that the sort of thing you mean?
The title should read 'Probably yes, but according to some minority opinions maybe not'.
ReplyDeleteHow can you be moitzi la'az like that on something that has been done for many many years by many many eminent talmidei chachomim?
On that sort of thing sh'tok.
Why did Rav Moshe continue writing regular kesubos like everybody else and not advocate for English kesubos? I have a copy of a kesuboh Rav Moshe wrote himself by hand. Are you saying that it may not have been kosher?
ReplyDeletesince most people have absolutely no idea about this problem and will keep marrying/divorcing/remarrying with the non-kosher ketubah ... any consequence for the kids from the first, second, even third marriage? what about grandkids? a baal teshuva's grandkid? nobody will ask for the ketubah of the grandparents (i think) to check if it's kosher or not... so... is this a real problem or just something that's so impossible to solve so we can keep cool about it, while doing our best to avoid future mistakes?
ReplyDeleteAgree 100%.
ReplyDeleteEsty,
ReplyDeleteIt isn't all that bad, even though it isn't wonderful. In EH 177:3 we find that if a man rapes a woman he has to marry her and can never divorce her. Therefore, there is no need of a Kesubo. Ramo EH 66:3 says we see from this that if a man cannot divorce his wife there is no need of a Kesubo. But Ramo says that the custom is to require a Kesubo. This might be because a rapist must marry by the ruling of the Torah. But a kesubo is only a dirabonon, and today, some say that there is not even a Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershon see EH IL10.
If it was a widespread problem, you can be sure that Rav Moshe Feinstein would have done all he can to solve it.
ReplyDeleteI would not definte zuz when nobody can define it. I would say the husband owes his wife 200 zuz or x dollars, the largest amount of the two...
ReplyDeleteThere is an opinion in halacha not like the Shulchan Aruch and Ramo that could permit certain changes, but the Ramo EH 66 says the custom is to be stringent. Furthermore, the Ramo says that the source of those who are lenient is EH 177 when somebody is raped and does not have to be given a Kesubo, because the man can't divorce his wife ever. Ramo in EH 66 says that according to this today with Cherem Rabbeinu Gershon a husband may not divorce his wife against her will, so we don't need Kesubose. But the custom is to give Kesubose anyway.
ReplyDeleteBut the problem with this is that rape is a Torah prohibition for the husband ever to give his wife a forced GET. But Cherem Rabbeinu Gershon is only a dirabonon, and the Shulchan Aruch states that it is only up to the year 5,000. (Beginning of Even Hoezer)
It is possible that Reb Moshe had a tsad to be lenient so as not to make a bilbul. It is also possible that some customs are honored even when they are wrong, so as not to make a bilbul. But the people who know the truth and can do it quietly should do it.
Reb Dovid, who today says that there is not a Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom?
ReplyDeleteHow does that answer her question? She wasn't talking about rape.
ReplyDeleteSo why are you making a bilbul online? And why didn't Rav Moshe do it quietly?
ReplyDeleteMoe,
ReplyDeleteSee Shulchan Aruch EH i:21. The Shulchan Aruch says, "Rabbeinu Gershon only decreed until the end of the fifth millenium meaning that today there is no cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom. However, the Shulchan Aruch in I:11 says that "it is good to make a takana with Cherem and Nidui on somebody who marries two wives." The Ramo in I:21 says despite what the Shulchan Aruch says in all of our countries the custom remains.not to marry two women, he also brings opinions whether we agree or disagree with the Shulchan Aruch that today there is no Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom. See also Gro #31. Regardless of all this, even if Rabbeinu Gershon is not in force, the latter generations are very strict about his takonose but for that you have to consult the Otser HaPoskim and by me right now it is almost Shabbos, have a Good Shabbos!
You're right. I didn't explain myself as it was Friday afternoon and I just rushed. Cherem Rabbeinu Gershon forbids a man to divorce his wife without her permission. A Kesubo is an insurance for the wife if she gets divorced, that the husband can not just toss her out. But if the husband, because of Cherem Rabbeinu Gershon cannot just toss her out, there may be no need of a Kesubo. Ramo mentions this, but also says that the custom is to require a Kesubo anyway.
ReplyDeleteNow, the Kesubo may be required even though a great rabbi made a ruling, much after the closing of the Talmud. Even if people follow him it is not a Talmudic ruling and surely not a Torah ruling. Therefore, it doesn't have the impact of a Torah ruling. Rape is a Torah ruling so the husband is told clearly in the Torah he cannot divorce his wife ever. But this does not apply to something not in the Torah and not in the Talmud but a ruling of one rabbi much later. Also, the Shulchan Aruch clearly says that the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershon was only to the year 5000 and not today. However, subsequently, Jews continued his ruling, but it has no power of a Torah or Talmudic ruling. See the Gro I mentioned here somewhere. I think it is EH I:31 to Moe.
What does the Gro and Otsar HaPoskim say?
ReplyDeleteWhy write 200 zuz to add confusion as you already emphasized that nobody knows what it is today?!
ReplyDeleteMoe,
ReplyDeleteBasically what I said, that although today there may not be a Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershon at least in some major opinions about it, the custom of many countries and people is to continue it. Thus it is not the same as a Torah ruling, it is not the same as a Talmudic ruling, and even the status once accepted that everyone bowed to the will of Rabbeinu Gershom the Light of the Exile, if he terminated his power at the year 5000, even those who continue with the decrees he made are far down the totem pole of real sin. Thus, the Shulchan Aruch says two things, one there is no Rabbeinu Gerson today, and two, it is proper for every community to establish the sin of marrying two wives at once with the threats of Niduh and Cherem. It is likely that since "do not do something considered by others as a sin" applies to this, as the Gro says, it may be forbidden to violate those rules accepted anew by a community where one lives.