CCAR RESPONSA
New American Reform Responsa
229. Error in the Ketubah Text
QUESTION: A calligraphy specialist has prepared an illuminated ketubah; the text is modified traditional, but several words have been misspelled. This was discovered a number of years after the wedding. Should the ketubah be replaced? One of the original witnesses has died? (Karen Levin, San Francisco CA)ANSWER: In contrast to a get, the spelling in a ketubah is not critical, even for the Orthodox. The ceremony was witnessed appropriately and the document attests to the wedding. That is quite sufficient especially as the ketubah represents only one of three ways through which a marriage can be validated; this matter has been discussed in several of the other responsa.June 1988
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.
CCAR RESPONSA
New American Reform Responsa
231. A Lost Ketubah
QUESTION: An elderly couple, who have moved from a house in which they lived for a long time to an apartment, have discovered that their ketubah was lost. Do they need to replace it? They have been married for more than four decades. (Stanley Rosenberg, Atlanta GA)ANSWER: The ketubah is one of three ways through which two Jews may enter a marriage; they are: (a) The most common form featured a deed witnessed by two competent individuals and handed by the groom to the bride (Kid 9a; Shulhan Arukh, Even Haezer 32.1-4). This has remained the essential covenant of the modern wedding. The document is akin to the modern ketubah signed by the two witnesses. (b) In addition, it was possible to effect a marriage through the transfer of an item of value (kesef) in the presence of two competent witnesses. This remains as part of the modern wedding in the form of giving a ring with the formula “harei at mequdeshet…” (Kid 2a, b; Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 27.1). (c) Finally, marriage can be effected through intercourse (biah) preceded by a statement indicating the wish to take this woman as wife in the presence of two witnesses who saw the couple leave for a private place (Kid 9b; Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 33.1). The last method was, of course, severely frowned upon by the rabbis, but, bediavad, it is certainly valid. Consent was, of course, necessary (Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 42.1). The most important aspects of the traditional ketubah are the financial and other stipulations. We use a standardized document which emphasizes the equality of both parties. The signatures on the ketubah attest to the fact that the conditions stated in the document apply to the couple and to their marriage. If there is a conflict or the threat of a divorce, it may be necessary to review the ketubah and the conditions stipulated therein. When all goes well the ketubah may never be read again by the couple or anyone else. Among some modern couples it has become customary to create an illuminated ketubah which occupies a prominent decorative place in the home. However, in most families this document along with others is put away and forgotten. The couple in question has obviously enjoyed many years of happy marriage; they need not worry about their ketubah and should simply enjoy the years which lie ahead for them together.July 1989
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.
CCAR RESPONSA
New American Reform Responsa
230. Signature on a Ketubah
QUESTION: At the signing of the ketubah, the witnesses are asked to sign in Hebrew or in English. In many instances they do not remember enough Hebrew to sign their name appropriately and must, therefore, copy the writing prepared by the rabbi. Is this an appropriate way of signing the ketubah? (Betty Blum, Pittsburgh PA)ANSWER: The significance of the ketubah has changed for us. It is, of course, one of three ways of indicating that a couple has been married: (a) The most common form featured a deed witnessed by two competent individuals and handed by the groom to the bride (Kid 9a; Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 32.1-4). This has remained the essential covenant of the modern wedding. The document is akin to the modern ketubah signed by the two witnesses. (b) In addition, it was possible to effect a marriage through the transfer of an item of value (kesef) in the presence of two competent witnesses. This remains as part of the modern wedding in the form of giving a ring with the formula “harei at mequdeshet…” (Kid 2a, b; Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 27.1). (c) Finally, marriage can be effected through intercourse (biah) preceded by a statement indicating the wish to take this woman as wife in the presence of two witnesses who saw the couple leave for a private place (Kid 9b; Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 33.1). The last method was, of course, severely frowned upon by the rabbis, but, bediavad, it is certainly valid. Consent was, of course, necessary (Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 42.1). Our ketubah details the nature of the relationship and we insist that it be egalitarian; traditionally it stipulated the financial and economic considerations of the marriage. Normally in the modern ketubah such matters are omitted. Among us, therefore, the ketubah is more symbolic than legal. Our wording has become standard and does not contain special stipulations. Irrespective of these considerations the signature on the ketubah indicates that two witnesses who have signed have been present and acknowledge that the wedding has occurred. If at a later time the wedding is questioned, the signatures attest to the fact that these two people were married. Any form of signature is valid as long as it has been made by an appropriate witness and that person can subsequently attest to the fact that he/she actually signed the document. I do not know of any instance in which the signature has been questioned because it was copied out, in fact in early periods when not all individuals were literate this must have occurred regularly. It would, therefore, be permissible for the witnesses of the wedding to sign their Hebrew name through copying the letters written for them by the officiating rabbi.February 1989
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.
CCAR RESPONSA
New American Reform Responsa
227. Hebrew or Russian Names
QUESTION: A middle aged couple who recently emigrated from the Soviet Union have brought their ketubah; it is actually closer to a wedding certificate as it simply states that they have been married. It is written in simple Hebrew and signed by two Jewish witnesses. All the names are, however, Russian first names followed by ben and the Russian name of the father. All the names are written in Hebrew. Is this an adequate ketubah or should they prepare another with a different set of witnesses? They hesitate as they have been married for many years and the document is dear to them. (Boris Krokovsky, Trenton NJ)ANSWER: The couple can certainly consider themselves Jewishly married even if the document does not follow the standard form. They had a ceremony, two Jewish witnesses, and at some risk prepared a simple ketubah. This should be properly appreciated. Throughout our history we had adopted many foreign names and simply added them to our Hebrew list. In the last centuries numerous Yiddish names have entered our vocabulary and earlier Greek, Arabic, Spanish, and German names. Even some of the Biblical characters had foreign names, possibly even Moses. There is no problem with the Russian names. We wish the couple a long and happy life together in this country.October 1989
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.
CCAR RESPONSA
New American Reform Responsa
225. Decorations on a Ketubah
QUESTION: Are there any limitations on the decorations which may be placed upon a ketubah? A couple recently had a ketubah prepared with decorations which are almost pornographic. May this document be used for the wedding ceremony? (Martin Kaplan, San Mateo CA)ANSWER: A great deal has been written about the text of the ketubah and studies have indicated that the wording has changed through the ages (Mordechai Akiva Friedman Jewish Marriage in Palestine; J. Neubauer Geschichte des biblischtalmudischen Eheschliessungsrecht; Z. W. Falk Jewish Matrimonial Law in the Middle Ages pp 35 ff). Of course, in modern times this document has become a formalized statement which reflects little about the couple. In twentieth century America the Reform and Conservative groups have developed their own ketubot to reflect the specific needs of these groups. The decorations on a ketubah especially commissioned by the couple may reflect the thoughts and wishes of the couple. We should note that illuminated marriage documents have survived from the Middle Ages onward. The earliest is from Fostat, Egypt in the eleventh century, and only fragments survived. Among the others is one from Krems, Austria (1392), Ostiano, Italy (1612) and many from Persia (Franz Landsberger Illuminated Marriage Contracts; J. Gutmann Beauty in Holiness pp 370 ff). As one looks at these illuminations and decorations, one sees that they fall into two categories. A large number contain formalized decorations of plants, Biblical themes like the symbols of the twelve tribes of Israel, or the twelve signs of the Zodiac; they were only rarely personalized. A ketubah from Rome in 1818 showed a married couple walking hand in hand while others displayed semi-nude rather formalistic angels (Ferrara, 1719, Reggio, 1774, Bosetto, 1801). The last, in one of the signs of the Zodiac, showed a nude couple (Moses Gaster The Ketubah plate 5 ff). As we have looked at the evidence from the text themselves, we must also ask about the attitude of tradition toward such documents. Although the tradition was hardly puritanical and often dealt very forthright with sex and questions relating to it (L. M. Epstein Marriage Laws in the Bible and the Talmud), it did not do so in a way which could be considered as titillating or pornographic. The wedding ceremony and the accompanying festivities are joyous, but kept within limits of decency. Tradition has done its best to encourage restraint. The sheva berakhot recites during seven days of festivities again and again added an element of prayer to the festivities of those days. Whatever the couple did privately has always been considered their business and outside the purview of regulations (L. M. Epstein Sex Laws and Customs in Judaism). The public ceremony, however, is to be conducted in a decorous fashion with everyone sober and in the presence of the minyan (Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 34.4; A. H. Freimann Seder Qidushin Venisuin p 16) as well as two witnesses (Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 42.5). We would therefore indicate to the couple that whatever decorations they have at home is their business, but semi-pornography can not be permitted on the ketubah. The ketubah is a formal document signed by two witnesses which may be read at the wedding ceremony (Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer and Isserles 62.9). We should note that Maharil (Minhagei Maharil 64b) in the fourteenth century did not know the custom of publicly reading the ketubah. We can not permit the use of such a ketubah for a wedding.March 1990
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.
CCAR RESPONSA
New American Reform Responsa
232. Destroyed Ketubah*
QUESTION: The family has lost their decorative ketubah in a fire. They wish to know if it is possible to replace it and if this will have the same validity as the earlier document. The document followed the standard form and did not contain any unusual stipulations, financial or otherwise. (Frieda Blumenthal, Cleveland OH)ANSWER: We should begin by assuring the couple that the marriage remains perfectly valid even without a ketubah. The Talmud, after all, cited three ways of effecting a marriage: (a) The most common form featured a deed witnessed by two competent individuals and handed by the groom to the bride (Kid 9a; Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 32.1-4). This has remained the essential covenant of the modern wedding. The document is akin to the modern ketubah signed by the two witnesses. (b) In addition, it was possible to effect a marriage through the transfer of an item of value (kesef) in the presence of two competent witnesses. This remains as part of the modern wedding in the form of giving a ring with the formula “harei at mekudeshet…” (Kid 2a, b; Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 27.1). (c) Finally, marriage can be effected through intercourse (biah) preceded by a statement indicating the wish to take this woman as wife in the presence of two witnesses who saw the couple leave for a private place (Kid 9b; Shulhan Arukh Even Haezer 33.1) The last method was, of course, severely frowned upon by the rabbis, but, bediavad, it is certainly valid. We are, therefore, dealing more with the aesthetics of the wedding and the desire to have a beautiful ketubah on display rather than with the legal implications of this document. As this was a standard document, it can be drawn up again in precisely the same form as before. If it is at all possible, the same witnesses who signed the original document should sign it again. Somewhere on the document, in order to assure that there is no intent of fraud, it should note that the original document was destroyed in a fire and that this is a replacement drawn up much later than the wedding itself.February 1989
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.
CCAR RESPONSA
New American Reform Responsa
226. Error in the Hebrew Date
QUESTION: A couple has recently reviewed their ketubah with someone who knows Hebrew well. He immediately noticed an error in the date of the wedding. The Hebrew year has been given incorrectly. They would like to have a correct ketubah, but the original witnesses to their marriage are dead. So, they do not know whether they can simply correct the one which they have, or should they have a new ketubah written with different witnesses. (Kathy Hurwitz, Charleston SC)ANSWER: Although the modern ketubah is enforceable as a legal document in some jurisdictions, it remains primarily a religious document symbolic of tradition. The nominal sum of money stipulated bears no relationship to any agreement; it is reminiscent of the ancient dowries. So the figures provided in a ketubah are not relevant. The only thing which is important are the two witnesses who must be adults Jews and not related to each other or to the bride or groom. The other data provided by the wedding document especially after a couple has been married for a considerable length of time may be significant to the family, but from a halakhic point of view are not important. This is different from a traditional get. In that divorce document the names of the parties and the city must be correct, etc., but in a ketubah if a name of a town is misspelled or the name of the bride and groom are not quite correct, the couple nevertheless are properly married. The reason for this is that marriage can occur in three different ways: (a) The most common form featured a deed witnessed by two competent individuals and handed by the groom to the bride (Kid 9a; Shulhan Arukh, Even Haezer 32.1-4). This has remained the essential covenant of the modern wedding. The document is the modern ketubah signed by two witnesses. (b) In addition, it was possible to effect a marriage through the transfer of an item of value (kesef) in the presence of two competent witnesses. This remains as part of the modern wedding in the form of presenting a ring with the formula “harei at mequdeshet…” (Kid 2a, b; Shulhan Arukh, Even Haezer 27.1). (c) Finally, marriage can be effected through intercourse (biah) preceded by a statement indicating the wish to take this woman as wife in the presence of two witnesses who saw the couple leave for a private place (Kid 9b; Shulhan Arukh, Even Haezer 33.1). The last method was severely frowned upon by the rabbis, but, bediavad, it is valid. Marriage simply through intercourse with proper intent would be akin to “common law” marriage. The ketubah, therefore, represents only one of those possibilities and in this case all the others have also clearly taken place. Even if the date is wrong, as you have stated, the couple has been married for many years. It may be historically interesting to note that they have been married thirty instead of twenty-nine years as indicated in the Hebrew dating of the document, but for halakhic purposes that is not important, especially as you indicated that children were born late in this marriage. Even on their account the Hebrew date would be irrelevant and could be shown as wrong when compared to the English date on the ketubah as well as on the secular wedding certificate. The couple may either change the document itself, add an addendum to it, or leave it as it is. Nothing needs to be done.January 1991
If needed, please consult Abbreviations used in CCAR Responsa.