Marriage IV: The Ketuba

A ketuba is a marriage writ, a sort of prenuptial agreement that stipulates payments to be made to a woman in the event of her husband’s death or the couple’s divorce.

Guarantee of ketuba payment is critically important to the institution of Jewish marriage, to the point that the basic sum, known as ikkar ketuba, would have to be paid out even if no ketuba document had been drawn up.¹ Drawing up the ketuba document is so important, though, that a married couple are generally not permitted to live together without one.

In this piece, we’ll explore the ketuba’s sources, purpose, content, and implications. (The ketuba is usually signed just before or during the wedding ceremony, with the exact timing depending on the community’s custom. We discuss the practice of reading the ketuba at a wedding here, and we also plan to discuss the halachic prenup in a furture piece.)

Ketuba from the Torah

A look at the ketuba’s origins can help us understand its significance. The Torah does not use the term ketuba. However, in a few places, it refers to mohar, an obligation of a bridegroom that may be the ketuba’s precursor. For example, the Torah requires a man who has seduced an underage female to give her father mohar if the couple go on to marry.² (If they don’t marry,³,⁴ then the seducer pays the father a sum equivalent to the standard mohar of a virgin:

A midrash halacha identifies mohar here with the ketuba:

Based on comparison to the law of a rapist,⁵ the midrash halacha goes on to say that the amount that the seducer would pay was fifty silver shekalim, an amount considered equivalent to mohar.⁶

Rashi embraces the midrash’s identification of the ketuba with the mohar, and notes that giving the biblical mohar meant writing a ketuba.

The midrash and Rashi on these verses align well with the view, generally attributed to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Meir,⁷ that a ketuba is obligatory on a Torah level:

The Torah mentions mohar specifically with respect to virgins. Therefore, even according to the view that the ketuba is a Torah obligation, the institution of a ketuba for other women is considered a rabbinic enactment.

Ketuba as Rabbinic Enactment

Other authorities argue that mohar is not a precursor to the ketuba and the ketuba is not from the Torah. Ramban, for example, understands the mohar as gifts, known as sivlonot, given by a man to his betrothed in order to help her prepare for chuppa and marriage:

On this reading, the mohar signifies commitment to the marriage by fitting the kalla out with provisions for it. The ketuba is thus not rooted in the mohar; rather, it is rabbinic.

Ramban’s view is consistent with the view of the sages ad loc., who disagree with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and with Rabbi Meir on this point, and with statements in the Talmud that seem to refer to the ketuba as a rabbinic enactment, for example:

Tosafot even argue that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel himself meant only that the mohar inspired the ketuba, while maintaining that the ketuba is rabbinic.⁸

Amounts

Even according to the view that the ketuba is from the Torah, the amounts of the ketuba payment may be rabbinic:

Ritva argues that, to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, the ketuba is obligatory on a Torah level. However, the Torah left the amount of the ketuba to the couple (and their parents) to negotiate, or to our sages to set.⁹

A mishna stipulates the standard amounts of the ikkar ketuba, the core ketuba payment.

A zuz or dinar is equivalent to ¼ of a shekel. So, if the coins mentioned here are of pure silver, as the biblical shekel was, then the minimum amount of the ikkar ketuba would be equivalent to the Torah’s fifty-shekel mohar of the virgin. Even if the coins are not pure silver, the amount may have been meant to symbolize the mohar.

To put that sum in context, consider that the Mishna in Pe’a lists 200 zuz as the amount of assets someone would need to be above the poverty line, and thus disqualified from receiving agricultural gifts to the poor.

In his comments on this mishna, Rash of Sens explains that the ketuba could provide the funds needed for a woman’s basic expenses for a year.¹⁰

We’ve seen that the ketuba might be derived fully or partially from the Torah, or might be an entirely rabbinic enactment. Regardless, the ketuba gradually evolved to become the contract that we have today. The Talmud details key stages in the ketuba’s evolution that reveal aspects of the ketuba’s purpose. (We’ve numbered the stages to make them easier to understand.)

Tosafot Rosh explains this passage as follows:¹²

Stage 1: The ketuba seems to have entailed the chatan setting aside 200 zuz so that it would be ready to be paid out in the event of divorce or the husband’s demise.

Unfortunately, women would not agree to marry under these conditions, because there was no way to guarantee that a wife would actually receive this “insurance” money if her marriage ended. In particular, there seems to have been a real concern that heirs might conceal money from a new widow.

Stage 2: It was then decided to set the money aside at the home of the bride’s father, where she trusted it would await her if it needed to be paid out.

However, this arrangement made it too easy for the husband to dissolve the marriage. Since the funds were already out of his reach, he had no financial incentive to try to preserve the marriage. The money was waiting for his wife at her parents’ home, and, in a moment of anger, he could tell her to go join it.

Stage 3: Next, the ketuba funds were used to make significant vessels that would be used in the couple’s home (the Talmud’s phrasing reflects the assumption that married sons would live in an extended household with their parents). These would be difficult for the heirs to conceal if the husband died, and the husband would also get some benefit from them during the marriage.

Unfortunately, the benefit of the vessels to the husband was insufficient to deter divorcing in a fit of anger.

Stage 4: Finally, the ketuba was changed to a lien on the husband’s property. This meant that any of his property could be seized to pay out the ketuba, so the commitment was both substantial and secured. Furthermore, the funds were not set aside in advance, so the need to gather them would deter frivolous divorce.

With this series of decisions, the sages sought to protect women’s financial security in the event of divorce or widowhood, while also reducing the chances of impulsive divorce. Ultimately, the ketuba developed as a document that provides for a woman when a marriage ends, in a way that stabilizes the marriage. This function underlies the halacha with which we began this piece, that the ketuba is essential to the marriage’s legal standing.

Other Talmudic passages reinforce these ideas. One tells us explicitly that one purpose of the ketuba is to help deter a man from divorcing lightly:

Perhaps adding a woman’s direct perspective, another passage teaches that the ketuba adds “favor.” Rashi explains this as giving a woman motivation to marry.¹³

By deterring divorce, a ketuba strengthens marriage, creates motivation to pursue it, and builds confidence in it. In the mishna, Rabbi Meir goes so far as to suggest that a sub-standard ketuba would mean that relations within the marriage are considered licentious; the Talmud explains that Rabbi Meir saw a proper ketuba as crucial to a woman’s sense of faith in her marriage:

In other words, Rabbi Meir views the ketuba not just as a prerequisite for marriage and assurance of a woman’s financial security, but also as a legal device that shapes the identity of the marriage, by building marital confidence and commitment.

Now that we know something about the history and role of the ketuba, we are prepared to appreciate its contents. The text of the ketuba is primarily in Aramaic, which was the most common spoken language among Jews at the time it was formulated. Let’s go through it step by step, addressing some common questions along the way. We’ll present the most significant differences between common versions of the ketuba,¹⁴ but won’t be able to look at every variation. On the whole, phrases that appear only in some versions are in brackets, and common alternatives are side by side with slashes. For the sake of readability, the base text presented from this point on is the standard ketuba for a “betula.”

In practice, a couple should work out their ketuba text with their mesader kiddushin (the one officiating the wedding).

Setting the Scene The ketuba starts with the Jewish calendar date and the location, and then names the chatan and kalla:

Names and the Question of Mothers’ Names: Typically, Jewish legal documents list a person’s given name and their father’s name, but not their mother’s. This is customary for the ketuba as well. In a brief responsum, Chatam Sofer permits recording the mother’s name in the ketuba of someone whose father’s name is unknown. He also relates to why we typically do not use the mother’s name in the ketuba:

A chatan and kalla might nevertheless wish to include their mothers’ names in the ketuba alongside their fathers’ names. Is this permissible?

In an online responsum,¹⁵ Israeli rabbi Rav Yehuda Odesser gently discourages this by noting that it is not customary, though he defers to the officiant of the wedding:

In contrast, Rav Yehuda Henkin defends the possibility of including the mothers’ names in the ketuba:

Rav Henkin validates the impulse to include the mothers’ names. In a brief communication to Deracheha, Rosh Yeshivat Har Etzion Rav Baruch Gigi also wrote that including the mothers’ name after the fathers’ is acceptable if both parties wish to do so.¹⁶ Because this is not customary, a couple should be sure to discuss it in advance with their families and mesader kiddushin. A mesader kiddushin also addresses other questions about names in the ketuba, such as how to spell formal names and whether to include nicknames.

Describing the Kalla: The ketuba text mentions the chatan by name, unadorned. For the kalla, though, it includes a term specifying her personal status. This status varies based on her life circumstances. It is included because it has implications for her ketuba settlement and whom she is permitted to marry.

A widow appears as armalta, a divorcee as matrachta, and a convert as giyurta. A divorcee and a convert are not permitted to marry a kohen.¹⁷ In all three of these situations, the kalla is entitled to the same base ketuba sum of 100 zuz, as opposed to a virgin kalla’s 200.¹⁸

According to Ashkenazi traditions, a virgin kalla who was born Jewish is called betulta (Aramaic for the betula, virgin). Some Sefardi traditions simply call her kalta (Aramaic for the kalla, bride).

If a kalla is not a virgin (and she neither had a previous marriage nor underwent conversion), a few different terms may be used to describe her in the ketuba, most commonly kalta or iteta (the woman), since they are less descriptive terms. Some use be’ulta (a woman who has had relations), which sounds and looks like betulta.

Over six hundred years ago, Tashbetz allowed for a chatan to give the ketuba of a betula to a bride who was halachically presumed not to be a virgin, since adding to her base settlement is at the chatan’s discretion.¹⁹

Much more recently, Rav Moshe Feinstein maintains that, so long as the chatan agrees, a non-virgin kalla eligible to marry a kohen can receive the ketuba of a virgin:

As Rav Moshe notes, the key implications of the ketuba for a woman who would be permitted to marry a kohen relate to money, since her sexual history does not limit whom she can marry. A chatan can thus choose to obligate himself in additional funds,²⁰ making the amounts equivalent to those of a virgin. Taking this step also enables the couple to keep the kalla’s past private, as it is for a non-virgin chatan. In this case, the term “betulta” in the ketuba would still be considered accurate, since in a less common usage, it can also denote a woman who never had children.

If, however, a woman had relations with someone a Jewish woman is not permitted to marry, like a non-Jew, using the term betulta in the text of the ketuba would not be permissible, so as not to be misleading in the event of widowhood and remarriage.²¹

Commitments: Now that we’ve covered the when, where, and who of the ketuba, it’s time to look at what the chatan has committed to the kalla:

This part of the ketuba restates kiddushin, and also presents a commitment to support and to honor the kalla. In practice, the couple can arrange their finances in a range of ways, but this fundamental expectation of a husband providing support for his wife generally stays in place. (See more here.)

Basic Settlement Next comes the ikkar ketuba, the fundamental financial commitment of the ketuba itself, as well as a statement of the core obligations of the chatan to provide his kalla with she’ar, kesut, and ona—sustenance, clothing and sexual relations. (Learn more here.)

The language introducing the ikkar ketuba is an important point of contention. Ashkenazi ketubot typically refer to mohar and state that the payment is 200 and fitting “according to the Torah,” while Sefardi ketubot do not.

Rabbeinu Tam saw the mention of mohar and “from the Torah” as proof that the ketuba is a Torah-level obligation.²² As he read it, this language means that the zuzim in question are pure silver, so that 200 of them are equivalent to fifty biblical shekels. Alternatively, this language may simply relate to the ketuba as rabbinic, with the amounts enacted by the sages to match the numbers mentioned in the Torah.²³

Other authorities who view the ketuba as unquestionably rabbinic may consider including those words to be in error.²⁴

Following the view that the amounts are rabbinic, Shulchan Aruch rules that the 200 zuzim of the ikkar ketuba are in kesef medina, alloyed silver coins with a value of 1/8 of a pure silver zuz. He also provides an equivalent in his currency, the dirham. Rema cites the opposing position, that the 200 zuzim are indeed of pure silver, and thus equivalent to the biblical mohar.

What does this add up to now? Based on accepted valuations of Rav Karo’s dirham, this works out to an ikkar ketuba of 120g of pure silver for Shulchan Aruch, and about 960g of silver for Rema. However, the prices of commodities and of currency are in constant flux. Today, the amounts described here are well under $1,000 for Rema, and less than $100 for Shulchan Aruch.²⁵

Each of these sums is substantially smaller than what would be needed to subsist for a year above the poverty line, which we saw was the initial spending power of the ketuba. One way to address the disparity between the former value of the ikkar ketuba and its current, lesser value, is through the next clauses of the ketuba.

Additional Financial Commitments: The next section of the ketuba makes note of the nedunya, dowry, also called nichsei tzon barzel (lit., iron sheep property). This is a type of property that the wife brings into marriage, of which the husband has full use. However, the wife retains rights to its initial principal value as part of the ketuba settlement.

After the nedunya, we mention what is known as tosefet ketuba, additional payments stipulated in the ketuba at the chatan’s discretion.

The ketuba text here varies greatly in different communities. The Ashkenazi text itemizes types of property, but in practice assigns a standardized lump sum of 200 zekukim,100 each for the nedunya and for the tosefet ketuba:²⁶

Zekukim were a common currency in the Middle Ages, but today there is halachic debate regarding their value. In a responsum from 1980, Rav Moshe Feinstein summarizes the difficulties with using the language of 200 zekukim in the ketuba:

While Rav Moshe ascribes the value of 100lbs (45.36kg) of pure silver to 200 zekukim, opinions range widely from 2.4kg to 57.5kg, leaving the total valuation of an Ashkenazi ketuba anywhere from around $1,800 to $44,000 (as of Tevet, 5783)! Given the difficulties of making this valuation, some authorities have suggested jettisoning the mention of zekukim and replacing them with a realistic but substantial sum that would be readily understood by the chatan and kalla, and their witnesses.²⁷

In contrast, Sefardi ketubot already vary, leaving room for a more realistic sum and including a provision in case of fluctuations in currency values.

In some communities, the chatan might write a particularly large sum, as a demonstration of his regard for the kalla. This practice is discouraged, however, especially since even highly inflated amounts may be enforceable, at least under Israeli law!

Conditions A ketuba may also contain a number of conditions for the marriage. So, for example, Sefardi ketubot often include mentions of a wife’s commitments, as well as a chatan’s commitment to monogamy and to making international travel subject to her agreement.

The chatan’s agreement here not to marry another woman is particularly noteworthy, since the edict of Rabbeinu Gershom that a man cannot marry more than one woman did not take effect in all the lands of the East.²⁸

Collection Next, according to all traditions, the chatan clarifies that all of his property, even the shirt off his back, is in lien to ensure that the ketuba can be collected. (We discussed the development of this halacha above.)

Attestation The ketuba concludes with a summary attestation and signatures of the two witnesses to it, and sometimes also includes the signature of the chatan himself:

The kinyan to which the ketuba refers is a kinyan sudar, a symbolic ‘handkerchief transaction’ that effects a halachic change in status. This kinyan, common in a range of contracts (like selling chametz), signifies a person’s full agreement to the terms of a contract, in symbolic return for an object (often a handkerchief or pen), which he holds and lifts. Rema stipulates that a kinyan before witnesses is a precondition for the ketuba to take effect.

In theory, the object used for this type of kinyan should belong to the person who is “acquiring” the contracted commitment.²⁹ In practice, it often formally belongs to the witnesses.

The chatan takes hold of and lifts an object to signify his full agreement to the terms of the ketuba and to initiate the lien on his property. The kalla can be seen as acquiring these obligations through acquiring the ketuba.

In light of the object used for the kinyan representing the kalla’s side of the transaction, and in light of the desire of some couples for both spouses to wear wedding rings, some rabbis, including Rosh Yeshivat Har Etzion Rav Baruch Gigi, have suggested that couples interested in the husband wearing a wedding ring could consider using a ring intended for the chatan for the kinyan of the ketuba.³⁰ A ring used in this way serves a clear halachic purpose that is intrinsically connected to the wedding, without interfering with the kiddushin.

The ketuba has laid out the who, what, when, where, and how much of the chatan’s commitment to the kalla. Its contents are telling. If the ketuba was merely concerned with deterring divorce and providing for widowhood, it is hard to imagine that all of the details about other commitments would be included.

Rabbanit Chanital Ofan makes a broader point about the far-reaching significance of the ketuba, based on its text:

Not all obligations related to the ketuba are written up within it. In any contractual situation, certain breaches of contract are so severe that the party in breach forfeits his or her standing or rights under the contract. The Mishna lists two sets of behaviors in breach of the marital relationship, for which a woman could be forced to accept divorce from her husband while forfeiting the sum provided for in her ketuba. (The practical halacha depends on the specifics of a situation.) It calls them, respectively, dat Moshe and dat Yehudit.

Rashba explains the meaning of each category in the mishna:

Rashba considers dat Moshe in this context to refer to Torah-level mitzvot and dat Yehudit to matters of binding, modest custom.

Dat Moshe includes only those situations in which a wife’s transgression could also lead her husband to violate Halacha. For example, if a wife is not honest about the laws of nidda, she leads both herself and her husband to sin when they are intimate. But dat Moshe doesn’t include personal violations of Torah prohibitions. For example, the Torah prohibits a woman from eating shrimp, but if she eats it, that is a personal matter for which she must do teshuva. Even if her husband initiates divorce on that basis, she does not forfeit her ketuba.

To be entitled to her ketuba, a woman is expected not to disrupt her husband’s Torah observance, and not to deviate from the modest norms of her community. She is expected to be committed to sustaining the religious character of the home and the intimacy of the conjugal relationship. The husband has parallel responsibilities, which could make him liable to divorce his wife and pay out the ketuba.

As a matter of Torah law, a wife cannot force her husband to divorce, but a husband can force divorce on his wife. (See more here.) Following the institution of the cherem (edict) of Rabbeinu Gershom, however, a man cannot divorce his wife against her will.

Wherever it took effect, this law has had a great impact on the status of the ketuba, in two ways. First, it means that a couple seeking divorce will generally need to do so by agreement. As Rema notes, a man cannot simply force his wife to take her ketuba and consider the divorce settled. Since a divorce agreement typically includes financial arrangements, the ketuba usually becomes moot by mutual agreement.

The condition in a Sefardi ketuba against polygamy can also increase the impetus for the couple to make a separate divorce agreement. Since the base sums of the ketuba are often low, relying on a separate agreement is often more desirable to couples than relying on the ketuba. Estates are similarly typically settled among heirs through an agreement distinct from the ketuba, so that the financial amounts of the ketuba have little practical application. (The question of whether the ketuba is legally enforceable outside of Israel adds an additional wrinkle to this.)

Second, once a wife’s agreement is essential to divorce, the ketuba becomes less essential to the marriage. For example, we began this piece by noting that a couple is obligated to have a ketuba. Practically speaking, this means that a woman needs to know where her ketuba is and have ready access to it. Rav Moshe Feinstein recommends that a woman keep the ketuba secreted with her personal articles, unless she is confident that her husband can be trusted with it.

One common way to preserve the ketuba is to have a decorative artistic ketuba displayed in the home. It is also permissible for a woman’s family to keep her ketuba for her, even if they are in another city.³¹

Common practice in Israel and in many other locales is to deposit a copy of the ketuba with the rabbinate, to head off the need for a replacement ketuba, known as a ketuba de-irkesa, in the case of loss.

Even without this measure, Rema raises this possibility that a couple who have lost their ketuba could be permitted to cohabit temporarily without one, because, with Rabbeinu Gershom’s edict in place, the ketuba is no longer as necessary as it once was.

Others question the validity of Rema’s argument even where Rabbeinu Gershom’s edict has been accepted, given that the edict is not on the level of Torah law.³²

Concluding Thought

We began this piece with a promise to explore the importance of the ketuba, starting with its Torah roots. In particular, we focused on how the ketuba represents more than a financial settlement and contributes both to a given marriage’s stability and to the institution of marriage as a whole. Ironically, as the ketuba’s practical financial function erodes, its significance increasingly lies in those values more than in the precise sums stipulated within it.