JERUSALEM (VINnews) — A dramatic halachic controversy emerged during a shiur given by a prominent Dayan from Bnei Brak. The Dayan, Rabbi Yaakov Yosef Cohen, noticed that a kesubah printed by a chareidi bookstore chain did not contain the word “V’eizon” (And I will feed), a critical aspect of the husband’s obligations as delineated in the kesubah. The implication is that with such a kesubah a husband would not be obligated to provide sustenance for his wife, which is contrary to the halachic requirement in marriage.
Join our WhatsApp groupSubscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
Since the erroneous kesubah has been mass-printed by the popular bookstore chain, it is assumed that there may be thousands of invalid kesubos which contain the mistaken version.
Rabbi Cohen mentioned this point during a shiur at the Shtefanesht Beis Midrash in Zichron Meir where he serves as a poseik. He ruled that anyone who has such a kesubah in his possession must refer to the Rabbi who performed his wedding and ask him to exchange the kesubah for a kosher one.
The dayan mentioned that even though there were loopholes which could enable the kesubah to be validated, it would be correct to change the kesubah, since the Nachalas Shiva maintains that such a kesubah is invalid and his rulings are accepted by Ashkenazi poskim.
The Dayan’s ruling was widely circulated and a number of young couples discovered that their kesubah was problematic and asked to change their kesubos. In the meantime, the bookstore has stopped printing the problematic kesubos.
Its ironic that its thus word that is missing….
Seems it wasn’t missing the words “ואנא אפלח” which means “and I will work”.
How could so many choshuv Rabonim that are used to reading kesubos at weddings, not notice that the word is missing?? Or even someone else around the chuppah or in the audience?
whatever the consequences for this omssion “V’eizon” (And I will feed)” I don’t know, I’m not a Posek…
but it surely saved a lot of men from lying…..
This will mean that all those learning all day while their wives are the ones bringing in the parnoso, will now have to go to work to support their wives
The Mishnah states that if a key word is left out, the groom is still obligated “because this is a condition of the (Great Sanhedrin) Court.” However, how many grooms today fulfil this obligation? In the time of the Talmud, men bought land with dowry funds, and fed their families with the income provided from its produce.
“In the meantime, the bookstore has stopped printing the problematic kesubos.”
What does that mean? It’s not like Kesubos are printed on a daily basis. Does VIN mean to say that the bookstore stopped SELLING the problematic kesubos? Well, I sure hoped they stopped selling them!
Was the omission intentional ?
Total nonsense. The kesuba is 100% good and valid. A man is obligated in mezonos mdorysa. Just because the word was left out does not mean he intended to make a tnai that he isn’t obligated (which may be possible since she can be mochel momonos). Of course all the remaining kesvos printed like that should be thrown out. But it is ridiculous for those who already have this one to bother to replace it. Because it is not just a matter of rewriting it. It is a totally different nusach called kesuba shnafal ba taus. Like a kesuba dirkasa
Infinitely so much less problematic than a גט having a questionable נוסך would be spurring
“The dayan mentioned that even though there were loopholes which could enable the kesubah to be validated, it would be correct to change the
kesubah, since the Nachalas Shiva maintains that such a kesubah is invalid and his rulings are accepted by Ashkenazi poskim.”
This paragraph should be clarified. The word “change” here should probably be, instead, “exchange”. Or, the word “correct” should be, instead, “incorrect”.
Too bad the phrase, “I will spend my life standing outside the Bais Medrash drinking coffee and smoking cigarettes while my wife cooks, cleans, raises the children and works to support us” wasn’t removed.
מתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה תנאי בטל והמעשה קיים לפיכך האשה מקודשת והבעל חייב בשאר כסות ועונה
רמבם הלכות אישות פרק ו׳
טוּבַמֶּה [א] אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים כָּל הַמַּתְנֶה עַל מַה שֶּׁכָּתוּב בַּתּוֹרָה תְּנָאוֹ בָּטֵל חוּץ מְדַבֵּר שֶׁבְּמָמוֹן שֶׁתְּנָאוֹ קַיָּם. כְּגוֹן שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ אוֹ גֵּרֵשׁ אוֹ נָתַן אוֹ מָכַר עַל תְּנַאי שֶׁהוּא רוֹצֶה בִּתְנָאוֹ שֶׁיְּזַכֶּה עַצְמוֹ בְּדָבָר שֶׁלֹּא זִכְּתָה לוֹ תּוֹרָה וּמָנְעָה מִמֶּנּוּ אוֹ יִפְטֹר עַצְמוֹ בִּתְנָאוֹ מִדָּבָר שֶׁחִיְּבָה אוֹתוֹ בּוֹ הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁאוֹמְרִין לוֹ תְּנָאֲךָ בָּטֵל וּכְבָר נִתְקַיְּמוּ מַעֲשֶׂיךָ וְאֵין אַתָּה נִפְטָר מִדָּבָר שֶׁחִיְּבָה אוֹתְךָ בּוֹ הַתּוֹרָה וְלֹא תִּזְכֶּה בְּדָבָר שֶׁמָּנְעָה אוֹתְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ:
יכֵּיצַד. כְּגוֹן שֶׁקִּדֵּשׁ אִשָּׁה עַל תְּנַאי שֶׁאֵין לָהּ עָלָיו שְׁאֵר כְּסוּת וְעוֹנָה. שֶׁאוֹמְרִין לוֹ בִּכְסוּת וּשְׁאֵר שֶׁהוּא תְּנַאי שֶׁבְּמָמוֹן תְּנָאֲךָ קַיָּם אֲבָל בְּעוֹנָה תְּנָאֲךָ בָּטֵל שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה חִיְּבָה אוֹתְךָ בְּעוֹנָה וַהֲרֵי זוֹ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת וְאַתָּה חַיָּב בְּעוֹנָתָהּ וְאֵין בְּיָדְךָ לִפְטֹר עַצְמְךָ בִּתְנָאֲךָ. וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְכֵן הַמְקַדֵּשׁ יְפַת תֹּאַר עַל תְּנַאי שֶׁיִּתְעַמֵּר בָּהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת וְאֵין לוֹ לְהִתְעַמֵּר בָּהּ שֶׁהֲרֵי הַתּוֹרָה מָנְעָה אוֹתוֹ מִלְּהִשְׁתַּעְבֵּד בָּהּ אַחַר שֶׁנִּבְעֲלָה. וְלֹא מִפְּנֵי תְּנָאוֹ יִזְכֶּה בְּדָבָר [ב] שֶׁמָּנְעָה אוֹתוֹ תּוֹרָה אֶלָּא תְּנָאוֹ בָּטֵל וְכֵן כָּל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה:
Maybe the rabbi left it out because kollel husbands don’t provide for their wives . It’s the women who provide for the men .
If the Kesubah is no good then the marriage is invalid – according to this posek, thus, some one got molested here – ‘no marriage’ equals ‘molestation’. Lets see how far this theory goes…….
EDITORS NOTE: NOT HALACHICALLY TRUE