I have a general question about the concept of besulah and the appropriate kesuba amounts. Much of the discussion focuses on whether the besulim are intact are not, gedola katana, mukatz etz etc.
My question is, is the husband mostly interested in whether his wife has been with another man in which case the besulim are just being used as evidence, or is the assumption he actually wants to break the besulim himself (and thus there's inherent and not just evidentiary value of the besulim)? The first makes sense to me and the latter seems a bit strange but seems like the crux of the mukatz etz discussion.
Thanks!
Josh
Dear Josh,
We know from the Gemara and Rashi (1) that a Bogeres is entitled to a full Kesubah, even though she has no Besulim remaining. One might be able to understand how this appears to clash with the latter suggestion you raised.
In the Gemara's ensuing discussion (2), Rebbi Meir seems to express your first perspective directly, since he distinguishes Mukas Etz from Be'ulah precisely by pointing out that a Mukas Etz is different since she was not with a man.
What about the Chachamim? They maintain that Mukas Etz is somewhat similar to the Be'ulah in the sense that some external action -- in this case, an unfortunate mishap -- did befall her. This therefore might simply be interpreted as bearing an uncomfortably close resemblance to the case of Be'ulah, or, at the very least, detracts from what otherwise would have been her more naturally pristine status. To be even more accurate, we can refer to a source that the Rosh Kollel, Rav Kornfeld, pointed out to me. That is, the Gemara (3) which says that a woman especially forms a pact with the man who renders her a functioning vessel. Tosfos (4) explains this to mean that upon the first intimate union, the two parties bond, and thereafter also become capable of bearing children. This, too, would be lacking in the Mukas Etz.
I hope this helps!
Best wishes,
Yishai Rasowsky
Thank you! A follow up if I may, I really like the rosh kollels answer.
1) in the discussions of biah rishona on shabbos much of the discussions is on which melacha it is; but if I recall correctly no one says it's makeh bepatish. If the biah makes her into a "kli" shouldn't that be a consideration?
2) is the strength of this connection part of the reason a kohen can't marry a divorcee? Bc she still has an emotional connection on some level to a living man? I realize there's a flaw in the logic since if she was widowed then remarried and divorced, or divorced and the husband subsequently died she still has a "shem" of gerusha even without the man who made her a kli being alive.
Thank you!
1) Baruch she'Kivanta! Indeed, in his commentary on the Gemara (Kesuvos 5b) which discusses this case, the Chasam Sofer (DH O Dilma) explains it exactly as you do. The commentaries point out that Rashi (DH O Dilma) says it is Binyan, as opposed to what the Chasam Sofer wrote as Makeh b'Patish.
2) What an excellent insight! The Sefer ha'Chinuch (Mitzvah 268; cf. 266) explains the Kohen's prohibition of marrying certain women based on the need to protect him from any negative influence to his thoughts, actions, or reputation. With that in mind, recall the Gemara (Pesachim 112a) which says intimacy with a Gerushah involves thoughts about other partners. This possibly supports your explanation.
I hope this helps!
Best wishes,
Yishai Rasowsky