Must the Kallah inform her Chasan that she is a Beula-not a virgin

Must the Kallah inform her Chasan that she is a Beula-not a virgin?[1]

[It is forbidden for a Kallah who is not a Besula to withhold this information from her Chasan and have him obligate himself to a Kesuba of a Besula.[2]] If this occurred, the [entire[3]] Kesuba is invalid.[4] Accordingly, a new Kesuba of 100 Zuz must be written as soon as the Chasan is informed.[5] [Nonetheless, the Kiddushin remains valid even in such a case.[6]]



Must the Misader Kedushin be told that she is a Beula if he is not the person who is writing the Kesuba?

There is no need to inform the Misader Kedushin that the Kallah is a Beuala if he is a different person than the one being Misader the Kesuba.

At what stage must a Kallah inform her Chasan that she is not a Besula?[7]

This information is not to be divulged until the Chasan has shown deep interest in closing the Shidduch and getting married. Some Poskim[8] rule that it is even forbidden to divulge this information on the outset, prior to the first meeting, or prior to a serious development of the Shidduch.


[1] See Maharsham 7:152; Eiyn Yitzchak E.H. 1:67; Igros Moshe O.C. 4:118; Kovetz Teshuvos of Rav Elyashiv 1:159; Even Yisrael 9:133

[2] Implication of Michaber ibid; Eiyn Yitzchak ibid 15; Igros Moshe ibid; Kovetz Teshuvos of Rav Elyashiv 1:159; Even Yisrael 9:133

The reason: As the Kesuba is invalid, and it is forbidden to live with a person without a Kesuba. [Eiyn Yitzchak ibid; Rav Elyashiv ibid; See however Even Yisrael 9:133] Likewise, not telling the Chasan is considered Gneivas Daas. [Rav Elyashiv ibid; Even Yisrael ibid]

Other opinions: Some Poskim give room for the Chasan to not be informed that his Kallah is not a Besula. [See Maharsham 7:152 who gave such a Heter in a time of need, under specific circumstances and conditions; See Even Yisrael 9:133 that it is not considered to be living without a Kesuba, as the Chasan is unaware of its invalidation and will be deterred to easily divorce her]

[3] This includes both the Ikkur and Tosefes Kesuba. [Darkei Moshe 67; Beis Shmuel 67:4; See Chelkas Mechokeik 67:5 who questions why the Tosefes Kesuba is also invalid]

[4] Michaber E.H. 67:5; Kesubos 11b

The reason: As this is a classic case of Mekach Taus [a transaction performed under false pretenses], in which case we invalidate the obligation. [Beis Shmuel ibid]

[5] Rama 68:9; Tur 68; Rambam

[6] Implication of Rama ibid, Rambam and Tur; Michaber E.H. 39:5 that if he accepted the Mum after discovery, the Kiddushin is valid; Haflah in Kuntrus Achron; Eiyn Yitzchak ibid 2-15 [See there for a thorough analysis on this subject, and his conclusion that according to all the Kiddushin is valid]; Rav Elyashiv ibid; See Even Yisrael ibid

Other opinions: Some rule that the Kiddushin is invalid and needs to be redone. [Tosafus Kesubos 11, brought in Beis Shmuel 68:24; See Eiyn Yitzchak ibid]

[7] Igros Moshe 118

[8] Igros Moshe ibid

Was this article helpful?

Related Articles

Leave A Comment?

You must be logged in to post a comment.