Kinyan and Ketuba: Is the Wife the Property of Her Husband?

The Ketuba takes pride of place under every Jewish chuppa throughout history. Yet, it is often misunderstood as a declaration of love or a Jewish version of wedding vows. In truth, the Ketuba is essentially an insurance contract which forms the legal basis of the Jewish marriage. The ketuba lists the husband’s obligations towards his wife including providing her with food, clothing and pleasure as well as protecting her financially in case of death or divorce. Maurice Lamm¹ points out that the ketuba is written in the legalistic language of Aramaic rather than the Hebrew language of our songs and prayers in order to distinguish its purpose. 

One of the controversial areas surrounding the ketuba is the kinyan – the acquisition involved. What is acquired in a Jewish marriage? Is the wife considered the ownership of the husband? Why doesn’t this apply both ways? Let us delve into these questions and untangle this popular – yet often misunderstood – topic.

The kinyan of the ketuba is a kinyan which a man makes². In fact, this kinyan is made before the chuppa, often at the ‘chatan tisch.’ This kinyan is simply the man’s acceptance of the terms of the ketuba, namely, his obligations towards his wife. The mesader kiddushin (officiating Rabbi of the marriage) hands the chatan an object (normally a handkerchief or pen) which the chatan then lifts. The lifting of the object constitutes the kinyan ketuba and the chatan has now committed to the terms of the ketuba³. 

Another part of the kinyan is the giving of the ring. The ring forms the basis of the kiddushin and the handing over entails several halachot highlighting its role in ownership. These include the ring being in the chatan’s property⁴ and preferably bought with cash (demonstrating true ownership). A ring is one of three ways which the Gemara lists⁵ as being mekadeish a woman but it is the way it has been done customarily (Rambam, hilchot ishut 3:21). It is known as kiddushei kesef, kiddushin of money, where money, or a valuable item is used to facilitate the kiddushin. Although according to the letter of the law, this method can be performed with any item of the value of the peruta, the Sefer Hachinuch lists the minhag of a ring, a custom in practice since at least the time of the Geonim⁶.

In order for the kinyan to be real, the woman must know the value of the ring. The custom is to give a gold ring, however, a chatan must be careful not to give a gold-plated ring as the kalla may not have agreed to a kiddushin for a ring of lower value (eg. gold-plated copper). A ring is chosen as it will not become family property, but remain the property of the wife⁷. The structure of the kiddushin involves the chatan presenting the ring to his kalla and stating ‘harei at mekudeshet li…’ The chatan makes a declaration and the kalla remains silent. This is because the halachic mechanics of a kiddushin is that a kosher kiddushin is always one-sided. 

One of the controversial areas surrounding the ketuba is the kinyan – the acquisition involved. What is acquired in a Jewish marriage? Is the wife considered the ownership of the husband? Why doesn’t this apply both ways? Let us delve into these questions and untangle this popular – yet often misunderstood – topic.

With all this background, we still must understand the question at the heart of this article – how can a man be koneh a woman? The Gemara itself uses the root kanah, to acquire, as it lists the ways that a woman can be ‘nikneit’ ‘acquired.’ Rav Moshe Taragin provides a number of sources to claim that this acquisition is not comparable to the acquisition of an inanimate object. It is not ‘ownership’ in the sense that the woman is the man’s property. 

Rav Taragin⁸ brings the Gemara in Kiddushin (6b) which compares the text of a get (divorce document) and a shtar shichrur (contract which frees a slave). The Gemara there writes that if the words ‘harei ata l’aztmecha’ (‘You are for yourself’) free a slave, whose body belongs to its master, it should certainly enable a wife to divorce her husband as she is not owned. Rav Taragin also quotes the Gemara in Gittin 77b which ‘addresses the riddle’ of giving a get to a wife. In order to effect the divorce, the wife must accept the get, yet, until she is divorced, all her property halachically belongs to her husband (so she won’t be able to accept a get). Ravina says there is no riddle- since it is only her possessions and not her that is under the husband’s ownership, there is no issue with her accepting the get. 

Finally, Rabbi Taragin discusses the role of ishut, of the actual relationship between the husband and wife and its place in the kinyan. According to Rav Taragin, the act of kinyan, of acquiring something is not sufficient to capture the essence of kiddushin – which is what marriage is. Rav Taragin writes that unique to the process of kiddushin is an element named ishut– enacting the bond between husband and wife. In short, the kinyan of a wife is not merely a copy of the kinyan of a property. Being mekadeish, or mekaneh, a wife is an acquisition on more than one level. Because it results in ishut, this interpersonal bond. 

Rav Taragin strengthens this from the Gemara itself which emphasises that each of the three techniques to achieve kiddushin are effective on their own – it is not that all three are required. Rav Taragin writes that there must be an idea which would give us this hava amina, this initial thought. He explains “Since kiddushin is multidimensional, we might have thought that in order to establish each facet of kiddushin, a separate process is necessary.” In other words, when the chatan says to his kalla ‘harei at mekudeshet li,’ there is so much more at play than merely the transfer of ownership. There is a relationship which is halachically created through the kiddushin process, an ishut. 

This article is just a small selection of some of the many minhagim, mishnayot and mechanics of the kiddushin process – both of the ketuba and the kinyan kesef (the ring). Through all the brilliant lomdut I was able to learn along the way (and partially understand!), the one message that shines so clearly to me is this: there are incredible levels of halachic and hashakfic meaning tied to every Jewish prayer, document and ceremony. The more we delve, the more we realise there is so much more to learn. A Jewish marriage is not just naming a couple Mr and Mrs, it is a bond of physical property, a bond of emotional property and a bond of spiritual property⁹. 

1. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/465168/jewish/Ketubah-The-Jewish-Marriage-Contract ↩︎
2. https://www.etzion.org.il/en/halakha/even-haezer/marriage-and-divorce/laws-wedding-3-customs-and-laws-wedding ↩︎
3. This is one understanding. There are other customs where the chatan must hand the ketuba to his wife and declare ‘this is your ketuba’ amongst others. Also, some opinions hold that the kinyan is only related to the tosefet ketuba (an extra amount of money the Rabbis instituted to be given to the wife by the husband) or it may be linked to ownership of the chatan’s property.  ↩︎
4. .So if the chatan or kalla’s family previously owned the ring, they must pass the ownership to the chatan. ↩︎
5. First Gemara in kiddushin (2a) ↩︎
6. https://etzion.org.il/en/halakha/even-haezer/marriage-and-divorce/laws-wedding-8-customs-and-laws-wedding
   ↩︎
7. https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/477321/jewish/Kiddushin-Betrothal
   ↩︎
8. https://www.etzion.org.il/en/talmud/studies-gemara/talmudic-methodology/kiddushin-kinyan
   ↩︎
9. This echoes the words of Rav Taragin who links the Mishna’s three ways of being mekadeish a woman to facets of the relationship. These are (a) kesef- money, or as we do nowadays, a ring. This is what I called the physical bond. (b) shtar- a document which would confer upon the woman married status and therefore forbidding her to any other man. This is what I called the spiritual bond as it sets aside the woman as the man’s partner in shleimut. (c) biah- intimacy. What Rav Taragin called ishut, I called the emotional bond.  ↩︎