Ketubot 76: Return Policies: Of Cows and Wives

A woman has a blemish when she is married.  Did she develop this blemish after the betrothal, or was it already on her body?  Did her father inform the groom about the blemish and he accepted it, or was he not told?  The rabbis discuss courses of action when a husband discovers this blemish.  One example is a husband who finds that his wife has an extra toe.  Should he not have examined her for such a blemish before engaging in intercourse with her?  And how could she have 'grown' an extra toe after the betrothal?  Does her father have proof that the groom accepted the extra toe? Or was this part of the body hidden and not known or at least not discussed?

The rabbis reveal the true nature of marriage as an acquisition with their story about a cow and a donkey.  If two people are trading these animals and each pulls the other's animal to demonstrate acquisition, there can be a debate about ownership if the cow is pulled but then the donkey dies.  Was the donkey definitely alive while the cow was being pulled?  Does its owner have proof of that fact?  If not, the acquisition of the cow is rescinded.  This is compared with the acquisition of a bride.

We delve into this comparison further - the comparison of the acquisition of a cow and a bride.  What if a butcher finds a needle perforating the thick lining of the second stomach of a cow?  The rabbis walk through the halacha of kashrut - a needle must be going through the entire stomach wall, it must have markings of blood on it (new or a scab), etc., to mark the cow as treifa.  Once it is determined that the cow is treifa - or blemished - who should be held responsible for that acquisition?  Who should swallow the costs?  In this case, the cow is presumed to have eaten the needle along with its food.  The butcher has grounds to return the cow and have his money returned.  And yet the uncertainty was formed while the cow was in the butcher's possession.  Where does the burden of proof lie?

A critical factor is whether or not money has already exchanged hands.  The rabbis explain that any money given along with a betrothal is considered to be a gift and it will not be returned if the marriage is cancelled.  However, in a case of erroneous betrothal - if the groom proves that the father withheld information regarding his daughter's blemish, for example - the betrothal can be cancelled along with a full return of all gifts. 

Quite amazing how differently marriage is used today; families may not be involved at all in the choice of groom/bride, any gifts, any information about sexual intimacy, and requirements regarding sustenance.  Truly the ancient act of marriage was one of acquisition; a business transaction, more than it was an expression of partnership.