It is forbidden for a couple to live together without the husband’s basic ketuba obligation to the wife. This includes a valid ketuba, which includes a lien on his property, so that the wife can feel a certain level of security.[1] While ideas have been raised to minimize the need for a ketuba document in our days,[2] in practice, we require that a valid ketuba exist.
The Rabbanut’s practice to hold a copy of the ketuba makes one’s “home ketuba” much less critical, but it was not intended to be relied upon by itself l’chatchila. In fact, the existence of two documents for one obligation is problematic, as it could enable one to collect double. While some authorities thus oppose making “copy” documents,[3] others permit doing so if proper precautions are taken,[4] as Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg rules.[5] A copy document probably only prevents a full denial of the obligation; without the original document, the debtor could still claim he already paid,[6] thus precluding the concern that the woman will collect double. Likewise, one could not extract payment via the lien using the copy.
If so, does the Rabbanut ketuba give the woman the level of protection that permits the couple to live together if the main copy is lost? Some indeed maintain that if the main ketuba is lost, the one at the Rabbanut is insufficient.[7] However, the Nitei Gavriel[8] argues cogently that since it is rare in our days (certainly in Israel) for the wife to be paid her ketuba without beit din’s involvement, the husband cannot make the claim that he already paid, and the Rabbanut ketuba is therefore effective. Accordingly, he rules that one may rely on the existence of the Rabbanut copy until the couple has an opportunity to remedy the situation, and we concur.[9]
If a ketuba is lost, there is a special document called a shtar ketuba d’irchasa that a couple can ask a rabbi to produce. It tells the story of the past obligation and the loss of the ketuba, and the new document replaces the lost one from the time of its issuance. The document is composed with the husband’s involvement. The gemara[10] and the Shulchan Aruch[11] discuss the creation of a replacement document by beit din for one who possesses a document that has become (or is becoming) illegible. The witnesses of the original document may not reissue an identical copy of the old one,[12] because their authorization to produce a document ceased when they signed the first one.[13] Even with the borrower’s (or, in this case, the husband’s) reauthorization, the lien stemming from a new document would be valid only from the time of the reissuance.[14]
Your idea of resigning the document (which is parallel to rewriting other parts of the ketuba that faded) is interesting. However, since it is not raised in all the discussions of the parallel cases, it is apparently not feasible, for the following reason. If the rewriting replaces something that is illegible, it is like writing a new document, which cannot be done with the old date (as a predated document is invalid[15]). Even if the original writing is legible, it is still apparently a problem to write over it because people will be reading the new writing that covers the original.
We suggest that you ask a rabbi with experience with such documents to prepare an appropriate special new ketuba. In the meantime, you can rely on the Rabbanut ketuba. (If your wife is troubled by the situation, you should act immediately.) If you want to fix the old ketuba for sentimental purposes, you can make any changes you like after you mark it clearly (if discreetly) as not for payment.