Bava Batra 92b (צב:) — the Talmud in English

bran,

(Mnemonic: woman, slave, ox, oxen, and produce)

These are the mnemonic signs for the matters from which the Gemara seeks to prove one of the sides in the dispute between Rav and Shmuel.

Meytivi

An objection to Rav, who maintains that with regard to monetary matters one follows the majority, from what we learned in tractate Ketubot [15b]: As we learned in the Mishna:

A woman who was widowed

or

divorced,

and came to claim her ketuba from her husband or his heirs, but her ketuba document was lost and it is unknown how much was written in it,

and she says: I married as a virgin,

and my ketuba is two hundred dinars,

and he says: No,

that is not so,

rather, I married you as a widow,

I married you,

and your ketuba is only one hundred dinars. [And likewise, if she was widowed, the heirs say: Our father married you as a widow and not as a virgin.]

If there are witnesses that she left

her father's house at the time of her marriage

with a hinuma,

a veil over her head, draped over her eyes,

and with her hair uncovered,

her hair laid over her shoulder, as was customary when virgins were taken from their fathers' homes to the wedding, then the payment of

her ketuba

is

two hundred

dinars, as prescribed for the ketuba of a woman who marries as a virgin.

And the Gemara proves:

The reason is that there are witnesses,

and only then does she collect two hundred dinars for her ketuba;

but

if

there are no witnesses, she does not.

She is not believed, but collects only one hundred dinars, like a woman who married as a widow.

And why?

Let us say: Follow the majority, and the majority of women

in the world

marry as virgins,

and even without witnesses she should collect two hundred dinars in her ketuba by virtue of

the majority?

This proves from here that with regard to monetary matters one does not follow the majority; rather, the money remains in the possession of the one who holds it so long as there is no clear proof sufficient to remove it from him. This is a difficulty for Rav!

And we answer:

Ravina said:

There, in the case of a ketuba, the law is different,

because it can be said

that we should say as follows: Indeed,

the majority of women marry as virgins, and

only

a minority

of women marry

as widows.

But, on the other hand,

every woman who marries as a virgin has a public announcement made about it.

Many people remember whether she left with a hinuma or not.

And this woman, since she has no public announcement

that she left with a hinuma,

the majority has been weakened with regard to her.

The majority of “most women marry as virgins” is thereby nullified, and therefore she is not believed when she says that she married as a virgin.

And we challenge this:

If,

as you say, that

every woman who marries as a virgin has a public announcement made about it,

then

when there are witnesses

that she left with a hinuma,

what difference does that make!?

For even if witnesses testify that this woman left with a hinuma, since no public announcement was made that she left with a hinuma, we should not believe them, because

since she has no public announcement,

since there is no public announcement concerning this woman that she left with a hinuma, these witnesses must be

false witnesses,

for if she had in fact been a virgin, many people would have remembered that she left with a hinuma, since you said that every woman who marries as a virgin has a public announcement made about it!?

And we answer:

Rather,

Ravina did not say that every woman who marries as a virgin has a public announcement made about it. Rather, only

most women who marry as virgins have a public announcement made about them. And this woman, since she has no public announcement, the majority has been weakened with regard to her,

for the majority that “most women who marry as virgins have a public announcement made about them” conflicts with and weakens the majority that “most women marry as virgins.” The matter is therefore evenly balanced as to whether she married as a virgin or as a widow, and the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. But if witnesses come, we believe them that she was a virgin, since there is a minority of virgins about whom no public announcement is made, and presumably this woman belongs to that minority.

Ta shma

a proof against Shmuel, from that which is taught in a beraita [Kiddushin 11]:

One who sells a slave to another, and it is discovered

that the slave is

a thief or a kobiostus,

one who kidnaps people,

it has reached him

the buyer. That is, the slave is his, and the sale is not void on account of this, because ordinary slaves are thieves, and one who purchases a slave knows that he is presumably a thief.

But if the slave is found to be

an armed bandit,

a condition that is uncommon among slaves, and the buyer did not purchase him with this in mind,

or

if this slave was

“proscribed by the kingdom,”

having sinned against the kingdom, so that the king ordered that anyone who finds him should kill him,

he says to him

the buyer says to the seller:

Here is what is yours before you.

For this is a mistaken transaction.