Ketubot 11a — the Talmud in English

We too shall say

and derive:

an ilonit

is the expression

dukhranit

a ram [male sheep],

which did not give birth.

Mishna:

A woman who was not married is presumed to be a virgin, if she was among Jews, since they are guarded against illicit sexual relations.

That which is not so with a woman found among gentiles: she does not have the presumption of virginity, since gentiles are lax regarding illicit sexual relations.

Therefore

the female convert, the captive woman, and the maidservant who were redeemed, converted, and freed,

since they had been among gentiles, are not presumed to be virgins, and therefore their ketuba is only one hundred zuz, as is the law of the ketuba of a woman who has had intercourse. But if they were redeemed, converted, and freed when they were

less than three years and one day old,

and from then onward were among Jews,

their ketuba is two hundred zuz,

as is the law of the ketuba of a virgin. For even if they had intercourse beforehand, the Sages taught us that until the age of three their virginity returns.

And

therefore

they have a claim concerning virginity.

For if their husbands married them under the presumption that they were virgins, and they were found to have had intercourse, their husbands may reduce one hundred zuz from their ketuba. For the husband can claim: “I married you under the presumption that you were a virgin,” and behold, my transaction was a mistaken transaction:

Gemara:

Since the Mishna spoke of a minor who converted, the Gemara comes to clarify in what manner it is possible to convert a minor when he does not convert at the direction of his father.

Rav Huna said: A minor convert

who has no father , and his mother brought him to convert , since there is no convert without circumcision and immersion,

they immerse him at the direction of a court.

That is, those who come to convert him inform the court of the matter, and they convert him at the direction of the court, as though they were this child’s fathers, so that his matter is entrusted to the court in the manner that the matter of a son is entrusted to his father, to bring him into the covenant and the sanctity of faith.

And three must be present at his immersion, as with every immersion of a convert, for which three are required, and he is a convert through them, and his contact with wine is valid .

And we object:

what does he teach us

What is the novelty in Rav Huna’s statement that a court converts a minor?

If we say that the novelty is

that it is a benefit for him

for the minor to convert,

and

therefore the court can convert him for the reason that

one acquires for a person in his absence,

that one can become an agent to acquire for a person, without his knowledge, something that is a benefit for him, and therefore one can acquire conversion for a minor without his knowledge.

It is impossible to say this.

For this

we have already learned,

we already learned this law, and this is not Rav Huna’s novelty:

one acquires for a person

something that is a benefit

in his absence,

without his knowledge,

and one does not cause a loss to a person in his absence .

And we answer: There is a novelty in Rav Huna’s statement, for

lest you say: a gentile is comfortable with a life of abandonment,

it is comfortable for a gentile to live a life of abandonment and not become obligated in all the mitzvot like a Jew,

for we hold that a slave is certainly comfortable with a life of abandonment,

and if so, it is a loss for the minor that they should convert him, and one does not cause a loss to him without his knowledge.

He teaches us

Rav Huna

that this applies to an adult, who has tasted the taste of prohibition,

since, having already become accustomed to transgression, it is difficult for him to leave a life of abandonment, and it is a loss for him to accept the yoke of the mitzvot,

but a minor,

who has not yet tasted the taste of prohibition—

it is a benefit for him

to accept the yoke of the mitzvot.

Let us say that it supports him,

the Gemara attempts to bring proof for Rav Huna’s words from our Mishna, in which we learned:

The female convert, the captive woman, and the maidservant who were redeemed, converted, and freed, when less than three years and one day old.

Is it not the case

that those minors converted without their knowledge through

their being immersed

for the sake of conversion

at the direction of a court?

And it is proven in accordance with Rav Huna’s words, that one immerses a minor for conversion without his knowledge, at the direction of a court.

And we reject:

No. With what are we dealing here? With a convert whose sons and daughters converted together with him.

It is possible to establish our Mishna in a case where the father converted and converted his sons and daughters together with him; in such a manner the conversion is effective even without the acquisition by the court, since

they are pleased

with what a person’s sons and daughters do

that their father does.

The minor is pleased with what his father does, and the consent of the court is not required to convert him .

Rav Yosef said,

when

they grow up,

the minors who converted, and even those who converted with their father —

they can

themselves

object

and say, “We do not wish to be converts,” and return to their former ways, and the court does not punish them, even if our hand is dominant.

And if he betrothed a woman after he objected, she does not require a bill of divorce, for he does not even have the status of an apostate Jew; rather, his status is that of a complete gentile, as though he had never converted. For he became a convert only because it was a benefit for him, and therefore he can object when he grows up and clarify that this was not a benefit for him.

Abaye raised an objection to Rav Yosef

who said that when they grow up they can object, from our Mishna:

“The female convert, the captive woman, and the maidservant who were redeemed, converted, and freed, when less than three years and one day old, their ketuba is two hundred zuz.”

And if it enters your mind that when they grow up they can object,

and we say that the minor woman can annul her conversion through her objection when she grows up, how

do we give her a ketuba, as she may go and consume it in her gentile state!?

For there is concern that she will receive her ketuba and afterward object and return to her gentile state.

And we answer: The fact that the Mishna said that they give a ketuba to a minor female convert means that they give her the ketuba

when she grows up.

And once she grows up and does not object, we presume that in all likelihood she will no longer object.

And we object:

When she grows up, too, she can object and leave!?

What is gained by her being an adult? She can still object and return to her gentile state, and there is no presumption saying that, since she did not object, she will no longer object.

And we answer:

Once she has grown up for one moment and has not objected, she can no longer object.

And if she objected, she is like an apostate Jew, to be punished with all the punishments of the court. Therefore, when she grows up and does not object, it is possible to give her her ketuba.

Rava raised an objection:

Rava posed a difficulty to Rav Yosef, who said that when they grow up they can protest, from the Mishna below, at the beginning of the third chapter, as we learned:

These are the girls who have a fine

of fifty silver when they were raped:

one who has intercourse with a mamzeret,

behold, although he cannot fulfill with her the obligation of “and she shall be his wife,” nevertheless she has a fine.

And

likewise one who has intercourse

with the netina and with the Kutit.

And

likewise one who has intercourse

with the female convert, with the captive, and with the slave woman, who were redeemed, converted, and freed when they were younger than three years and one day,

for they have the presumptive status of virgins, as was explained in our Mishna; therefore, if they were raped while they were girls,

they have a fine.

And if you say, “When they grow up they can protest,”

if it is said that the minor can annul her conversion through her protest when she grows up, how

do we give her a fine, for she goes and consumes it in her gentile state!?

For we have to be concerned lest she accept the fine and afterward protest and return to her gentile state, and it will emerge that the fine did not reach her, because it will become clear retroactively that her conversion was not a conversion, and she had intercourse while she was a gentile, and a gentile woman is not entitled to a fine.

And we answer: indeed, only

when she grows up

do we give her her ketubba.

And since she grew up and did not protest, we presume that, evidently, she will no longer protest.

And we raise a difficulty:

When she grows up—she can also protest, and depart.

For even when she is an adult, she can still protest and return to her gentile state, and there is no presumption saying: since she did not protest, she will no longer protest.

And we answer:

Since she grew up for one moment and did not protest, she can no longer protest.

And now the Gemara explains why Abaye and Rava raised the same difficulty against Rav Yosef from different Mishnayot.

Abaye did not say

to raise a difficulty

like Rava

from the Mishna that discusses a fine, because he holds that

there, the reason for the fine

is that there is a special reason that he should pay a fine even if she is not entitled to it,

so that the sinner should not profit

by being exempt. Therefore, there is no difficulty from there against Rav Yosef, because there is a matter [of principle] that he should pay a fine to that female convert even if she can return to her gentile state, so that the sinner should not profit by being exempt.

Rava did not say

to raise a difficulty

like Abaye,

from our Mishna, which discusses a ketubba, because he holds that

the reason for the ketubba

is that the Sages instituted a ketubba for her

so that she should not be easy in his eyes to divorce,

and therefore there is no difficulty against Rav Yosef from there, because even according to Rav Yosef, who says that the female convert can protest and return to her gentile state, nevertheless, as long as she has not protested, she is a female convert, and she is included in the enactment.

Mishna:

An adult man who has intercourse with a minor

who is younger than three years, whose intercourse is not considered intercourse, and if he has intercourse with her, her virginity returns as though she had not had intercourse.

And a minor

younger than nine

who has intercourse with an adult woman,

for the Sages said that his intercourse is not considered intercourse.

And one whose virginity was removed by wood,

whose virginity fell away through being struck by wood, and afterward she married without [the husband] stipulating anything to her,

their ketubbot are two hundred,

and they did not thereby lose their ketubbot,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: One whose virginity was removed by wood—her ketubba is one hundred.

For her status is like that of a woman who has had intercourse. And even if he did not know her condition, her ketubba is also one hundred, and it is not a mistaken transaction.

A virgin

who is

a widow

or

a divorcee,

or

a halutza from marriage,

for example, she entered the wedding canopy and her husband died with the presumption that she had not had intercourse—that is, in the eyes of the world she was presumed not to have had intercourse because he died immediately, close to the wedding canopy, but this is not certain—if she married again without [the husband] stipulating anything ,

their ketubba is one hundred,

even if he married her with the presumption that she was a virgin.