Ketubot 11a (יא.) — the Talmud in English

We too shall say

and derive:

ailonit

is the feminine form of

dukhranit

a ram [male],

which has not given birth.

Mishna:

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

This is not so with a woman found among gentiles; she does not have the presumption of virginity, since gentiles are promiscuous in licentiousness.

Therefore

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

since they had been among gentiles, are not presumed to be virgins. Therefore, their marriage contract is for one hundred dinars only, as is the law with regard to the marriage contract of a non-virgin woman. However, if they were redeemed, converted, or freed when they were

less than three years and one day old,

and from then onward were among Jews,

their marriage contracts are for two hundred dinars,

as is the law with regard to the marriage contract of a virgin. For even if they had intercourse beforehand, the Sages taught us that until the age of three their hymens regenerate.

And

therefore

they have a claim of virginity.

If their husbands married them on the presumption that they were virgins, and they were found to be non-virgins, their husbands may reduce one hundred dinars from their marriage contracts. For the husband can claim: “I married you on the presumption that you were a virgin, and this transaction was therefore a mistaken transaction.”

Gemara:

Since the Mishna spoke about a minor who converted, the Gemara comes to clarify the manner in which a minor can be converted when he does not convert at the initiative of his father.

Rav Huna said: A minor convert

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

is immersed on the authority of a court.

That is, those who come to convert him inform the court of the matter, and they convert him on the authority of the court, as though they were his parents, so that his affairs are entrusted to the court in the manner that a son’s affairs are entrusted to his father, to bring him into the covenant and the sanctity of faith.

Three people must be present at his immersion, in accordance with the law governing every immersion of a convert, which requires three people; he is a convert by virtue of them, and his contact with wine is valid.

And we challenge this:

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 to him

for the minor to convert,

and

therefore the court can convert him because

one may acquire a benefit for a person in his absence,

meaning that one may serve as an agent to acquire for a person, without his knowledge, something that benefits him, and therefore one may acquire conversion for a minor without his knowledge.

This cannot be said.

For

we have already learned it,

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

one may acquire for a person

something that benefits him

in his absence,

without his knowledge,

but one may not cause a person a detriment in his absence .

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

it might enter your mind that a gentile prefers a life of license,

that it is preferable for a gentile to live a life without restraint and not become obligated in all the mitzvot like a Jew,

as we maintain that a slave certainly prefers a life of license,

and if so, conversion would be detrimental to the minor, and one may not cause him a detriment without his knowledge.

He teaches us

Rav Huna

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

for since he has already become accustomed to sin, it is difficult for him to abandon a life of license, and it is detrimental to him to accept the yoke of mitzvot,

but a minor,

who has not yet tasted the taste of prohibition—

it is a benefit to him

to accept the yoke of mitzvot.

Can one say that it supports him,

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

“A female convert, a captive woman, and a maidservant who were redeemed, converted, or freed when they were less than three years and one day old.”

Does this not mean

that those minor girls converted without their consent through

their immersion

for the sake of conversion

on the authority of a court?

This proves Rav Huna’s statement, that a minor is immersed for conversion without his consent, on the authority of a court.

And we reject this:

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

Our Mishna can be understood as referring to a case in which the father converted, and converted his sons and daughters with him. In such a case, the conversion is effective even without the court’s acquisition on their behalf, since

they are pleased

the sons and daughters of a person

with whatever their father does.

A 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 mature,

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

they can

themselves

protest

and say, “We do not wish to be converts,” and return to their former ways; and the court does not punish them, even if we have power over them.

If he betrothed a woman after protesting, she does not require a bill of divorce, since he does not have even the status of a Jewish apostate; rather, his status is that of a complete gentile, as though he had never converted. For he became a convert only because conversion was a benefit to him, and therefore he can protest when he matures and establish that this was not a benefit for him.

Abaye challenged

Rav Yosef, who said that once they mature they can protest, from our Mishna:

“A female convert, a captive woman, and a maidservant who were redeemed, converted, or freed when they were less than three years and one day old— their marriage contracts are for two hundred dinars.”

And if it enters your mind that once they mature they can protest,

and we say that the minor girl can annul her conversion through her protest when she matures, how

can we give her a marriage contract, lest she go and consume it in her gentile state!?

For there is concern that she will receive her marriage contract and subsequently protest and return to her gentile status.

And we answer: When the Mishna says that they give a marriage contract to a minor female convert, it means that they give her the marriage contract

once she matures.

And since she matured and did not protest, we presume that she will presumably no longer protest.

And we challenge this:

Once she matures, she can also protest and leave!?

What is gained by her having matured? She can still protest and return to her gentile status, and there is no presumption that, since she did not protest until then, she will no longer protest.

And we answer:

Once she matured for one moment and did not protest, she can no longer protest.

If she did protest, she is like a Jewish apostate and is subject to all the punishments of the court. Therefore, when she matured and did not protest, it is possible to give her marriage contract.

Rava raised an objection:

Rava challenged Rav Yosef, who said that once they mature they can protest, from the Mishna below, at the beginning of the third chapter, where we learned:

These are the young women for whom there is a fine

of fifty silver dinars when they were raped:

One who has intercourse with a mamzeret,

even though he cannot fulfill with her the obligation of “she shall be his wife,” nevertheless she is entitled to a fine.

And

likewise, one who has intercourse

with a netina or with a Samaritan woman.

And

likewise, one who has intercourse

with a female convert, a captive woman, or a maidservant who were redeemed, converted, or freed when they were less than three years and one day old,

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

they are entitled to a fine.

But if you say, “Once they mature they can protest,”

if it is said that a minor can nullify her conversion by protesting when she matures, how

can we give her a fine, since she may go and consume it in her gentile status!?

For we must be concerned that perhaps she will receive the fine and afterward protest and return to her gentile status. It will then turn out that she was not entitled to the fine, since it will become clear retroactively that her conversion was not a valid conversion, and that she had intercourse while she was a gentile; and a gentile woman is not entitled to payment of a fine.

And we answer: Indeed, only

once she matures

do we give her her ketuba.

Since she matured and did not protest, we assume that she will presumably not protest again.

And we challenge this:

Once she matures, she can also protest, and leave.

Even when she is an adult, she can still protest and return to her gentile status; there is no presumption that, since she did not protest, she will not protest again.

And we answer:

Once she matured for one moment and did not protest, she can no longer protest.

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

Abaye did not say

to challenge him

as Rava did,

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

there, the reason for the fine is

that there is a special reason why the fine is paid 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 for Rav Yosef, because there is a consideration to pay a fine to that female convert even if she can return to her gentile status, so that the sinner should not profit by being exempt.

Rava did not say

to challenge him

as Abaye did,

from our Mishna, which discusses a ketuba, because he maintains that

the reason for the ketuba is

that the Sages instituted a ketuba for her

so that it should not be easy in his eyes to divorce her.

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

Mishna:

An adult who has intercourse with a minor

who is less than three years old, whose intercourse is not considered intercourse, and if he has intercourse with her, her hymen returns as though she had not had intercourse,

and a minor

less than nine years old

who has intercourse with an adult woman,

concerning whom the Sages said that his intercourse is not considered intercourse,

and a woman whose virginity was ruptured by wood,

whose hymen was ruptured by being struck with a piece of wood, and afterward he married her without stipulating anything to her,

their ketubot are two hundred

and they do not thereby lose their ketubot,

this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: The ketuba of a woman whose virginity was ruptured by wood is one hundred.

Her status is like that of a non-virgin. And even if he was unaware of her status, her ketuba is also one hundred, and the marriage is not a mistaken transaction.

A virgin

who is

a widow

or

a divorcee,

or

a halutza from a marriage,

for example, she entered the wedding canopy and her husband died while she had the presumptive status that she had not had intercourse—that is, the public assumed that she had not had intercourse because he died immediately, soon after the wedding canopy, but this is not certain—if she then married again without stipulating anything,

their ketuba is one hundred,

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