Ketubot 11b — the Talmud in English

And they do not have a claim of virginity,

because an ordinary married woman is presumed to have had intercourse, and since she had previously been married, he marries her with the presumption that she had had intercourse, for it is not certain that she had not had intercourse; therefore, he has her in mind as one who had had intercourse, even though people still say that she is a virgin.

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

when they are

older than three years and one day,

for their virginity no longer returns,

their ketubah is one hundred zuz. And they do not have a claim of virginity,

he cannot deprive her of that one hundred zuz and say, “I married you with the presumption that you were a virgin, and therefore my transaction was a mistaken transaction,” for they have the presumption of having had intercourse:

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: A minor who has intercourse with an adult woman renders her one who was struck by wood,

because although the intercourse of a minor is not considered intercourse, nevertheless his intercourse is not inferior to being struck by wood; therefore, according to the Rabbis, who hold that the ketubah of one who was struck by wood is one hundred zuz, this woman with whom a minor had intercourse also has a ketubah of one hundred zuz. And likewise regarding the matter of the High Priest: it is stated in tractate Yevamot in the Mishna that a High Priest may not marry one who was struck by wood; this woman with whom a minor had intercourse is also forbidden to him.

When I stated it before Shmuel,

when Rav Yehuda stated this statement of Rav to Shmuel,

he said: There is no one struck by wood in flesh,

and since the intercourse of a minor did not render her one who had had intercourse, she is likewise not considered one who was struck by wood.

There are those who teach this statement as an independent matter,

there are those who learned that Rav Yehuda did not state it in the name of Rav and in the name of Shmuel; rather, Rav and Shmuel themselves disputed it.

A minor who has intercourse with an adult woman: Rav said, “He renders her one who was struck by wood.” And Shmuel said, “There is no one struck by wood in flesh.”

And we raise an objection to Rav:

Rav Oshaya objected:

It was stated in our Mishna:

“An adult man who has intercourse with a minor girl, a minor who has intercourse with an adult woman, and one who was struck by wood—their ketubah is two hundred zuz; these are the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The ketubah of one who was struck by wood is one hundred zuz.”

It is implied from this that Rabbi Meir presented the minor who had intercourse with an adult woman and one who was struck by wood as two cases, whereas the Rabbis disputed only the case of one who was struck by wood. It follows that an adult woman with whom a minor had intercourse is not considered one who was struck by wood. It is proven from this in accordance with Shmuel’s words, that there is no one struck by wood in flesh; and it is difficult for Rav, who said that the intercourse of a minor is considered like being struck by wood.

And we answer:

Rava said: This is what it is saying:

this is how the Mishna is to be explained according to Rav:

An adult man who has intercourse with a minor girl—it is nothing;

this is not considered intercourse, even according to the Rabbis, and therefore her ketubah is two hundred zuz. Since

from less than this,

one younger than three years,

it is comparable to placing a finger in the eye,

just as a tear that emerges through a finger is replaced by another tear, so too the virginity of one younger than three years is replaced by other virginity.

And a minor who has intercourse with an adult woman renders her one who was struck by wood.

And the case of one who was struck by wood itself is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis.

And since an adult woman with whom a minor had intercourse is considered one who was struck by wood, the Rabbis did not need to specify and dispute both cases; rather, they disputed only the case of one who was struck by wood.

Rami bar Hama said: The dispute

between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis in the Mishna, whether the ketubah of one who was struck by wood is one hundred or two hundred zuz, is only

when he knew about her,

when he took her in and wrote her ketubah, he knew that she was one who had been struck by wood.

For Rabbi Meir compares her,

one who was struck by wood,

to a mature woman,

whose virginity has ended and who no longer has virginity, and nevertheless her ketubah is two hundred zuz.

And the Rabbis compare her,

one who was struck by wood,

to a woman who had had intercourse,

whose ketubah is only one hundred zuz.

But

if

he did not know about her,

when he took her in, that she was one who had been struck by wood, this is a mistaken transaction according to

everyone.

And she does not have even one hundred zuz,

and nothing.

And we inquire about it:

But Rabbi Meir—why does he compare her

one who was struck by wood

to a mature woman,

whose ketubah is two hundred zuz?

Let him compare her to a woman who had had intercourse,

whose ketubah is one hundred zuz?

And we explain:

A woman who had had intercourse

has a ketubah of one hundred zuz because

an act was performed upon her by a human being.

But this one,

one who was struck by wood,

no act was performed upon her by a human being.

And therefore Rabbi Meir holds that it is not appropriate to compare one who was struck by wood to a woman who had had intercourse.

And again we inquire about it:

But the Rabbis—why do they compare her,

one who was struck by wood,

to a woman who had had intercourse,

whose ketubah is one hundred zuz?

Let them compare her to a mature woman,

whose ketubah is two hundred zuz.

And we explain:

A mature woman

has a ketubah of two hundred zuz because

no act was performed upon her at all.

But this one,

one who was struck by wood,

an act was performed upon her.

And therefore the Rabbis hold that it is not appropriate to compare one who was struck by wood to a mature woman.

And we raise an objection regarding the words of Rami bar Hama, who said:

But when he did not know about her,

that she was one who had been struck by wood,

according to everyone, nothing.

Rav Naḥman objected:

It was stated in the Mishna below (13a): “One who marries a woman with the presumption that she is a virgin, and he did not find virginity in her, and

she says, ‘I am one who was struck by wood,’ and he says, ‘No, rather you are one upon whom a man trampled,’

that is, one who had had intercourse,

Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is believed.”

And from the fact that Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer said that she is believed, it is implied that she gains something through her claim that she was struck by wood, namely, that she has a ketubah of one hundred or two hundred zuz. For if we say that one who was struck by wood has no ketubah at all, in what way is she believed?

And if so, this is difficult for Rami bar Hama’s words, who said that when he did not know about her, that she was one who had been struck by wood, according to everyone she has nothing.

Rather, Rava said

because of this difficulty he disagreed with Rami bar Hama’s words and said:

Whether he knew about her

that she was one who had been struck by wood

or whether he did not know about her, according to Rabbi Meir

her ketubah is

two hundred zuz,

and

according to the Rabbis

it depends: if

he knew about her,

her ketubah is

one hundred zuz,

but if

he did not know about her,

she has

and nothing.

And accordingly, the Mishna below, in which she is believed with the claim that she was struck by wood, follows the view of Rabbi Meir, according to whom her ketubah is two hundred zuz. And our Mishna, which states, “And the Rabbis say: The ketubah of one who was struck by wood is one hundred,” is speaking when he knew about her.

But

and

in the end

Rava retracted

from what he had said according to the Rabbis, that if he had not previously known about her that she was one who had been struck by wood, she has nothing. Rather, whether he knew or did not know, according to the Rabbis she has a ketubah of one hundred zuz, and according to Rabbi Meir, two hundred zuz.

And accordingly, the Mishna below, in which she is believed with the claim that she was struck by wood, follows everyone’s view: according to the Rabbis, her credibility is expressed in the fact that she receives a ketubah of one hundred zuz, contrary to the husband’s claim that she deserves nothing because she had had intercourse and this is therefore a mistaken transaction; and according to Rabbi Meir, she receives a ketubah of two hundred zuz.

And the proof that Rava retracted is from this:

For it was taught in a beraita: “What is the procedure for bringing an evil name,”

which is written about in the Torah, that he is punished with one hundred silver coins if his words are found to be false, and the woman is stoned if his words are found to be true?

The husband must

come to the court, and

he

says

to her father:

“So-and-so, I did not find virginity in your daughter.”

And the law is that

if there are witnesses that she committed adultery while married to him, she has a ketubah of one hundred zuz.

And we inquire about it: Is it so that

if there are witnesses that she committed adultery while married to him

she has a ketubah? But

is she not a woman liable to stoning?

And we answer:

This is what it is saying:

this is how the beraita is to be explained: a.

If there are witnesses that she committed adultery while married to him, she is stoned;

b. but if there are witnesses that she

committed adultery previously,

before she was betrothed,

she has a ketubah of one hundred zuz.

And Rav Hiyya bar Avin said in the name of Rav Sheshet

to prove from this beraita:

“This says: If he took her in with the presumption that she was a virgin and she was found to have had intercourse, she has a ketubah of one hundred zuz.”

And Rav Naḥman objected

to Rav Hiyya bar Avin, who said that she has a ketubah of one hundred zuz, from the Mishna below:

“One who marries the woman

with the presumption that she is a virgin

and did not find virginity in her, she says, ‘After you betrothed me I was violated,’

after you had already taken me in and become obligated to me for a ketubah, I was violated,

‘and your field was inundated,’

that is, the husband’s fortune caused the loss, like a field upon which rain came, swept away its seed, and uprooted it.

And he says, ‘No, rather, before I betrothed you’

you had intercourse,

and

at the time that I took you in,

‘my transaction was a mistaken transaction.’”

It is implied from the Mishna that

she has nothing at all

if he took her in with the presumption that she was a virgin and she was found to have had intercourse; and this is unlike Rav Hiyya bar Avin’s proof in the name of Rav Sheshet.

And Rav Hiyya bar Avin said to them,

to Rav Naḥman: How did you infer from the Mishna contrary to Rav Sheshet’s words? For when Rav Sheshet stated this statement, that if he took her in with the presumption that she was a virgin and she was found to have had intercourse, her ketubah is one hundred zuz,

perhaps Rav Amram and all the great men of the generation were sitting [A0170]there

they were sitting there]

when Rav Sheshet stated this teaching, and it was difficult for them,

from the Mishna cited by Rav Naḥman, which says that if she was found to have had intercourse, this is a mistaken transaction.

And they answered [A0174]and explained that the meaning of the Mishna is:

they explained] that the Mishna means:

What does “a mistaken transaction” mean? Also from two hundred, but she has one hundred.

If so, how is it that

you

Rav Naḥman

said

to explain the Mishna that “a mistaken transaction” means that

she has nothing at all?

And Rava said: The one who raised the objection,

Rav Naḥman, who objected from the Mishna,

raised a proper objection [A0185]and objected well, because the expression

he objected correctly], because the wording

“a mistaken transaction” entirely implies

that she has nothing.

But then this is difficult:

the proof that Rav Sheshet brought from the problematic beraita, in which it is written that if she committed adultery her ketubah is one hundred zuz, and which they explained as referring to a case where she committed adultery previously; if so, it is proven that if he took her in with the presumption that she was a virgin and she was found to have had intercourse, her ketubah is one hundred zuz.

Resolve it and say this:

the beraita should be resolved in another manner, and this is how it should be explained: He came to the court and said, “So-and-so, I did not find virginity in your daughter”: a.

If there are witnesses that she committed adultery while married to him,

she is

stoned.

b.

If she committed adultery previously, she has nothing,

because of the mistaken transaction, as explained in the Mishna.

c.

If she was found to have been struck by wood, she has a ketubah of one hundred zuz.

This is how Rava explains the beraita.

And we raise an objection to Rava:

But is it not Rava who said to the Rabbis

that if

he did not know about her,

that she was one who had been struck by wood, at the time he took her in, she has

and nothing?

Rather, infer from this [A0208]proof from here that

there is proof from here] that

Rava retracted from that

which he explained to the Rabbis, that if he did not know about her, that she was one who had been struck by wood, she has nothing; rather, whether he knew about her or did not know about her, according to the Rabbis she has a ketubah of one hundred zuz.

The Sages taught: If he took her in

the husband

as a first husband for the purpose of marriage,

and her first husband died and she married a second husband, then even if

she has witnesses that she was not secluded

with her first husband,

alternatively,

she has witnesses that she

was secluded

with him, but

did not remain

with him in seclusion for a period of time

sufficient for intercourse—

the

husband

cannot make a claim of virginity

and deprive her of her ketubah, saying that it is a mistaken transaction.

For

already

the first husband took her in,

the husband

first,

and he should have known that she had intercourse through him, since she was fit to have intercourse with him, for there is no “guardian” to prevent him from intercourse that was fit for him.