Ketubot 11b (יא:) — the Talmud in English

And they have no claim concerning virginity,

because an ordinary married woman is presumed to have had intercourse, and since she had previously been married, the one who marries her takes her with the presumption that she had intercourse, as it is not certain that she did not have intercourse. Therefore, he assumed that she had had intercourse, even though people still say that she is a virgin.

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

when they are

older than three years and one day,

since after that age their virginity does not return,

their marriage contract is one hundred dinars. And they have no claim concerning virginity,

he cannot reduce her marriage contract by saying: “I married you under the presumption that you were a virgin, and therefore the transaction was erroneous,” since they are presumed to have had intercourse:

Gemara:

Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: If a minor has intercourse with an adult woman, he renders her like one whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood,

because although the intercourse of a minor is not considered intercourse, nevertheless his act is no less than the striking of a piece of wood. Therefore, according to the Rabbis, who hold that the marriage contract of one whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood is one hundred dinars, this woman with whom a minor had intercourse likewise has a marriage contract of one hundred dinars. The same applies with regard to a High Priest: the Mishna in Yevamot states that a High Priest may not marry one whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood, and this woman with whom a minor had intercourse is likewise forbidden to him.

When I stated this before Shmuel,

when Rav Yehuda stated this teaching of Rav before Shmuel,

he said: There is no woman whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood with regard to flesh,

and since the intercourse of a minor did not render her one who had had intercourse, she is not considered one whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood either.

Some teach this statement independently,

meaning that Rav Yehuda did not state it in the name of Rav and in the name of Shmuel. Rather, Rav and Shmuel themselves disagreed about it.

If a minor has intercourse with an adult woman, Rav says: He renders her like one whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood. And Shmuel says: There is no woman whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood with regard to flesh.

And we raise an objection to Rav:

Rav Oshaya raises an objection:

It is 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 whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood— their marriage contracts are two hundred dinars; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The marriage contract of one whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood is one hundred dinars.

This indicates that Rabbi Meir listed the case of a minor who had intercourse with an adult woman and the case of one whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood as two separate cases, whereas the Rabbis disputed only the case of one whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood. It follows that an adult woman with whom a minor had intercourse is not considered one whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood. This proves Shmuel’s position, that there is no woman whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood with regard to flesh, and it is difficult for Rav, who said that the intercourse of a minor is considered like the striking of a piece of wood.

And we answer:

Rava said: This is what the Mishna is saying:

This is how the Mishna should be interpreted according to Rav:

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

it is not considered intercourse, even according to the Rabbis, and therefore her marriage contract is two hundred dinars. Since

less than this,

one who is younger than three years old,

is comparable to one who places a finger in the eye,

just as a tear that emerges through the action of a finger is replaced by another tear, so too the virginity of a girl younger than three returns, with new virginity replacing what was lost.

And a minor who has intercourse with an adult woman renders her like one whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood.

And the case of one whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood itself is the subject of the dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis.

Since an adult woman with whom a minor had intercourse is considered one whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood, the Rabbis did not need to specify and dispute both cases; they disputed only the case of one whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood.

Rami bar Hama said: The dispute

between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis in the Mishna as to whether the marriage contract of one whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood is one hundred or two hundred dinars applies only

when he knew about her,

when he married her and wrote her marriage contract, knowing that her virginity had been destroyed by a piece of wood.

For Rabbi Meir compares her,

one whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood,

to a mature woman,

whose virginity has naturally ended and who no longer has virginity, and nevertheless her marriage contract is two hundred dinars.

And the Rabbis compare her,

one whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood,

to a woman who has had intercourse,

whose marriage contract is only one hundred dinars.

But

if

he did not know about her

when he married her that her virginity had been destroyed by a piece of wood, this is an erroneous transaction according to

everyone.

She does not even receive one hundred dinars,

nothing at all.

We inquire about this:

And Rabbi Meir, why does he compare her

one whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood

to a mature woman,

whose marriage contract is two hundred dinars?

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

whose marriage contract is one hundred dinars?

And we explain:

A woman who has had intercourse

has a marriage contract of one hundred dinars because

an act was performed upon her by a human being.

Here,

in the case of one whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood,

no act was performed upon her by a human being.

Therefore Rabbi Meir holds that it is not appropriate to compare one whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood to a woman who has had intercourse.

We inquire further:

And the Rabbis—why do they compare her

one whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood

to a woman who has had intercourse,

whose marriage contract is one hundred dinars?

Let them compare her to a mature woman,

whose marriage contract is two hundred dinars.

And we explain:

A mature woman

has a marriage contract of two hundred dinars because

no act was performed upon her at all.

Here,

in the case of one whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood,

an act was performed upon her.

Therefore the Rabbis hold that it is not appropriate to compare one whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood to a mature woman.

And we raise an objection to Rami bar Hama, who said

but if he did not know about her

that her virginity had been destroyed by a piece of wood,

according to everyone, nothing at all.

Rav Naḥman raises an objection:

It is stated below in the Mishna (13a): One who marries a woman under the presumption that she is a virgin and does not find virginity, and

she says: “My virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood,” while he says: “No, rather, you are one who was trampled by a man,”

meaning, she had intercourse,

Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is believed,

and from the fact that Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer said that she is believed, it follows that she gains something through her claim that her virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood: she receives a marriage contract of either one hundred or two hundred dinars. For if one were to say that one whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood receives no marriage contract at all, in what sense is she believed?

If so, this is difficult for Rami bar Hama’s statement that if he did not know that her virginity had been destroyed by a piece of wood, according to everyone she receives nothing.

Rather, Rava said

because of this difficulty he rejected Rami bar Hama’s statement and said:

Whether he knew about her

that her virginity had been destroyed by a piece of wood,

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

her marriage contract is

two hundred dinars,

and

according to the Rabbis

it depends: if

he knew about her,

her marriage contract is

one hundred dinars,

but if

he did not know about her,

she receives

nothing at all.

Accordingly, the Mishna below, in which she is believed when she claims that her virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood, follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir, according to whom her marriage contract is two hundred dinars. And our Mishna, which states that the Rabbis say that the marriage contract of one whose virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood is one hundred dinars, deals with a case in which he knew about her.

But

in the end

Rava retracted

from what he had said according to the Rabbis: that if he had not previously known that her virginity had been destroyed by a piece of wood, she receives nothing at all. Rather, whether he knew or did not know, according to the Rabbis she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars, and according to Rabbi Meir she receives two hundred dinars.

Accordingly, the Mishna below, in which she is believed when she claims that her virginity was destroyed by a piece of wood, applies according to everyone. According to the Rabbis, her credibility is expressed in the fact that she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars, contrary to the husband’s claim that she should receive nothing because she had intercourse and the transaction was therefore erroneous; and according to Rabbi Meir, she receives a marriage contract of two hundred dinars.

The proof that Rava retracted is from this:

The proof that Rava retracted is from the following:

as it was taught in a beraita: How is the false accusation made against a wife brought?

The Torah states concerning this that the husband is fined one hundred silver coins if his words are found to be false, while the woman is stoned if his words are found to be true.

The husband must

come to the court, and he

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 receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars.

We inquire about this: Is it so that

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

she receives a marriage contract? But

is she not a woman liable to stoning?

And we answer:

This is what it is saying:

This is how the beraita should be interpreted: a.

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

b. but if there are witnesses that she

committed adultery previously,

before she became betrothed,

she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars.

And Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Rav Sheshet said

to prove from this beraita:

This indicates: If he married her under the presumption that she was a virgin and she was found to have had intercourse, she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars.

And Rav Naḥman raises an objection

to Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin, who said that she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars, from the Mishna below:

“One who marries a woman

under the presumption that she is a virgin

and does not find virginity, and she says: ‘I was raped after you betrothed me,’

after you had already married me and become obligated to me for a marriage contract, I was raped,

‘and your field was inundated,’

meaning, the husband’s bad fortune caused the loss, like a field whose seed was swept away and uprooted by rain.

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

you had intercourse,

and

at the time that I married you

‘the transaction was erroneous.’”

It follows from the Mishna that

she receives nothing at all

if he married her under the presumption that she was a virgin and she was found to have had intercourse, contrary to Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin’s proof in the name of Rav Sheshet.

And Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to them

to Rav Naḥman: How did you infer from the Mishna something contrary to Rav Sheshet’s statement? When Rav Sheshet stated this teaching—that if he married her under the presumption that she was a virgin and she was found to have had intercourse, her marriage contract is one hundred dinars—

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

they were sitting there ]

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

based on the Mishna cited by Rav Naḥman, which says that if she was found to have had intercourse, the transaction was erroneous.

And they answered [

and they resolved it ] that the meaning of the Mishna is:

What does “an erroneous transaction” mean? Erroneous with regard to the two hundred, but she does have one hundred.

If so, how can

you

Rav Naḥman

say

that the Mishna means that “the transaction was erroneous,” namely, that

she receives nothing at all?

And Rava said: The one who raised the objection

Rav Naḥman, who objected from the Mishna,

raised a valid objection [

he objected well ], because the expression

“an erroneous transaction” plainly indicates

that she receives nothing at all.

But then this

the proof that Rav Sheshet brought from the problematic beraita, which states that if she committed adultery she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars, and which was explained as referring to a case in which she committed adultery previously—if so, it proves that when he married her under the presumption that she was a virgin and she was found to have had intercourse, her marriage contract is one hundred dinars—is difficult.

Resolve it and say this:

The beraita should be resolved in another manner, and interpreted as follows: He came to 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

liable to stoning.

b.

If she committed adultery previously, she receives nothing at all,

because the transaction was erroneous, as explained in the Mishna.

c.

If she was found to have had her virginity destroyed by a piece of wood, she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars.

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

at the time he married her that her virginity had been destroyed by a piece of wood, she receives

nothing at all?

Rather, infer from here [

this is proof ] that

Rava retracted that other statement,

in which he explained according to the Rabbis that if he did not know that her virginity had been destroyed by a piece of wood, she receives nothing at all. Rather, whether he knew or did not know, according to the Rabbis she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars.

The Sages taught: If he married her

the husband

first 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 sufficient

for intercourse—

the

second

husband cannot raise a claim concerning virginity

and deprive her of her marriage contract by saying that the transaction was erroneous.

For

the

first husband already married her,

and the

first

husband should have known that she had intercourse with him, since she was fit to have intercourse with him, and there is no “guardian” to prevent him from engaging in intercourse that is permitted to him.