Ketubot 12a (יב.) — the Talmud in English

Rabba said: This indicates that

it is established from this beraita that if

he married her on the presumption that she was a virgin and she was found to have had relations—

she is entitled to a ketuba of one hundred dinars!

And we do not say that this is a mistaken transaction, but rather that she is entitled to one hundred dinars.

For the second husband certainly married her on the presumption that she was a virgin, since he relied on the witnesses. Nevertheless, if he found that she had had relations, he cannot deprive her of the one hundred dinars appropriate to a widow from marriage.

Whereas

Rav Ashi

rejected Rabba’s proof and

said:

In the case of a virgin’s

first marriage, in general,

if he married her on the presumption that she was a virgin and she was found to have had relations—

I can say to you

that

she has no

ketuba

at all,

because it is a mistaken transaction.

But here it is different,

in the case of a second marriage: when the second husband married her, even if he married her on the presumption that she was a virgin and she was found to have had relations, her ketuba is one hundred dinars—

since

already

her first husband married her

before him,

the first,

and therefore the second husband should know that she may already have had relations, even though there are witnesses that she did not seclude herself with her first husband.

We learned in a beraita: The second husband cannot raise a claim concerning her virginity, and he is not compelled to come to court.

If so, the matter will not be clarified—whether she had relations with another man while married to him or not.

And we raise an objection: The matter is uncertain, so why should we not

be concerned that perhaps she had relations with another man while married to him,

and that she is therefore forbidden to him?

And we answer:

Rav Sharyavya said:

The reason that we are not concerned that perhaps she had relations with another man while married to him is that the case is

one in which he betrothed her and immediately had relations with her.

He did not separate from her between the betrothal and intercourse, in which case it is certainly clear that she did not have relations with another man while married to him.

And some teach this discussion with regard to our Mishna.

There are those who said that the exchange between Rabba and Rav Ashi, as well as Rav Sharyavya’s statement, was not said with regard to the beraita, but rather with regard to our Mishna:

As we learned:

A virgin

who is

a widow

or

a divorcee

or

a halutza from marriage,

when she has the presumption that she did not have relations—

their ketuba is one hundred dinars, and they have no claim concerning virginity.

And we discussed it:

A virgin from marriage—

how can you find such a case?

It must be referring to

a case in which she entered the huppa but did not have relations

before her first husband died.

And concerning this

Rabba said: This indicates that

it is established from our Mishna, which says that they have no claim concerning virginity, that

if he married her on the presumption that she was a virgin and she was found to have had relations—

her ketuba is one hundred dinars.

Whereas

Rav Ashi

rejects Rabba’s proof and

said: I can say to you that, in general,

when he married her on the presumption that she was a virgin and she was found to have had relations,

she has no

ketuba

at all,

because her transaction was a mistaken transaction.

But here it is different,

as the fact that she was found to have had relations is not considered a mistaken transaction, because

she had already entered

the

huppa.

And the Gemara challenges our Mishna:

But let us be concerned that perhaps she had relations with another man while married to him!

Why, then, does the Mishna say that they have no claim concerning virginity?

And we answer:

Rav Sharyavya said:

The case here is

one in which he betrothed her and immediately had relations with her.

The Gemara now explains the practical difference between saying that Rabba’s and Rav Ashi’s statements were said with regard to the beraita and saying that they were said with regard to the Mishna:

The one who teaches it

as referring to their statements

with regard to the beraita—

For even when there are witnesses that she did not have relations with the first husband, Rav Ashi holds that the second husband should be concerned that she had had relations, and this is not considered a case in which he married her on the presumption that she was a virgin.

If so,

all the more so with regard to our Mishna,

where the case involves no witnesses that she did not have relations, Rav Ashi’s statement was made: the husband should be concerned that she had had relations.

However,

the one who teaches it

as referring to Rabba’s and Rav Ashi’s statements

with regard to our Mishna,

where the case involves only a presumption that she did not have relations, and there are no witnesses, teaches their statements only in this context.

But with regard to the beraita—

no,

he does not teach them there.

For from the beraita, which speaks of a case in which there are witnesses, Rabba’s statement is properly demonstrated: if he married her on the presumption that she was a virgin and she was found to have had relations, she is entitled to a ketuba, and there is no room for Rav Ashi’s rejection, “Here it is different, since the first husband married her,” and she therefore does not have the presumption of virginity.

Because

the husband

can say to her: I—

relied on the witnesses!

That is, the husband can claim: I relied on the witnesses, and she had the presumption of virginity in my eyes.

And since the beraita said that the second husband cannot raise a claim concerning virginity, it is certainly established in accordance with Rabba’s view, who said: “This indicates that if he married her on the presumption that she was a virgin and she was found to have had relations, she is entitled to a ketuba.”

Mishna:

A betrothed man

who eats

the betrothal feast

at his father-in-law’s house, in Judea, without witnesses—

cannot raise a claim concerning virginity, because he secludes himself with her.

Since

in Judea it was customary to seclude the betrothed man with his betrothed, so that “his heart would become familiar with her.” [

That he would become accustomed to her and would not be embarrassed when alone with her.]

And since he secluded himself with her, we presume that he had relations with her before the marriage; therefore, in Judea, he has no claim concerning virginity.

But he is trusted to forbid her to himself, because since he says, “I did not have relations with her, and I am certain that she had relations with another man and not with me,” then “he has rendered her to himself a piece of forbidden matter” [that is, he has regarded her, for his own purposes, as a piece of forbidden matter], and therefore she is forbidden to him.

Gemara:

The Gemara proves this from the wording of the Mishna:

From the fact that it teaches: “The one who eats

at his father-in-law’s house in Judea,” rather than stating simply that in Judea there is no claim concerning virginity—

By inference

you learn

that there are places in Judea

as well where he does not eat [

it is established that there are places in Judea where the groom does not eat at his father-in-law’s house and does not seclude himself with his bride].

Abaye said: Learn from this

that

in Judea as well—

there are different places,

which differ in their customs.

It follows from the Mishna that in a place where it was not customary to seclude the groom and bride, he may raise a claim concerning virginity even in Judea.

And

as it is taught

in a beraita, there are different places:

As it is taught: Rabbi Yehuda said:

a.

In Judea, at first they would seclude the groom and bride for one hour before they entered the huppa, so that his heart would become familiar with her.

But in the Galilee—

they would not do so.

b.

In Judea, at first they would appoint two groomsmen for them [

witnesses],

one for him

and

one for her, in order to examine the groom and bride at the time of

their entering the huppa,

so that they would not deceive one another that night by trickery: so that the husband would not fail to see the blood of virginity and deliberately lose the cloth containing the blood, and so that the woman would not bring another cloth that already had drops of blood on it.

But in the Galilee—

they would not do so.

c.

In Judea, at first the groomsmen would sleep in the house in which the groom and bride slept.

But in the Galilee—

they would not do so.

It follows from this, since in Judea they would examine the groom and bride, that there were places in Judea where they did not seclude the groom and bride.

For in a place where it was customary to seclude them, the examination served no purpose, since there the claim concerning virginity does not apply.

And it is established from the beraita that there are different places, which differ in their customs.

We learned further in the continuation of the beraita:

And anyone who did not follow this custom cannot raise a claim concerning virginity.

And we discussed it:

With regard to which?

With regard to which custom does the tanna say that if he did not follow it, he cannot raise a claim concerning virginity?

If you say

that it refers

to the first clause,

to the custom of secluding the groom with the bride—

That cannot be said. For if so, the tanna should have said the opposite—

namely,

“Anyone who followed this custom

of secluding himself with the bride cannot raise a claim concerning virginity”—

he should have had to say

the tanna

so!

Rather,

perhaps you will resolve it by saying that “anyone who did not follow”

was stated with regard to the final clause,

concerning the custom of appointing witnesses to examine the groom and bride: if he did not appoint witnesses to examine them, he cannot raise a claim concerning virginity.

That too cannot be said. For if so—

“Anyone who was not examined

by witnesses

cannot raise a claim concerning virginity”—

he should have had to say,

he should have had

the tanna

say this! For it is the husband who is examined by the witnesses.

And he answers:

Abaye said: In fact, “anyone who did not follow”—

was stated

with regard to the first clause,

concerning the custom in Judea of secluding the groom and bride.

And

as for the difficulty that, if so, the tanna should have said “anyone who followed”—

It can be resolved by saying that indeed,

teach

that you must emend the wording of the beraita and alter it to read

“anyone who followed.”

Rava said to him: But it teaches throughout, “anyone who did not follow”!

You cannot emend the wording of the beraita to wording opposite to what we have learned in it until now. Although it is possible to alter the wording of the beraita, it is impossible to reverse it entirely.

Rather, Rava said:

What the beraita says, “anyone who did not follow,” refers to the custom of the Galilee, where they did not seclude the groom and bride.

And

this is what

the tanna of the beraita

is saying:

Anyone who did not follow

the custom of the Galilee in the Galilee, but rather

followed the custom of Judea in the Galilee,

and secluded himself with his bride before the marriage—

cannot raise a claim concerning virginity.

Whereas

Rav Ashi

resolved it and

said: In fact, “anyone who did not follow” was stated

with regard to the

final clause,

concerning the custom in Judea of appointing witnesses for the groom and bride.

And teach

that you must emend the wording of the beraita and alter it as follows:

“Anyone who was not examined.”

Such an emendation is possible, since it does not contradict what we have learned until now.

It is an adjustment of the wording, not a reversal of the wording.

Mishna:

One who adds to his ketuba more than two hundred dinars for a virgin or one hundred dinars for a widow may write the addition in the ketuba, but he must specify that it is an addition. He cannot include the addition within the obligation of the ketuba, and he cannot write, “Three hundred dinars that are fitting for you,” since only two hundred are fitting for her.

However, the court of the priests instituted that the ketuba of a priest’s daughter should be four hundred dinars when she marries as a virgin. This was a complete and binding enactment, like a condition of the ketuba, and therefore they would write in the ketuba of a priest’s daughter who married as a virgin: “Four hundred dinars that are fitting for you.”

Likewise, if they did not write her a ketuba at all, she would collect four hundred dinars by virtue of this enactment. It was not an addition to the ketuba practiced by the priests, but a full obligation like the ketuba itself, by virtue of the enactment of the court of the priests.

Whether an Israelite widow or a widow

who is a

priest’s daughter, her ketuba is one hundred dinars.

For the priests did not add to the ketuba of a widow.

But

the court of the priests [

a special court of priests that enacted regulations and adjudicated matters concerning the priesthood]

would collect for the

ketuba of a

virgin,

a priest’s daughter,

four hundred dinars,

when she married a priest. And all the more so when she married an Israelite, in which case she forfeited her priestly status;

and the Sages did not protest against them,

saying: You are creating jealousy between the families.

Gemara:

The tanna

taught in a beraita:

And the widow of a priest—

her ketuba is two hundred dinars.

And we raise an objection:

But we learned

in our Mishna:

Whether an Israelite widow or the widow of a priest—

their ketuba is one hundred dinars.

And we answer:

Rav Ashi said: There were two enactments.

Initially, they instituted four hundred dinars for a virgin and one hundred dinars for a widow.