Ketubot 12a — the Talmud in English

Rava said: This means,

it is proven from this beraita that if

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

she has a marriage contract of one hundred dinars!

And we do not say that this is a mistaken transaction, but rather 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 upon the witnesses. And nevertheless, if he found her to have had intercourse, he cannot deprive her of the one hundred dinars appropriate to a widow from marriage.

Whereas

Rav Ashi

rejected Rava’s proof and

said:

in the ordinary case of a first marriage of a virgin,

in general,

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

I can always say to you that

she

she does not have

a marriage contract

at all,

because it is a mistaken transaction.

But here 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 intercourse, her marriage contract is one hundred dinars—

for

already

her first husband

had married her

before him,

and therefore the second husband should know that she had already had intercourse, even though there are witnesses that she was not secluded with her first husband.

We learned in a beraita: The second husband cannot make a claim concerning the signs of virginity, and they do not require him to come to the court.

And if so, the matter will not be clarified whether she committed adultery 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 committed adultery while married to him,

and she is forbidden to him?

And we answer:

Rav Sharye said:

The reason that we are not concerned that perhaps she committed adultery while married to him is that the case is

for example, where he betrothed her and had intercourse with her immediately.

He did not separate from her between betrothal and intercourse, in which case it is certainly clear that she did not commit adultery while married to him.

And there are those who teach it with regard to the Mishna.

There are those who said that the exchange between Rava and Rav Ashi, as well as the words of Rav Sharye, were not stated with regard to the beraita, but were stated with regard to our Mishna:

As we learned:

A virgin

who is

a widow

or

a divorcee

or

a woman released through halitza from marriage,

and she has the presumption that she did not have intercourse—

their marriage contract is one hundred dinars, and they do not have a claim concerning the signs of virginity.

And we examined it:

A virgin from marriage—

how can you find such a case?

Necessarily, the case is

for example, where she entered the bridal chamber but did not have intercourse

until her first husband died.

And concerning this

Rava said: This means,

it is proven from our Mishna, which says that they do not have a claim concerning the signs of virginity, that

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

her marriage contract is one hundred dinars.

Whereas

Rav Ashi

rejects Rava’s proof and

said: I can always 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 intercourse,

she does not have

a marriage contract

at all,

because her transaction is a mistaken transaction.

But here is different,

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

she had already entered

previously

the bridal chamber.

And the Gemara raises a difficulty from our Mishna:

But let us be concerned that perhaps she committed adultery while married to him!?

And why does the Mishna say that they do not have a claim concerning the signs of virginity?

And we answer:

Rav Sharye said:

Here the case is

for example, where he betrothed her and had intercourse with her immediately.

And now the Gemara explains what practical difference there is if the words of Rava and Rav Ashi were stated with regard to the beraita or with regard to the Mishna:

The one who teaches it

from the one who taught their words

with regard to the beraita—

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

And if so,

all the more so with regard to the Mishna,

where the case is one in which there are no witnesses that she did not have intercourse, the words of Rav Ashi were stated: the husband should be concerned that she has had intercourse.

However,

the one who teaches it

the words of Rava and Rav Ashi

with regard to the Mishna,

where the case is one in which there is only a presumption that she did not have intercourse, and there are no witnesses, he teaches their words only in this matter.

But with regard to the beraita—

no,

he does not teach them.

For from the beraita, which speaks of a case in which there are witnesses, Rava’s words are properly proven: if he married her on the presumption that she was a virgin and she was found to have had intercourse, she has a marriage contract, and there is no place for Rav Ashi’s rejection, “But here is different, because the first husband married her,” and she does not have the presumption of a virgin.

Because

the husband

can say to her: I—

relied upon the witnesses!

That is, the husband can claim: I relied upon the witnesses, and she was with me under the presumption that she was a virgin.

And since the beraita says that the second husband cannot make a claim concerning the signs of virginity, it is certainly proven in accordance with Rava’s position, who said, “This means: if he married her on the presumption that she was a virgin and she was found to have had intercourse—she has a marriage contract.”

Mishna:

A betrothed man

who eats

the betrothal feast

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

cannot make a claim concerning the signs of virginity, because he is secluded with her.

Since

in Judea they were accustomed to seclude the betrothed man with his betrothed, so that “his heart would become familiar with her.”

So that he would become accustomed to her and would not be embarrassed when he was alone with her.

And since he was secluded with her, we attribute that she had intercourse with him before the marriage; therefore, in Judea she does not have a claim concerning the signs of virginity.

But with regard to forbidding her to him, he is trustworthy, for since he says, “I did not have intercourse with her,” and it is certain to me that she had intercourse with another man and not with me, then “he has made himself as a piece of a forbidden matter” [he considered her for himself as a piece of a forbidden matter ], and therefore she is forbidden to him.

Gemara:

The Gemara proves from the wording of the Mishna:

Since it teaches, “the one who eats

at his father-in-law’s in Judea,” and the Mishna did not simply say that in Judea there is no claim concerning the signs of virginity—

By implication

you learn this:

there are places in Judea

as well where he does not eat [it is proven that there are places in Judea where the groom does not eat at his father-in-law’s and is not secluded with his bride].

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

that

in Judea as well—

there are places and places.

They differ in their practice.

And it follows from the Mishna that in a place where they were not accustomed to seclude the groom and bride, he can make a claim concerning the signs of virginity even in Judea.

And

as it is taught

in a beraita, that there are places and places:

As it is taught: Rabbi Judah said:

a.

In Judea, at first they would seclude the groom and the bride for one hour before their entry into the bridal chamber, so that his heart would become familiar with her.

And in the Galilee—

they would not do so.

b.

In Judea, at first they would appoint two attendants for them [witnesses], until

one

one for him

and

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

their entry into the bridal chamber,

so that they would not deceive that night, ruining one another through deceit: so that the husband would not see the blood of virginity and intentionally lose the cloth with the blood, and so that the woman would not bring another cloth upon which drops of blood were already present.

And in the Galilee—

they would not do so.

c.

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

And in the Galilee—

they would not do so.

And it is implied from this that in Judea they were accustomed to examine the groom and the bride, so there are places in Judea where they were not accustomed to seclude the groom and bride.

For in a place where they were accustomed to seclude them, examination is of no benefit, since there is no claim there concerning the signs of virginity.

And it is proven from the beraita that there are places and places, which differ in their practice.

We learned further in the continuation of the beraita:

And anyone who did not practice this custom cannot make a claim concerning the signs of virginity.

And we examined it:

With regard to which?

With regard to which custom does the tan­ n a y say that if he did not practice it, he cannot make a claim concerning the signs of virginity?

If you say

that it means

the first clause,

the custom of secluding the groom with the bride—

It is impossible to say this. For if so, the tan­nay should have said the opposite—

and

“Anyone who practiced this custom

of being secluded with the bride cannot make a claim concerning the signs of virginity”—

he should have had to say

to the tan­nay

to say!

Rather,

perhaps you will seek to answer that “anyone who did not practice” was stated

with regard to the latter clause,

concerning the custom of appointing witnesses to examine the groom and bride, so that if he did not appoint witnesses to examine them, he cannot make a claim concerning the signs of virginity.

This too is impossible to say. For if so—

“Anyone who was not examined

by witnesses

cannot make a claim concerning the signs of virginity”—

he should have had to say,

it should have been necessary for

the tan­nay

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

And he answers:

Abaye said: Always, “anyone who did not practice”—

is indeed stated

the first clause,

concerning the custom in Judea that they would seclude the groom and bride.

And

as for what is difficult—that if so, the tan­nay should have said “anyone who practiced”—

it can be answered that indeed

teach,

you should emend the wording of the beraita and change it to

“anyone who practiced.”

Rava said to him: But it teaches all “who did not practice”!

And you cannot emend the wording of the beraita to wording opposite to what we have learned in it until now. For it is indeed possible to change the wording of the beraita, but it is impossible to reverse it.

Rather, Rava said:

What was said in the beraita, “anyone who did not practice,” refers to the custom of the Galilee, where they would not seclude the groom and bride.

And

this is what he is saying,

the tan­nay in the beraita:

Anyone who did not practice

the custom of the Galilee in the Galilee, but

practiced

the custom of Judea in the Galilee,

and was secluded with his bride before the marriage—

cannot make a claim concerning the signs of virginity.

Whereas

Rav Ashi

answered, and

said: Always, “anyone who did not practice” was stated

is indeed stated

with regard to the latter clause,

concerning the custom in Judea that they would appoint witnesses for the groom and bride.

And teach,

you should emend the wording of the beraita and change it as follows:

“Anyone who was not examined.”

And such an emendation is possible, for it is not contrary to what we have learned until now.

And it is an emendation of wording, not a reversal of wording.

Mishna:

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

However, the court of the priests instituted that the marriage contract of a priest’s daughter should be four hundred dinars in the marriage of a virgin. And this was a complete and binding enactment, like a condition of the marriage contract; therefore, in the marriage contract of a priest’s daughter who was a virgin they would write, “four hundred dinars that are due to you.”

And likewise, if they did not write a marriage contract for her at all, she would collect four hundred dinars by virtue of this enactment, which was not an addition to the marriage contract customary among the priests, but rather a complete obligation like the marriage contract itself, by virtue of the enactment of the court of the priests.

Both an Israelite widow and a widow of

a daughter of

priests—her marriage contract is one hundred dinars.

For with regard to a widow, the priests did not add to her marriage contract.

But

the court of the priests [a special court of priests that would institute enactments and adjudicate matters concerning the priesthood]

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

would collect for the

marriage contract of a

virgin

daughter of a priest

four hundred dinars,

when she married a priest. And all the more so when she married an Israelite, for then she forfeits her priestly status,

and the Sages did not protest against them,

saying: You are creating jealousy between the families.

Gemara:

A tan­nay

we learned in a beraita:

And a widow of priests—

her marriage contract is two hundred.

And we raise an objection:

But we learned

in our Mishna:

Both an Israelite widow and a widow of priests—

their marriage contract 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 for a widow.