Ketubot 16b (טז:) — the Talmud in English

And since she has no public report, the majority has been undermined.

Therefore, the husband is believed when he says, “I married you as a widow.”

The Gemara raises an objection:

If every woman who is married as a virgin has a public report, when the witnesses come, what difference does it make?

For

these witnesses must be false,

since, had she been a virgin, many people would have known that she had gone out under the bridal canopy?

Rather, Ravina said:

Do not say, “Every woman who is married as a virgin has a public report.” Rather, only

most women married as virgins

have a public report, and

since she has no public report, the majority has been undermined.

But when witnesses come, we believe them when they say that she was a virgin, since there is a minority of virgins who have no public report, and perhaps she belongs to that minority.

We learned in the Mishna that a woman whose ketuba was lost,

if there are witnesses that she went out under the bridal canopy, etc.,

collects two hundred zuz as stipulated in her ketuba:

The Gemara raises an objection:

Let us be concerned lest she produce witnesses

that she went out under the bridal canopy

in this court and collect, and then produce her ketuba in another court and collect by means of it ?

The Gemara answers:

Rabbi Abbahu said:

We are forced to say that the Mishna

is teaching

that in a place where there is no ketuba,

a receipt is written

for the husband, as evidence that he paid the woman’s ketuba. He cannot say, “I will not pay until you produce your ketuba, lest you sue me again in court.” Rather, a receipt is written for him, and he bears responsibility for safeguarding it .

They disputed this law in tractate Bava Batra, and the halakha is in accordance with the one who says that a receipt is not written. One does not collect from a borrower until the lender produces his document, because otherwise the borrower would have to safeguard his receipt from mice all his life, so that the lender would not return and sue him a second time.

Rav Pappa said:

Actually, a receipt is never written; and in our Mishna

we are dealing with a place where they do not write a ketuba,

and therefore there is no concern that she might produce her ketuba elsewhere and collect from him a second time.

And there are those who apply

this discussion between Rabbi Abbahu and Rav Pappa

to a beraita,

as we learned: A woman who

lost her ketuba,

or

concealed her ketuba,

or

her ketuba was burned,

and

they danced before her, played before her, or passed a cup of good tidings before her

[this will be explained later in the Gemara], or

a mapah of virgins,

all of which are customs performed at the wedding of a virgin,

if she has witnesses to any one of these—

her ketuba is two hundred zuz.

And concerning this we raised the following objection:

But let us be concerned lest she produce witnesses in this court and collect, and then produce her ketuba in another court and collect by means of it?

The answers of the Gemara stated above were given concerning this objection:

Rabbi Abbahu said: This indicates that a receipt is written. Rav Pappa said: We are dealing with a place where they do not write a ketuba.

The Gemara raises an objection: How can Rav Pappa’s answer be applied to the beraita,

which teaches, “She lost her ketuba”?

If so, it certainly refers to a place where they write a ketuba, contrary to Rav Pappa, who established it as referring to a place where they do not write a ketuba?

The Gemara answers: Actually, it is in accordance with Rav Pappa, and the beraita is dealing with a case

in which he wrote her

a ketuba, even though the custom of the place was not to write a ketuba.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Ultimately,

since there was a ketuba, let us be concerned lest she

produce it

in another court

and collect by means of it

a second time?

The Gemara answers:

What does the beraita mean by “she lost”

when it says this?

It means that she lost it in a fire!

If so, there is no longer any concern that she will produce it elsewhere .

The Gemara raises an objection:

If so, “

she lost

” is the same as “it was burned,”

so why did the beraita repeat this law?

Furthermore,

there is another difficulty:

“She concealed

her ketuba

”—what can be said?

Let us be concerned lest she produce her ketuba in another court and collect by means of it.

And furthermore,

there is a difficulty: Even if you say that “her ketuba was burned” is an explanation of

“she lost

her ketuba”,

there is still a difficulty:

Why do I need

to say “she lost her ketuba”? Is that not the same as “she concealed her ketuba”?

The Gemara answers:

Rather, every case of “she lost” is considered as though she concealed it in our presence, and we do not give it to her,

because we are concerned that she may produce her ketuba in another court and collect by means of it a second time.

And this is the explanation of the beraita: “She lost her ketuba” means that she concealed her ketuba, and she is not believed

until witnesses say

that her ketuba was burned. In that case, she is believed if there are witnesses that she went out under the bridal canopy or that the other customs of virgins were performed, and she collects two hundred zuz.

The one who applies it

that is, the discussion of Rabbi Abbahu and Rav Pappa,

to the beraita,

holds that although the beraita deals with a case in which she lost her ketuba, this does not provide proof that a receipt is written, since “every case of ‘she lost’ is considered as though she concealed it in our presence,” as stated above. If so,

all the more so in the case of the Mishna,

there is no proof from our Mishna that a receipt is written, since it is dealing with a place where they do not write a ketuba, as stated above.

And the one who applies it

to the discussion of Rabbi Abbahu and Rav Pappa

only to the Mishna

and not to the beraita,

but not to the beraita,

will explain it as stated above—“every case of ‘she lost’ is considered as though she concealed it in our presence”—

as a difficulty,

and will prefer to prove from the beraita that a receipt is written rather than force the explanations stated above.

We learned in the Mishna that

if she has witnesses, etc.,

she is believed.

The Gemara raises an objection: According to the one who says that a receipt is not written, why is she believed?

Let us be concerned lest she produce witnesses that she went out under the bridal canopy in this court and collect, and then produce witnesses that she went out under the bridal canopy in another court and collect?

The Gemara answers:

In a place where it is impossible,

for example, where they do not write a ketuba and she can collect her ketuba only through witnesses that she went out under the bridal canopy,

certainly

a

receipt is written,

because otherwise, how could she collect her ketuba?!

We learned in the Mishna that if there are witnesses that

they passed a cup of good tidings before her,

she collects two hundred zuz:

The Gemara explains:

What is a cup of good tidings? Rav Adda bar Ahava said: They pass before her a cup of teruma wine, meaning—

she was fit to eat teruma,

if she had married a koen, since she was not found to have been violated through licentious relations, but rather was a virgin.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Rav Pappa challenged this:

Is that so?

If she had been

a widow, would she not eat teruma?!

If so, what proof is there from the fact that she was fit to eat teruma that she was indeed a virgin? Perhaps she was a widow, and a widow also eats teruma.

Rather, Rav Pappa said—

the reason they pass a cup of teruma wine before her is to say that

this woman

is first,

that is, she is having intercourse for the first time,

like teruma,

which is

first

of all produce.

The Gemara brings additional customs that were practiced with a virgin:

It was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: They pass a barrel of wine before her.

And

Rav Adda bar Ahava said

to explain his words: A barrel of wine was passed even before a woman who had previously had intercourse; however, if she was

a virgin, they passed before her

a

sealed

barrel. But if she was

a woman who had previously had intercourse, they passed before her

an

open barrel.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Why

do they pass a barrel of wine even before a woman who had previously had intercourse?

Let them pass it

only

before a virgin, and before a woman who had previously had intercourse let them not pass it at all?

The Gemara answers: If they did not pass anything before a woman who had previously had intercourse,

sometimes she might seize two hundred zuz

without witnesses or a court

and say—

“I was a virgin, and the reason they did not pass it before me was that they were overcome by intoxication,”

and she would be believed by virtue of a migo, since she could say that the matter never happened .

Therefore, the Sages instituted a special identifying practice for a woman who had previously had intercourse, in order to remove all doubt.

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

How does one dance before the bride?

That is, what praise is it permissible to express before her?