Ketubot 16b — the Talmud in English

And since this one has no public report, the majority has been weakened.

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

And we raise an objection:

If every woman who is married as a virgin has a public report, when witnesses come, what of it?

Behold,

these witnesses are false witnesses,

for if she had been a virgin, many people would have known that she went out with a hinuma?

Rather, Ravina said:

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

the majority of women who are married as virgins

have a public report. And since this one has no public report,

the majority has been weakened.

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 this one is from that minority.

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

if there are witnesses that she went out with a hinuma, etc.,

collects two hundred [zuz] for her ketuba:

And we raise an objection:

Let us be concerned lest she produce witnesses

that she went out with a hinuma

in this court, and collect, and then produce her ketuba in another court, and collect with it?

And we answer:

Rabbi Abbahu said,

by force of necessity, the Mishna

means to say

that in a place where there is no ketuba,

they write a receipt

for the husband, as evidence that he repaid the woman her ketuba, and he cannot say, “I will not repay until you produce your ketuba,” lest you claim from me another time in court; rather, they write him a receipt, and the responsibility to safeguard his receipt rests upon him.

And they disputed this law in tractate Bava Batra, and the law is established according to the one who says, “They do not write a receipt,” and they do not collect from the borrower until the lender produces his document, because it turns out that the borrower must safeguard his receipt all his life from the mice, so that the lender will not return and claim from him a second time.

Rav Pappa said,

They never write a receipt, and our Mishna

is dealing with a place where they do not write a ketuba,

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

And there are those who teach it

with regard to this matter that Rabbi Abbahu and Rav Pappa discussed—

with regard to a beraita,

as we learned: A woman who

lost her ketuba,

or

hid her ketuba,

or

her ketuba was burned,

and

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

—this will be explained later in the Gemara—,

or a sheet of virgins,

for all these are customs performed at the marriage of a virgin,

if she has witnesses concerning any one of these—

her ketuba is two hundred.

And here we raise the 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 with it?

And concerning this objection, the answers of the Gemara stated above were said:

Rabbi Abbahu said: This means to say that they write a receipt. Rav Pappa said: We are dealing with a place where they do not write a ketuba.

And we raise an objection: How is it possible to state Rav Pappa’s answer concerning the beraita,

for it teaches, “she lost her ketuba,”

in the beraita? If so, it certainly speaks of a place where they write a ketuba, and not in accordance with Rav Pappa, who established it as referring to a place where they do not write a ketuba?

And we answer: Actually, it is in accordance with Rav Pappa, and the beraita is dealing with a case

where he wrote her

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

And we raise an objection:

In the end,

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

produce it

in another court

and collect with it

a second time?

And we answer:

What does “she lost”

which the beraita stated mean?

It means: she lost it in a fire!

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

And we raise an objection:

If so, “‘she lost it’”

“lost it”

is the same as “it was burned,”

and why did the beraita repeat and state this law a second time?

And furthermore,

it is difficult:

“She hid

her ketuba

”—what is there to say?

Let us be concerned lest she produce her ketuba in another court and collect with it?

And furthermore,

it is difficult—even if you say that “her ketuba was burned” is an explanation of

“she lost

her ketuba,”

it is still difficult:

Why do I need

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

And we answer:

Rather, every case of “she lost it” is considered as though she hid it before us, and we do not give it to her,

because we are concerned lest she produce her ketuba in another court and collect with it a second time.

And this is the explanation of the beraita: “She lost her ketuba”—she is like one who hid her ketuba, and she is not believed

until witnesses say

that her ketuba was burned, at which point she is believed if there are witnesses that she went out with a hinuma or with the other customs of virgins, and she collects two hundred.

The one who teaches it,

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

with regard to the beraita,

and even though the beraita deals with a case in which she lost her ketuba, there is no proof from here that they write a receipt, because “every case of ‘she lost it’ is considered as though she hid it before us,” as stated above; if so,

all the more so with regard to the Mishna,

that no proof can be brought from our Mishna that they write a receipt, because it is speaking of a place where they do not write a ketuba, as stated above.

And the one who teaches it

with regard to the words of Rabbi Abbahu and Rav Pappa

with regard to the Mishna

alone,

but not with regard to the beraita,

will answer as stated above—“every case of ‘she lost it’ is considered as though she hid it before us,”

as an objection,

and he will prefer to prove from the beraita that they write a receipt, rather than force the explanations stated above.

We learned in the Mishna that

if she has witnesses, etc.,

she is believed.:

And we raise an objection: According to the one who says that they do not write a receipt, why is she believed?

Let us be concerned lest she produce witnesses of the hinuma in this court and collect, and then produce witnesses of the hinuma in another court and collect?

And we answer:

In a place where it is not possible,

such as where they do not write a ketuba, and she collects her ketuba only through witnesses of the hinuma, then

certainly

they

write a receipt,

for if not, how will she collect her ketuba?!

We learned in the Mishna that if there are witnesses that

they passed before her a cup of good tidings,

she collects two hundred:

And the Gemara explains:

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

this one was fit to eat teruma,

if she had married a kohen, since she was not found to have been violated on account of promiscuity, but rather was a virgin.

And we raise an objection:

Rav Pappa challenged this—

is it so

that if she were

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 even a widow eats teruma.

Rather, Rav Pappa said—

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

this one

is first,

that is, penetrated for the first time,

like teruma

which is

first

of all the produce.

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

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

And

Rav Adda bar Ahava said

to explain his words: They would also pass a barrel of wine before one who had been violated, but if she was

a virgin, they pass before her

a barrel

that is sealed.

And if she was

one who had been violated, they pass before her

a barrel

that is open.

And we raise an objection:

Why

do they pass a barrel of wine even before one who had been violated?

Let them pass

only

before a virgin, and before one who had been violated let them not pass at all?

And we answer: If they do not pass anything before one who had been violated,

sometimes she will seize two hundred

without witnesses or a court,

and say—

“I was a virgin, and the reason that they did not pass [anything] before me is that they were prevented by an accident,”

and she will be believed with a migo, since she could say, “It never happened.”

And therefore the Sages instituted making a special sign for one who had been violated, in order to remove all doubt.

The Sages taught

in a beraita:

How does one dance before the bride?

That is, what praises is it permitted to say before her?