Ketubot 2a — the Talmud in English

Introduction to the Chapter “A Virgin Is Married” One who marries a woman on the presumption that she is a virgin, and comes to the court and makes a “claim of virginity,” that he found her to have had intercourse, while he married her on the presumption that she was a virgin—his claim contains two matters: a. a matter of prohibition, lest she had intercourse with a stranger while she was betrothed to him, and became forbidden to him. b. a monetary matter, for he is not obligated in the ketuba at all if she committed adultery while married to him. Or he is not obligated to give her the ketuba of a virgin, which is two hundred zuz, but only the ketuba of a woman who has had intercourse, which is one hundred zuz. The claim of virginity relies upon the absence of the signs of virginity, which are two. The first sign of virginity is the blood that flows from a virgin during the first intercourse. The absence of blood is evidence that she is not a virgin. The second sign is the tightness at the opening of the woman that the husband finds when having intercourse with a virgin for the first time. If the opening of the woman is not tight during the first intercourse, this is evidence that she had already had intercourse and is no longer a virgin. The husband is believed concerning the claim of virginity both with regard to her being forbidden to him, where there is one uncertainty as to whether she had intercourse while betrothed to him, [but not where the uncertainty has the status of a “double uncertainty,” as will be explained below], and with regard to the monetary matter of the ketuba. And the Gemara discusses in this chapter and explains what is the force of the husband’s credibility. In what circumstances is it said that the husband is believed? When the woman contradicts him and claims that she was a virgin at the time she had intercourse with him. But if the woman claims that indeed she had intercourse previously, while she was betrothed to him, but she is not forbidden to him because she had intercourse under duress, and therefore she is also entitled to a ketuba—the tannaim disagree about this in the Mishna, later in the chapter, whether her claim, which is a claim of “certain knowledge,” together with her “bodily presumption,” which says that she became betrothed while she was a virgin, and likewise her presumption of fitness, stands against the force of the husband’s credibility, whose claim is based on “uncertainty,” for it is uncertain to him whether she committed adultery while married to him. And since the Sages wished to preserve the sanctity of the Jewish people and prevent stumbling during the waiting period that was customary in the past between betrothal and marriage, they enacted that the marriage time of a virgin should be on the day adjacent to the day on which the court sat, so that the woman would know that if she had intercourse with a stranger, then immediately on the morning after the marriage, after her husband discovered that she was not a virgin, he would come to the court and make a claim of virginity while his spirit was agitated against her. And the woman would not rely on the fact that she would succeed in persuading him to keep her with him despite the fact that she had had intercourse with another man while betrothed to him. The Sages enacted a time for the marriage of a virgin, that it should be on Wednesday, and for that of a widow, that it should be on Thursday.

The Mishna before us explains only the reason for establishing Wednesday as the time for the marriage of a virgin, whereas the reason for establishing Thursday as the time for the marriage of a widow will be explained in the Gemara.

a. There are three reasons for the Sages’ enactment that a virgin should marry specifically on Wednesday. The primary reason is explained in the Mishna, and two additional reasons are explained in the Gemara.

The primary reason for the Sages’ enactment to establish Wednesday as the day of marriage for a virgin is this: if her husband finds her not to be a virgin, he will rise early the next morning, on Thursday, to the court, which is the day on which the court sits, while he is still angry that he found her to have had intercourse and not to be a virgin, and he will make the “claim of virginity” in court. His anger will not cool through waiting until another day on which the court sits.

And thus the report will spread that he found her to have had intercourse and not to be a virgin, and perhaps, because of the publicizing of the matter, witnesses will come who will testify that she had intercourse with another man during the period of betrothal, and the matter will be established through witnesses.

must not come to the court and make a claim of virginity and bring upon her a disreputable report! See Eilat HaShahar, which discusses at length how much the husband is obligated to clarify this uncertainty that arose for him. For example, if a person enters a shop in which there is kosher meat and meat that is of uncertainly non-kosher status, would it be permitted for him to take meat from the shop without asking at all whether this meat is the kosher meat or the meat of uncertainly non-kosher status, and rely on a double uncertainty without even needing to inquire and ask whether it is kosher?! See his words at length. b. Ezra enacted that there should be a court sitting in all the towns on Mondays and Thursdays. Before Ezra’s enactment, there was no fixed day for the court’s sitting.

c. A husband who married his wife on the presumption that she was a virgin, and she was found to have had intercourse, must be concerned lest she had intercourse with another man between the time of the betrothal and the time of the marriage [for in their time the betrothal was not adjacent to the marriage; rather, the betrothed woman, who was a married woman in every respect, remained in her father’s house until the time of the marriage], and if she had intercourse with another man while betrothed to him, she becomes forbidden to him, according to the law of a married woman who committed adultery while married to her husband—

If the husband is a kohen, she becomes forbidden to him whether she had intercourse willingly or under duress. But if the husband is an Israelite, she becomes forbidden to him only if she had intercourse with another man willingly.

d. According to this reason, the virgin could have married even on Sunday, and then he could have risen early on Monday morning and made his claim before the court’s sitting, since the courts sat in all the towns also on Monday.

But there was an additional reason for the enactment that the virgin should marry specifically on Wednesday, since “the Sages devoted attention to the enactment for the daughters of Israel, that [the groom] should toil over the feast for three days, one on Sunday, the second on Monday, and the third on Tuesday, and on Wednesday he should marry her.”

Likewise, the Gemara explains an additional reason: Thursday is the day on which the blessing of procreation was said [during the creation of the world] concerning the fish, and if a man marries a woman on Wednesday, he will have intercourse with her on the night afterward, the beginning of Thursday, which has an aspect of blessing for procreation.

e. Before Ezra’s enactment, and likewise in the present time, when there is no specific day for the court’s sitting, and likewise in the present time there is no need to be concerned for a claim of virginity, since there is no interval between betrothal and marriage, only the second reason and the third reason remain.

Therefore, if the husband has already taken pains with the wedding feast, and is not particular to have intercourse specifically on the day on which the blessing for procreation was said, he does not need to wait until Wednesday, and he may marry a woman on any day except Shabbat and the conclusion of Shabbat, for the reason that will be explained in the Gemara.

Mishna:

The Sages enacted that a

virgin is married on Wednesday

of the week, and a

widow

is married

on Thursday.

Because

twice during the week,

on the weekdays,

the courts sat in

all the

towns—

on Monday and on Thursday.

Therefore, the Sages enacted that a man should marry the virgin on Wednesday, so that he would have intercourse with her on the night of Thursday,

for if he had a claim of virginity,

because he found her to have had intercourse, and he had to be concerned lest she had intercourse during her betrothal and became forbidden to him—

he would rise early to the court,

and claim that he found her to have had intercourse, and the report would spread, and through the publicity it was possible that witnesses would come to the court who would establish her adultery.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that a virgin is married on Wednesday: “for if he had a claim of virginity, he would rise early to the court.”

And Rav Yosef came to explain the words of the Mishna according to the words of Shmuel, his teacher.

But since Rav Yosef became ill and forgot his learning, he initially recited the words of Shmuel, his teacher, incorrectly, and was astonished at his words, and afterward corrected them.

And thus Rav Yosef initially expounded in the name of Shmuel, his teacher—

Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: For what reason did they say

the Sages

“a virgin is married on Wednesday”?

And Rav Yosef understood that Shmuel did not ask why they enacted that she should marry only on Wednesday and not on Sunday, even though the courts also sat on Monday.

Rather, Shmuel’s question was: what practical difference does this enactment have, apart from the mere establishment of this as the proper time for marriage? And concerning this Shmuel answered:

As we learned [below, on folio 57a], that they give a betrothed virgin twelve months to prepare herself, her ornaments, and all the needs of her marriage, from the day on which the betrothed man demanded that she prepare herself for marriage with him until the day of the wedding canopy.

And if

the

time has arrived,

the

time,

that twelve months have passed,

and they did not marry

the virgins because of the husbands’ delay, then they—

eat from his—he is obligated to support her as he is obligated to support his married wife.

And

likewise, if they were betrothed to a kohen, even if they themselves were Israelites, from now on they

eat

already

of teruma,

according to the law of an Israelite woman married to a kohen, who eats teruma.

And since we learned in this Mishna that when the time arrives the husband is obligated in her support—

he can,

even if

the time arrived

on Sunday,

he should provide her with support

immediately

support,

since twelve months have already passed and he is delaying marrying her.

And on Sunday there is not the reason stated by the Mishna for not marrying, namely, lest he find her to have had intercourse and his mind cool until he has the possibility of reaching the court, for he can come to the court the next morning, on Monday, when the court sits—

for this reason we learned

in our Mishna that the Sages established that

“a virgin is married on Wednesday.”

And from here you learn that until Wednesday of the week, which is the day the Sages established for marriage, he is not obligated to provide her with support, since the delay is not on his part but is due to the enactment of the Sages.

And Rav Yosef did not explain, when citing Shmuel’s words, why a virgin indeed is not married also on Sunday, because according to Rav Yosef’s present understanding, that was not Shmuel’s question!

He said

that Rav Yosef was astonished

at the words of Shmuel,

his teacher:

Master of Abraham!

God of Abraham!

You have based a teaching,

how did my teacher Shmuel base the reason of our Mishna

—

on something not taught

in a Mishna that “is not taught.”

That is, Shmuel said that our Mishna teaches the establishment of Wednesday as the time of marriage in order to teach about the matter of support, which is a practical difference for a Mishna that “is not taught.”

And the Gemara was astonished at Rav Yosef’s astonishment:

Which

Mishna

is taught, and which

Mishna

is not taught!?

But surely,

this one also is taught, and

also

that one is taught!

For both the Mishna here and the Mishna below concerning the arrival of the time are explicit Mishnayot!

Rather,

the Gemara explains that this was Rav Yosef’s claim:

You have based a teaching,

how did Shmuel base our Mishna,

which explains

in it

the reason

why a virgin is married on Wednesday, so that he will rise early on Thursday morning and make a claim of virginity—

on something taught

in the Mishna below concerning the arrival of the time,

which does not explain

in it

the reason

why, when the time arrives on Sunday, he does not provide support, even though he can approach the court the next day [on Monday]!

That is, it is impossible that our Mishna, in which the reason for the Sages’ enactment is explicitly stated—to enable him to rise early in the morning to the court—should be a practical difference for the law of support arriving on Sunday, while the Mishna concerning the arrival of the time itself does not give a reason for this distinction. For our Mishna does not deal at all with the obligation of support when the time arrives, but gives a reason for establishing the time on Wednesday, so that he will rise early in the morning to the court, without explaining why a man should not marry a woman also on Sunday.

And because of this reason alone, Sunday too is suitable for the marriage of a woman. And according to the reason of our Mishna, he indeed should have provided support on Sunday.

If so, Rav Yosef asks, how did Shmuel say that our Mishna, which says “a virgin is married on Wednesday,” has a practical difference such that if the time arrived on Sunday he does not provide her with support?

Therefore Rav Yosef said:

Rather, if it was said

with regard to Shmuel’s words, they must necessarily be corrected, and it should be said that

this is how it was said:

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said:

we learned in the Mishna:

For what reason did they say, “a virgin is married on Wednesday”?—

for if he had a claim of virginity, he would rise early to the court

on Thursday, which is the day on which the court sits, and his anger would not cool through waiting until the day on which the court sits.

And Rav Yosef explains that this is what Shmuel asked:

Since this is the reason of the Mishna, one should ask—

And let her marry

also

on Sunday,

for even on Sunday there is the possibility

that if he had a claim of virginity, he would rise early

on Monday morning

to the court!?

And Rav Yosef explains that Shmuel answered: there is an additional reason for the matter, on account of which she should marry only on Wednesday. For—

the Sages devoted attention to the enactment for the daughters of Israel, that

the groom should

toil over the feast

of the marriage, so that it would be honorable,

for three days—

one on Sunday, the second on Monday, and the third on Tuesday, and on Wednesday—

he marries her.

And in light of this, Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

And now,

since

we have learned

also the reason that

“the Sages took care

to safeguard the interests of the daughters of Israel, so that the groom would trouble himself with preparing the wedding feast for three days”

— that

Mishna

which we have learned

below,

“If the appointed time arrived and they had not married, they eat from his resources and eat teruma”—

If

the appointed time arrived on Sunday,

then

since he cannot marry her

until Wednesday—

he is not required to provide her with support

until Wednesday.

And in light of this, Rav Yosef himself adds to Shmuel’s statement:

Just as when the appointed time arrived on Sunday he is not required to provide her with support, since he still cannot marry her because of circumstances beyond his control: Wednesday, when he can marry her, has not yet arrived—

therefore,

in every case of circumstances beyond control, whether the circumstance is on his side or on her side—for example, if, when the twelve-month period arrived,

he became ill,

and cannot marry her,

or she became ill, or she became a menstruating woman in a state of ritual impurity,

and therefore he cannot marry her—

he

is not required to provide her with support.

This concludes Rav Yosef’s statement according to one version.

And there are those who say,

there is one who explains

that

that Rav Yosef

raised it as a question,

meaning that he was uncertain about this matter and presented it as a legal question:

if he became ill

when the twelve-month period arrived, and therefore delayed marrying her—

what is the law

as to providing her with support?

The two sides of the question are:

There,

when the appointed time arrived on Sunday,

what is the reason

that he is exempt from providing her with support? It is

because he is prevented by circumstances beyond his control

from marrying her, because of the enactment that he should not marry her before Wednesday.

And

if so,

here too, he is prevented by circumstances beyond his control,

since he cannot marry her because of his illness.

Or perhaps, there he is prevented

he is

because of an enactment that the Sages instituted for him,

and this is not a personal circumstance beyond his control; therefore, the Sages did not obligate him to provide her with support.

But

here,

when he became ill and could not marry her,

he is not

prevented because of a rabbinic enactment, but because of his illness. It is possible that in such a case the Sages did not exempt him, through their enactment, from the obligation to provide support once the appointed time arrived and they had not married.

And

also

if you should say: if he became ill,

since the impediment to the marriage is on his side, indeed

he must provide her with support—

it remains uncertain whether, if

she became ill—

what is the law

as to providing her with support? The two sides of the question are:

Does

he have the ability to say to her: “I am here and ready!”

I am ready and prepared to marry you, and therefore I do not need to support you, since you are the one preventing the marriage?

Or perhaps, she can say to him,

she can claim:

“His field was flooded!”

This is a metaphorical expression, as though she were saying to him: “Your field was flooded and ruined.”

That is, she claims to him: “I already belong to you, and once the appointed time arrived, you are obligated to provide me with support. The fact that you cannot marry me because of my illness is your misfortune, which caused you to suffer a loss; I should not have to suffer a loss because I cannot marry you.”

And

also

if you should say,

that she indeed can

say to him, “His field was flooded

” there is still a question: if

she became a menstruating woman in a state of ritual impurity

when the appointed time arrived, and therefore he does not marry her—

what is the law

as to whether he must provide her with support?

And Rav Yosef explains: If she became a menstruating woman in a state of ritual impurity

at the time of her expected menstrual period,

when she normally enters this state—

you need not raise the question;

there is no uncertainty about the matter,