Ketubot 9b — the Talmud in English

Every

man of the men of the army

who went out to the war of the House of David—

a bill of divorce

was

writing for his wife,

on condition that, if he died in the war, the divorce would take effect through this bill retroactively, from the time of the writing of the bill. And when Uriah went out to the war of the House of David, he had already written a bill of divorce for his wife. And since Uriah died in that war, his wife was found to be divorced retroactively, and there is no adultery here at all for which she should be forbidden.

And the proof from the verse that they would write a bill of divorce for their wives before going out to war is from

that which is written

concerning Saul’s war: “

And the three older sons of Jesse went; they went after Saul to the war. And the names of his three sons who went to the war were: Eliab the firstborn, and his second, Avinadav, and the third, Shammah. And David was the youngest. And the three older ones went after Saul.

And Jesse said to David his son: Take now for your brothers this ephah of roasted grain, and these ten loaves of bread. And these ten cheeses of milk you shall bring to the commander of the thousand.

And your brothers you shall inquire after their welfare, and their pledge—

you shall take.”

And we raised it:

What

is the explanation of the words

“and their pledge you shall take”?

Rav Yosef taught: Things joined between him and her!

That is to say, take the bond that connects a man and his wife, namely, that they should write a bill of divorce, each man for his wife.

And from Jesse his father, King David learned to instruct the men of his army to write a bill of divorce for their wives before going out to war.

Abaye said: We too have also learned

in our Mishna in accordance with the words of Rabbi Elazar, that one who says, “I found an open entrance,” is believed to forbid his wife to himself, and we do not say that he is not expert in the matter—

for we learned in it:

A virgin is married on Wednesday.

And it implies:

On Wednesday—

yes.

So.

But

on Thursday—

no,

she should not be married.

And

what is the reason

that the virgin should not be married on Thursday?

Because

the Sages were concerned about

cooling of his mind [lest his mind cool] from the time that he has intercourse with her and finds her to have already had intercourse, until the court sits on the following Monday, since the courts would sit on Mondays and Thursdays, as instituted by Ezra.

And for what

were the Sages concerned, to the extent that they instituted that she should be married on Wednesday, in order to prevent the possibility that his mind would cool?

If it is in order to give her the marriage settlement,

lest you say that the Sages were concerned lest she be found to have already had intercourse, and she is not entitled to a marriage settlement, as in the case of a sota, who forfeits her marriage settlement, and because his mind would cool he would not deprive her of the marriage settlement, but would give it to her —

It is impossible to say this, for

let him give it to her [if he wishes—let him give it to her].

If he does not care about losing his money and knowingly gives her a marriage settlement to which she is not entitled, why should we intervene and deprive her of it?

For if he is not concerned about the loss of his money and gives her a marriage settlement that she does not deserve, of his own accord, why should we intervene in this and make her forfeit it?

Rather,

the Sages certainly instituted this in order

to forbid her to him.

For the Sages were concerned lest he find her to have already had intercourse and she had committed adultery and is forbidden to him, and if he waits until the court session, his mind will cool in the meantime, and he will not come to the court to make the claim until they forbid her to him, and he will be with his wife in the prohibition of a sota to her husband all his days.

And the Gemara continues to explain our Mishna, in order to prove from it in accordance with the words of Rabbi Elazar:

And he is making a claim!

He certainly makes a claim in court in order to forbid her.

And the Gemara examines what his claim is—

Is it not,

that the case is one in which

he makes the claim of “I found an open entrance”

?

And it is proven that, when making the claim of an open entrance in court, he is believed to forbid her to himself. And we do not say that he is not expert in the matter.

And the Gemara rejects this:

No,

the Sages were not concerned because of the claim of an open entrance.

Rather, they were concerned

that he would make the claim of blood,

lest he claim that he did not find blood in her in the manner of virgins, and with this claim he can forbid her to himself, for it is impossible to say that he is not expert in something visible to the eye.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

One who says, “I found an open entrance”

is

believed to make her forfeit her marriage settlement.

And the reason that the Sages believed him in the matter and do not presume him to be lying is that if he hated her and therefore wanted to divorce her, and not because he had indeed found her to have already had intercourse, then from the outset, before he married her, he would already have divorced her, and he would not have troubled himself with a wedding feast for nothing.

Said

Rav Yosef, astonished:

What is he teaching us

Shmuel!?

But

we have learned

this law in a Mishna below:

As we learned: An engaged man

who eats at his father-in-law’s house in Judea without witnesses ]who know his conduct with his fiancée when he is secluded with her],

cannot make a claim concerning virginity, [as will be explained: is the matter under discussion that he may forbid her to himself, or that he may deprive her of her marriage settlement?]

cannot make the claim of virginity, ]as will be explained: whether the issue under discussion is to forbid her to him, or to make her forfeit her marriage settlement].

in Judea it was customary

Because

the custom in Judea was

that

the engaged man

was secluded with her ]with his fiancée] before the marriage, and therefore we attribute the matter to the fact that she did not have intercourse with another man in a forbidden manner, but only with her fiancé did she have intercourse, and she did not become a sota.

he cannot make a claim concerning virginity, because we attribute the matter to his having had relations with her.

And Rav Yosef infers from the Mishna: specifically

in Judea ]where they secluded the groom with the bride before the marriage]

where the betrothed man was not secluded with his betrothed until they entered the marriage canopy,

he is unable to make the claim

of virginity, because we attribute the matter to his having had intercourse with her.

But in the Galilee,

where they did not seclude the engaged man with his fiancée until they entered the wedding canopy—

he is able to make the claim

of virginity.

And for what,

for what matter does he make the claim of virginity?

If

it is in order

to forbid her to him,

and concerning this we learned that in Judea she is not forbidden to him, whereas in the Galilee she is forbidden to him—

this cannot be explained so.

For if so,

in Judea—

why is he not able

to make the claim of virginity!?

But even though he is secluded with her, since he himself says that he did not remove her virginity during that seclusion, we should believe him concerning this, by the principle that “he has made it a forbidden piece to himself.”

Rather, is it not

necessarily that he is unable to make the claim of virginity in order

to make her forfeit her marriage settlement,

because we say that he was the one who had intercourse with her when he was secluded with her.

And what claim

does he make—what

claim?

Is it not that he makes the claim of an open entrance?

And it is proven that in the Galilee he is believed concerning the claim, “I found an open entrance,” in order to make her forfeit her marriage settlement.

And the Gemara rejects the proof:

No,

it is not as you understood, that the Mishna deals with one who makes the claim of an open entrance, and has no proof whatsoever for his words, but only makes a claim. For concerning this, it can be said that we should not believe him, lest he be lying in his claim.

Rather, the Mishna deals with a case in which

he makes the claim of blood,

and brings clear proofs that he did not find virginity in her, through a cloth that he spread at the time of intercourse, and groomsmen who testify that no deception was performed by him, and indeed he did not find virginity in her.