Ketubot 11
אַף אָנוּ נֹאמַר: ״אַיְילוֹנִית״ — דּוּכְרָנִית, דְּלָא יָלְדָה.
We too will say: Ailonit, a sexually underdeveloped woman, is a term meaning: Like a ram [dukhranit], because like a male sheep [ayyil] she does not bear children.
מַתְנִי׳ הַגִּיּוֹרֶת וְהַשְּׁבוּיָה וְהַשִּׁפְחָה שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ וְשֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּירוּ וְשֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרְרוּ, פְּחוּתוֹת מִבְּנוֹת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד — כְּתוּבָּתָן מָאתַיִם. וְיֵשׁ לָהֶן טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִין.
MISHNA: With regard to a female convert, or a captive woman, or a maidservant, who were ransomed with regard to the captive, or who converted with regard to the convert, or who was freed with regard to the maidservant, when she was less than three years and one day old, for all of these, their marriage contract is two hundred dinars, as their presumptive status is that of a virgin. Even if they were subject to intercourse when they were younger than that age, the hymen remains restored. And they are subject to a claim concerning their virginity.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: גֵּר קָטָן — מַטְבִּילִין אוֹתוֹ עַל דַּעַת בֵּית דִּין.
GEMARA: Rav Huna said: With regard to a convert who is a minor, one immerses him in a ritual bath with the consent of the court. As a minor lacks the capacity to make halakhic decisions, the court is authorized to make those decisions in his stead.
מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן — דִּזְכוּת הוּא לוֹ, וְזָכִין לָאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו? תְּנֵינָא: זָכִין לְאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו, וְאֵין חָבִין לָאָדָם שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו!
What is Rav Huna coming to teach us? Is he teaching that it is a privilege for the minor to convert, and one may act in a person’s interests even in his absence? We already learned that explicitly in a mishna (Eiruvin 81b): One may act in a person’s interests in his absence, but one may not act against a person’s interests in his absence.
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: גּוֹי בְּהֶפְקֵירָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ, דְּהָא קַיְימָא לַן דְּעֶבֶד וַדַּאי בְּהֶפְקֵירָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ,
Rav Huna’s statement was necessary lest you say: With regard to a gentile, licentiousness is preferable for him, so conversion is contrary to his interests, just as we maintain that with regard to a slave, licentiousness is certainly preferable. Just as a slave has no interest in assuming the restrictions that come with freedom, in that a freed Canaanite slave is a convert to Judaism, a gentile would have the same attitude toward conversion.
קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן: דְּהָנֵי מִילֵּי גָּדוֹל, דִּטְעַם טַעַם דְּאִיסּוּרָא, אֲבָל קָטָן — זְכוּת הוּא לוֹ.
Therefore, Rav Huna teaches us: That applies only with regard to an adult, who has experienced a taste of prohibition. Therefore, presumably he prefers to remain a slave and indulge in licentiousness. However, with regard to a minor, who did not yet engage in those activities, it is a privilege for him to convert.
לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: הַגִּיּוֹרֶת וְהַשְּׁבוּיָה וְהַשִּׁפְחָה שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ וְשֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּירוּ וְשֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרְרוּ, פְּחוּתוֹת מִבְּנוֹת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד. מַאי לָאו, דְּאַטְבְּלִינְהוּ עַל דַּעַת בֵּית דִּין?
The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports Rav Huna’s statement: With regard to a female convert, or a captive woman, or a maidservant, who were ransomed with regard to the captive, or who converted with regard to the convert, or who were freed with regard to the maidservant, when she was less than three years and one day old; what, is it not referring to a case where they immersed the minor converts and the maidservants with the consent of the court? Apparently, a conversion of that sort is valid.
לָא, הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן: בְּגֵר שֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּירוּ בָּנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו עִמּוֹ, דְּנִיחָא לְהוּ בְּמַאי דְּעָבֵיד אֲבוּהוֹן.
The Gemara rejects that proof: No, with what are we dealing here? It is with a convert whose minor sons and daughters converted with him, as they are content with whatever their father does in their regard. However, that does not apply to a child who is converting on his own.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הִגְדִּילוּ — יְכוֹלִין לְמַחוֹת. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: הַגִּיּוֹרֶת וְהַשְּׁבוּיָה וְהַשִּׁפְחָה שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ וְשֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּירוּ וְשֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרְרוּ, פְּחוּתוֹת מִבְּנוֹת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד — כְּתוּבָּתָן מָאתַיִם. וְאִי סָלְקָא דַעְתָּךְ הִגְדִּילוּ יְכוֹלִין לְמַחוֹת — יָהֲבִינַן לַהּ כְּתוּבָה דְּאָזְלָה וְאָכְלָה בְּגֵיוּתַהּ?
Rav Yosef said: In any case where minors convert, when they reach majority they can protest and annul their conversion. Abaye raised an objection to his opinion from the mishna: With regard to a female convert, or a captive woman, or a maidservant who were ransomed, or who converted, or who were freed when they were less than three years and one day old, their marriage contract is two hundred dinars. And if it enters your mind to say that when they reach majority they can protest and annul their conversion, do we give her the payment of the marriage contract that she will go and consume in her gentile state?
לְכִי גָדְלָה. לְכִי גָדְלָה נָמֵי מְמַחֲיָיא וְנָפְקָא! כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגְדִּילָה שָׁעָה אַחַת וְלֹא מִיחֲתָה — שׁוּב אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְמַחוֹת.
The Gemara answers: She receives payment of her marriage contract once she has reached majority and does not protest, but not while still a minor. The Gemara asks: When she reaches majority too, is there not the same concern that she will protest and abandon Judaism? The Gemara answers: Once she reached majority for even one moment and did not protest, she may no longer protest. This mishna poses no difficulty to the opinion of Rav Yosef.
מֵתִיב רָבָא, אֵלּוּ נְעָרוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶן קְנָס: הַבָּא עַל הַמַּמְזֶרֶת וְעַל הַנְּתִינָה וְעַל הַכּוּתִית וְעַל הַגִּיּוֹרֶת וְעַל הַשְּׁבוּיָה וְעַל הַשִּׁפְחָה שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ וְשֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּירוּ וְשֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרְרוּ, פְּחוּתוֹת מִבְּנוֹת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד, יֵשׁ לָהֶן קְנָס. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ הִגְדִּילוּ יְכוֹלִין לְמַחוֹת — יָהֲבִינַן לַהּ קְנָס דְּאָזְלָה וְאָכְלָה בְּגֵיוּתַהּ?
Rava raised an objection from a mishna (29a): These are the cases of young women for whom there is a fine paid to their fathers by one who rapes them: One who engages in intercourse with a mamzeret; or with a Gibeonite woman [netina], who are given [netunim] to the service of the people and the altar (see Joshua 9:27); or with a Samaritan woman [kutit]. In addition, the same applies to one who engages in intercourse with a female convert, or with a captive woman, or with a maidservant, provided that the captives were ransomed or that the converts converted, or that the maidservants were freed when they were less than three years and one day old, as only in that case do they maintain the presumptive status of a virgin. In all of these cases, there is a fine paid to their fathers if they are raped. And if you say that when they reach majority they can protest and annul their conversion, do we give her payment of the fine that she will go and consume in her gentile state?
לְכִי גָדְלָה. לְכִי גָדְלָה נָמֵי מְמַחֲיָיא וְנָפְקָא! כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגְדִּילָה שָׁעָה אַחַת וְלֹא מִיחֲתָה — שׁוּב אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְמַחוֹת.
The Gemara answers: She receives payment of the fine once she has reached majority and does not protest, but not while she is still a minor. The Gemara asks: When she reaches majority too, is there not the same concern that she will protest and abandon Judaism? The Gemara answers: Once she reached majority for even one moment and did not protest, she may no longer protest.
אַבָּיֵי לָא אָמַר כְּרָבָא: הָתָם קְנָסָא הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא — שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא חוֹטֵא נִשְׂכָּר.
Abaye did not state his objection from the same source as did Rava, because there, in the mishna cited by Rava, it is referring to a fine, and in that case this is the reason: So that the sinner will not profit. The Sages did not absolve the rapist from payment of the fine merely due to the concern that the woman he raped may ultimately negate the conversion.
רָבָא לָא אָמַר כְּאַבַּיֵּי: כְּתוּבָּה הַיְינוּ טַעְמָא — שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא קַלָּה בְּעֵינָיו לְהוֹצִיאָהּ.
Rava did not state his objection from the same source as did Abaye, as with regard to a marriage contract, this is the reason that the Sages instituted it: So that his wife will not be inconsequential in his eyes, enabling him to easily divorce her. As long as this woman does not negate her conversion, she is a Jewish woman and the Sages saw to her interests.
מַתְנִי׳ הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּא עַל הַקְּטַנָּה וְקָטָן שֶׁבָּא עַל הַגְּדוֹלָה וּמוּכַּת עֵץ — כְּתוּבָּתָן מָאתַיִם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מוּכַּת עֵץ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מָנֶה.
MISHNA: With regard to an adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl less than three years old; or a minor boy less than nine years old who engaged in intercourse with an adult woman; or a woman who had her hymen ruptured by wood or any other foreign object, for all these women their marriage contract is two hundred dinars, as their legal status is that of a virgin. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The marriage contract of a woman whose hymen was ruptured by wood is one hundred dinars, as physically, since her hymen is not intact, she is no longer a virgin.
בְּתוּלָה, אַלְמָנָה, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה מִן הַנִּישּׂוּאִין — כְּתוּבָּתָן מָנֶה.
With regard to a virgin who is either a widow, a divorcée, or a ḥalutza who achieved that status from a state of marriage, for all these women their marriage contract is one hundred dinars,
וְאֵין לָהֶן טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים.
and they are not subject to a claim concerning their virginity. Since they were married, even if they did not engage in intercourse with their husband, their presumptive status is that of non-virgins, and the second husband cannot claim that he was misled with regard to their status as virgins.
הַגִּיּוֹרֶת וְהַשְּׁבוּיָה וְהַשִּׁפְחָה שֶׁנִּפְדּוּ וְשֶׁנִּתְגַּיְּירוּ וְשֶׁנִּשְׁתַּחְרְרוּ, יְתֵירוֹת עַל בְּנוֹת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד — כְּתוּבָּתָן מָנֶה, וְאֵין לָהֶן טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִין.
And similarly, with regard to a female convert, or a captive woman, or a maidservant, who were ransomed with regard to the captive, or who converted with regard to the convert, or who were freed with regard to the maidservant, when she was more than three years and one day old, for all of these, their marriage contract is one hundred dinars and they are not subject to a claim concerning their virginity. When they married, their presumptive status was that of a non-virgin.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: קָטָן הַבָּא עַל הַגְּדוֹלָה — עֲשָׂאָהּ מוּכַּת עֵץ. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר: אֵין מוּכַּת עֵץ בְּבָשָׂר.
GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A minor boy who engaged in intercourse with an adult woman renders her as one whose hymen was ruptured by wood, as the act is not considered full-fledged intercourse. Rav Yehuda continues: When I said this statement before Shmuel, he said to me: A woman does not achieve the status of one whose hymen was ruptured by wood by means of flesh, i.e., intercourse.
אִיכָּא דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא בְּאַפֵּי נַפְשַׁהּ: קָטָן הַבָּא עַל הַגְּדוֹלָה, רַב אָמַר: עֲשָׂאָהּ מוּכַּת עֵץ, וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֵין מוּכַּת עֵץ בְּבָשָׂר.
Some teach this halakha independent of Rav Yehuda: With regard to a minor boy who engaged in intercourse with an adult woman, Rav said: He renders her as one whose hymen was ruptured by wood. And Shmuel said: A woman does not achieve the status of one whose hymen was ruptured by wood by means of flesh.
מֵתִיב רַב אוֹשַׁעְיָא: גָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּא עַל הַקְּטַנָּה, וְקָטָן הַבָּא עַל הַגְּדוֹלָה, וּמוּכַּת עֵץ — כְּתוּבָּתָן מָאתַיִם, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מוּכַּת עֵץ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ מָנֶה.
Rav Oshaya raised an objection to the opinion of Rav from the mishna: With regard to an adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl less than three years old, or a minor boy less than nine years old who engaged in intercourse with an adult woman, or a woman who had her hymen ruptured by wood or any other foreign object, the marriage contract for each of these women is two hundred dinars. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The marriage contract of a woman whose hymen was ruptured by wood is one hundred dinars. Contrary to Rav’s opinion, the Rabbis distinguish between the halakha in the case of the intercourse of a minor boy and the halakha in the case of a woman whose hymen was ruptured by wood.
אָמַר רָבָא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: גָּדוֹל הַבָּא עַל הַקְּטַנָּה — וְלֹא כְּלוּם, דְּפָחוֹת מִכָּאן כְּנוֹתֵן אֶצְבַּע בָּעַיִן דָּמֵי. וְקָטָן הַבָּא עַל הַגְּדוֹלָה — עֲשָׂאָהּ מוּכַּת עֵץ. וּמוּכַּת עֵץ גּוּפָא פְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבָּנַן.
Rava said that this is what the mishna is saying: An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl less than three years old has done nothing, as intercourse with a girl less than three years old is tantamount to poking a finger into the eye. In the case of an eye, after a tear falls from it another tear forms to replace it. Similarly, the ruptured hymen of the girl younger than three is restored. And a young boy who engaged in intercourse with an adult woman renders her as one whose hymen was ruptured by wood. And with regard to the case of a woman whose hymen was ruptured by wood itself, there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis. Rabbi Meir maintains that her marriage contract is two hundred dinars, and the Rabbis maintain that it is one hundred dinars.
אָמַר רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: מַחֲלוֹקֶת כְּשֶׁהִכִּיר בָּהּ, דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר מְדַמֵּי לַהּ לְבוֹגֶרֶת. וְרַבָּנַן מְדַמּוּ לַהּ לִבְעוּלָה, אֲבָל לֹא הִכִּיר בָּהּ — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל וְלֹא כְּלוּם.
Rami bar Ḥama said: This dispute is specifically in a case where the husband was aware that her hymen was ruptured by wood, as in that case Rabbi Meir likens her to a grown woman, whose hymen does not completely obstruct the orifice as a result of the maturation process. Nevertheless, her marriage contract is that of a virgin, two hundred dinars. And the Rabbis liken her to a non-virgin who engaged in intercourse in the past. Her marriage contract is one hundred dinars. However, if he was not aware that her hymen was ruptured by wood and was under the impression that she was a full-fledged virgin, everyone agrees that she receives no marriage contract at all when he becomes aware of her condition, as the marriage was a mistaken transaction.
וְרַבִּי מֵאִיר, אַמַּאי מְדַמֵּי לַהּ לְבוֹגֶרֶת? נְדַמְּיַיהּ לִבְעוּלָה! בְּעוּלָה — אִיתְעֲבִיד בַּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה בִּידֵי אָדָם, הָא — לָא אִיתְעֲבִיד בַּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה בִּידֵי אָדָם. וְרַבָּנַן, אַדִּמְדַמּוּ לַהּ לִבְעוּלָה, נְדַמְּיוּהָ לְבוֹגֶרֶת? בּוֹגֶרֶת — לָא אִיתְעֲבִיד בַּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה כְּלָל, הָא — אִיתְעֲבִיד בַּהּ מַעֲשֶׂה.
The Gemara asks: And why does Rabbi Meir liken her to a grown woman? Let him liken her to a non-virgin, who engaged in intercourse in the past. The Gemara answers: In the case of a non-virgin, an action was performed on her by a person; but with regard to this woman, whose hymen was ruptured by wood, an action was not performed on her by a person. The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis, rather than likening her to a non-virgin, let them liken her to a grown woman. The Gemara answers: In the case of a grown woman, no action was performed on her; but with regard to this woman, whose hymen was ruptured by wood, an action was performed on her.
אֲבָל לֹא הִכִּיר בָּהּ — לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל וְלֹא כְּלוּם. מֵתִיב רַב נַחְמָן, הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת: מוּכַּת עֵץ אֲנִי, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: לֹא כִּי, אֶלָּא דְּרוּסַת אִישׁ אַתְּ — רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמֶנֶת.
Rami bar Ḥama concluded his statement: However, if he was not aware that her hymen was ruptured by wood, everyone agrees that she receives no marriage contract at all. Rav Naḥman raised an objection from a mishna (13a): In a case where she says: I am one whose hymen was ruptured by wood, i.e., she admits that her hymen is not intact but claims that it was not ruptured through intercourse, and the groom says: No; rather, you are one who was violated by a man and you are no longer a virgin, Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible and her claim is accepted. In that case, she is claiming that she is entitled to a marriage contract. Despite the fact that the groom had no prior awareness of her condition, Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer maintain that she is deemed credible and receives a marriage contract of at least one hundred dinars. Apparently, not everyone agrees that in that case she receives nothing at all.
אֶלָּא אָמַר רָבָא: בֵּין הִכִּיר בָּהּ וּבֵין לֹא הִכִּיר בָּהּ — לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מָאתַיִם. לְרַבָּנַן, הִכִּיר בָּהּ — מָנֶה, לֹא הִכִּיר בָּהּ — וְלֹא כְּלוּם.
Rather, Rava said: This is what the mishna is saying: Whether the husband was aware that her hymen was ruptured by wood and whether he was not aware of her condition, according to Rabbi Meir she receives a marriage contract of two hundred dinars and it is not a mistaken transaction. According to the Rabbis, if he was aware of her condition she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars like a non-virgin; if he was not aware of her condition she receives no marriage contract at all, since it is a mistaken transaction, as when he married her he believed that her hymen was intact. According to this explanation, the mishna cited by Rav Naḥman is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.
וַהֲדַר בֵּיהּ רָבָא, דְּתַנְיָא: כֵּיצַד הוֹצָאַת שֵׁם רַע? בָּא לְבֵית דִּין וְאָמַר: פְּלוֹנִי, לֹא מָצָאתִי לְבִתְּךָ בְּתוּלִים. אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁזִּינְּתָה תַּחְתָּיו — יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה מָנֶה. אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁזִּינְּתָה תַּחְתָּיו — בַּת סְקִילָה הִיא! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁזִּינְּתָה תַּחְתָּיו — בִּסְקִילָה. זִינְּתָה מֵעִיקָּרָא — יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה מָנֶה.
And Rava retracted his opinion, as it is taught in a baraita: How does the slander described in the Torah come about? If the groom comes to court and says: So-and-so, father of the bride, I did not find in your daughter an intact hymen. If there are witnesses that she committed adultery while under the husband’s jurisdiction after betrothal, she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars. The Gemara asks: If there are witnesses that she committed adultery while under his jurisdiction after betrothal, she is subject to execution by stoning. Obviously, she is in no position to receive a marriage contract. The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: If there are witnesses that she committed adultery while under his jurisdiction after betrothal, she is subject to execution by stoning. However, if she engaged in intercourse initially, prior to betrothal, she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars, like any non-virgin.
וְאָמַר רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: זֹאת אוֹמֶרֶת, כְּנָסָהּ בְּחֶזְקַת בְּתוּלָה וְנִמְצֵאת בְּעוּלָה — יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה מָנֶה. וּמֵתִיב רַב נַחְמָן: הַנּוֹשֵׂא אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְלֹא מָצָא לָהּ בְּתוּלִים, הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת: מִשֶּׁאֵרַסְתַּנִי נֶאֱנַסְתִּי וְנִסְתַּחֲפָה שָׂדֵהוּ. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁלֹּא אֵירַסְתִּיךְ, וְהָיָה מִקָּחִי מִקָּח טָעוּת. וְלֵית לַהּ כְּלָל?
And Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Rav Sheshet said: That is to say, if the groom married a woman with the presumptive status of a virgin and she is found to be a non-virgin, she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars. And Rav Naḥman raised an objection to the statement of Rav Sheshet from a mishna (12b): There is a case of one who marries a woman and did not find her hymen intact, and she says: After you betrothed me I was raped, and his, i.e., her husband’s, field was inundated, meaning that it is his misfortune that she is not a virgin, as she was raped after betrothal. And he says: No; rather, you were raped before I betrothed you, and my transaction was a mistaken transaction. The betrothal was predicated on your presumptive status as a virgin and in fact, you were not a virgin then. In that case, she does not receive any marriage contract at all.
וַאֲמַר לְהוּ רַב חִיָּיא בַּר אָבִין: אֶפְשָׁר רַב עַמְרָם וְכׇל גְּדוֹלֵי הַדּוֹר יָתְבִי כִּי אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא וְקַשְׁיָא לְהוּ, וְשַׁנִּי: מַאי ״מִקָּח טָעוּת״ נָמֵי, מִמָּאתַיִם. אֲבָל מָנֶה אִית לַהּ, וְאַתּ אָמְרַתְּ לֵית לַהּ כְּלָל!
And Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to those present: Is it possible that Rav Amram and all the prominent Sages of the generation were sitting when Rav Sheshet said this halakha, and Rav Naḥman’s question was difficult for them, and they answered: What is the meaning of mistaken transaction in this context? It too means that he is absolved from his commitment to pay the marriage contract of a virgin, two hundred dinars, because she is not entitled to that sum. However, she is entitled to one hundred dinars. And, contrary to that consensus, you say that she does not receive any marriage contract at all?
וְאָמַר רָבָא: מַאן דְּקָא מוֹתֵיב — שַׁפִּיר קָא מוֹתֵיב: מִקָּח טָעוּת לִגְמָרֵי מַשְׁמַע. וְאֶלָּא קַשְׁיָא הָךְ? תָּרֵיץ וְאֵימָא הָכִי: אִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁזִּינְּתָה תַּחְתָּיו — בִּסְקִילָה. זִינְּתָה מֵעִיקָּרָא — וְלֹא כְּלוּם. נִמְצֵאת מוּכַּת עֵץ יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה מָנֶה.
And Rava said: The one who raised the objection, Rav Naḥman, raises the objection well, as the term: Mistaken transaction, indicates that the betrothal is dissolved totally. The Gemara asks: But that baraita with regard to slander remains difficult, as in that case, if he discovered that she was not a virgin, she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars. The Gemara answers: Resolve the apparent contradiction and say this in the text of the baraita: If there are witnesses that she committed adultery while under his jurisdiction after betrothal, she is subject to execution by stoning. If she engaged in intercourse initially, prior to betrothal, she receives nothing at all. If she was discovered to be one whose hymen was ruptured by wood, she is entitled to a marriage contract of one hundred dinars.
וְהָא רָבָא הוּא דְּאָמַר לְרַבָּנַן לֹא הִכִּיר בָּהּ — וְלֹא כְּלוּם! אֶלָּא שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ הֲדַר בֵּיהּ רָבָא מֵהַהִיא.
But isn’t it Rava himself who said that according to the Rabbis, in the case of a woman whose hymen was ruptured by wood, if he was not aware of her condition she receives no marriage contract at all? Rather, conclude from it that Rava retracted that statement, and he holds that even according to the Rabbis, even if he was unaware of her condition she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כְּנָסָהּ רִאשׁוֹן לְשׁוּם נִישּׂוּאִין, וְיֵשׁ לָהּ עֵדִים שֶׁלֹּא נִסְתְּרָה, אִי נָמֵי נִסְתְּרָה, וְלֹא שָׁהֲתָה כְּדֵי בִיאָה — אֵין הַשֵּׁנִי יָכוֹל לִטְעוֹן טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים. שֶׁהֲרֵי כְּנָסָהּ רִאשׁוֹן.
§ The Sages taught: If her first husband brought her into his home for the purpose of marriage, and she has witnesses who testified that she did not seclude herself with him, or alternatively, they testified that she secluded herself with him and did not stay in seclusion with him for a period equivalent to the time required to engage in intercourse, if the first husband dies or divorces her and she remarries, despite the testimony of the witnesses, the second husband cannot make a claim concerning virginity, and say the betrothal was predicated on the assumption that she was a virgin and she should lose her marriage contract. Since the first husband brought her into his home, the second husband should have considered that a woman who entered her husband’s home is no longer a virgin.
