Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 13, 2015 | ื›ืดื“ ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืขืดื”

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua vโ€™ Elana Malka. "ื” ื ืชืŸ ื•ื” ืœืงื—. ื™ื”ื™ ืฉื ื” ืžื‘ื•ืจืš"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Ketubot 11

ืืฃ ืื ื• ื ืืžืจ ืื™ื™ืœื•ื ื™ืช ื“ื•ื›ืจื ื™ืช ื“ืœื ื™ืœื“ื”

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ื•ื”ืฉื‘ื•ื™ื” ื•ื”ืฉืคื—ื” ืฉื ืคื“ื• ื•ืฉื ืชื’ื™ื™ืจื• ื•ืฉื ืฉืชื—ืจืจื• ืคื—ื•ืชื•ืช ืžื‘ื ื•ืช ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชืŸ ืžืืชื™ื ื•ื™ืฉ ืœื”ืŸ ื˜ืขื ืช ื‘ืชื•ืœื™ืŸ

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 were freed with regard to the maidservant, when they were less than three years and one day old, 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 intact. And they are subject to a claim concerning their virginity.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื’ืจ ืงื˜ืŸ ืžื˜ื‘ื™ืœื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืขืœ ื“ืขืช ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ

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.

ืžืื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ื–ื›ื•ืช ื”ื•ื ืœื• ื•ื–ื›ื™ืŸ ืœืื“ื ืฉืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ืชื ื™ื ื ื–ื›ื™ืŸ ืœืื“ื ืฉืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ื—ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืื“ื ืฉืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ื•

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 personโ€™s interests even in his absence? We already learned that explicitly in a mishna (Eiruvin 81b): One may act in a personโ€™s interests in his absence, but one may not act against a personโ€™s interests in his absence.

ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ื’ื•ื™ ื‘ื”ืคืงื™ืจื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื” ื“ื”ื ืงื™ื™ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืขื‘ื“ ื•ื“ืื™ ื‘ื”ืคืงื™ืจื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื”

Rav Hunaโ€™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.

ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื“ื˜ืขื ื˜ืขื ื“ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืื‘ืœ ืงื˜ืŸ ื–ื›ื•ืช ื”ื•ื ืœื•

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.

ืœื™ืžื ืžืกื™ื™ืข ืœื™ื” ื”ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ื•ื”ืฉื‘ื•ื™ื” ื•ื”ืฉืคื—ื” ืฉื ืคื“ื• ื•ืฉื ืชื’ื™ื™ืจื• ื•ืฉื ืฉืชื—ืจืจื• ืคื—ื•ืชื•ืช ืžื‘ื ื•ืช ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื“ืื˜ื‘ืœื™ื ื”ื• ืขืœ ื“ืขืช ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports Rav Hunaโ€™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 they were 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.

ืœื ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื’ืจ ืฉื ืชื’ื™ื™ืจื• ื‘ื ื™ื• ื•ื‘ื ื•ืชื™ื• ืขืžื• ื“ื ื™ื—ื ืœื”ื• ื‘ืžืื™ ื“ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืื‘ื•ื”ื•ืŸ

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื”ื’ื“ื™ืœื• ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœืžื—ื•ืช ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ื•ื”ืฉื‘ื•ื™ื” ื•ื”ืฉืคื—ื” ืฉื ืคื“ื• ื•ืฉื ืชื’ื™ื™ืจื• ื•ืฉื ืฉืชื—ืจืจื• ืคื—ื•ืชื•ืช ืžื‘ื ื•ืช ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชืŸ ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื”ื’ื“ื™ืœื• ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœืžื—ื•ืช ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื ืŸ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื“ืื–ืœื” ื•ืื›ืœื” ื‘ื’ื™ื•ืชื”

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?

ืœื›ื™ ื’ื“ืœื” ืœื›ื™ ื’ื“ืœื” ื ืžื™ ืžืžื—ื™ื™ื ื•ื ืคืงื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื’ื“ื™ืœื” ืฉืขื” ืื—ืช ื•ืœื ืžื™ื—ืชื” ืฉื•ื‘ ืื™ื ื” ื™ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืžื—ื•ืช

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.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื ืืœื• ื ืขืจื•ืช ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื”ืŸ ืงื ืก ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืžืžื–ืจืช ื•ืขืœ ื”ื ืชื™ื ื” ื•ืขืœ ื”ื›ื•ืชื™ืช ื•ืขืœ ื”ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ื•ืขืœ ื”ืฉื‘ื•ื™ื” ื•ืขืœ ื”ืฉืคื—ื” ืฉื ืคื“ื• ื•ืฉื ืชื’ื™ื™ืจื• ื•ืฉื ืฉืชื—ืจืจื• ืคื—ื•ืชื•ืช ืžื‘ื ื•ืช ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื™ืฉ ืœื”ืŸ ืงื ืก ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื”ื’ื“ื™ืœื• ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœืžื—ื•ืช ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื ืŸ ืœื” ืงื ืก ื“ืื–ืœื” ื•ืื›ืœื” ื‘ื’ื™ื•ืชื”

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?

ืœื›ื™ ื’ื“ืœื” ืœื›ื™ ื’ื“ืœื” ื ืžื™ ืžืžื—ื™ื™ื ื•ื ืคืงื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื’ื“ื™ืœื” ืฉืขื” ืื—ืช ื•ืœื ืžื™ื—ืชื” ืฉื•ื‘ ืื™ื ื” ื™ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืžื—ื•ืช

The Gemara answers: Her father 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.

ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืจื‘ื ื”ืชื ืงื ืกื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื˜ืขืžื ืฉืœื ื™ื”ื ื—ื•ื˜ื ื ืฉื›ืจ

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.

ืจื‘ื ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืื‘ื™ื™ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื˜ืขืžื ืฉืœื ืชื”ื ืงืœื” ื‘ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ืื”

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืฉื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ืฉื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื•ืžื•ื›ืช ืขืฅ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชืŸ ืžืืชื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืžื•ื›ืช ืขืฅ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืžื ื”

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.

ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ืืœืžื ื” ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื•ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ืžืŸ ื”ื ื™ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชืŸ ืžื ื”

With regard to a virgin who is either a widow, a divorcรฉe, or a แธฅalutza who achieved that status from a state of marriage, for all these women their marriage contract is one hundred dinars,

ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื˜ืขื ืช ื‘ืชื•ืœื™ื

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.

ื”ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ื•ื”ืฉื‘ื•ื™ื” ื•ื”ืฉืคื—ื” ืฉื ืคื“ื• ื•ืฉื ืชื’ื™ื™ืจื• ื•ืฉื ืฉืชื—ืจืจื• ื™ืชื™ืจื•ืช ืขืœ ื‘ื ื•ืช ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชืŸ ืžื ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื˜ืขื ืช ื‘ืชื•ืœื™ืŸ

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 they were more than three years and one day old, 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.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืงื˜ืŸ ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืขืฉืื” ืžื•ื›ืช ืขืฅ ื›ื™ ืืžืจื™ืชื” ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื›ืช ืขืฅ ื‘ื‘ืฉืจ

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.

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืžืชื ื™ ืœื” ืœื”ื ืฉืžืขืชื ื‘ืืคื™ ื ืคืฉื” ืงื˜ืŸ ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืขืฉืื” ืžื•ื›ืช ืขืฅ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื›ืช ืขืฅ ื‘ื‘ืฉืจ

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.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืฉื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื•ืžื•ื›ืช ืขืฅ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชืŸ ืžืืชื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืžื•ื›ืช ืขืฅ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืžื ื”

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 Ravโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ื“ืคื—ื•ืช ืžื›ืืŸ ื›ื ื•ืชืŸ ืืฆื‘ืข ื‘ืขื™ืŸ ื“ืžื™ ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืขืฉืื” ืžื•ื›ืช ืขืฅ ื•ืžื•ื›ืช ืขืฅ ื’ื•ืคื ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ

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.

ืืžืจ ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื›ืฉื”ื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืžื“ืžื™ ืœื” ืœื‘ื•ื’ืจืช ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื“ืžื• ืœื” ืœื‘ืขื•ืœื” ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื”ื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื

Rami bar แธคama 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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืืžืื™ ืžื“ืžื™ ืœื” ืœื‘ื•ื’ืจืช ื ื“ืžื™ื™ื” ืœื‘ืขื•ืœื” ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ืื™ืชืขื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืื“ื ื”ื ืœื ืื™ืชืขื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืื“ื ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื“ืžื“ืžื• ืœื” ืœื‘ืขื•ืœื” ื ื“ืžื™ื™ื” ืœื‘ื•ื’ืจืช ื‘ื•ื’ืจืช ืœื ืื™ืชืขื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื›ืœืœ ื”ื ืื™ืชืขื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื” ืžืขืฉื”

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.

ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื”ื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื” ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื ืื•ืžืจืช ืžื•ื›ืช ืขืฅ ืื ื™ ื•ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื›ื™ ืืœื ื“ืจื•ืกืช ืื™ืฉ ืืช ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื ืืžื ืช

Rami bar แธคama 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 Naแธฅman 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.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื” ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื ื”ื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืžืืชื™ื ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื” ืžื ื” ืœื ื”ื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื” ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื

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 Naแธฅman is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

ื•ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื•ืฆืืช ืฉื ืจืข ื‘ื ืœื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ืืžืจ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืœื ืžืฆืืชื™ ืœื‘ืชืš ื‘ืชื•ืœื™ื ืื ื™ืฉ ืขื“ื™ื ืฉื–ื™ื ืชื” ืชื—ืชื™ื• ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืžื ื” ืื ื™ืฉ ืขื“ื™ื ืฉื–ื™ื ืชื” ืชื—ืชื™ื• ื‘ืช ืกืงื™ืœื” ื”ื™ื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื ื™ืฉ ืขื“ื™ื ืฉื–ื™ื ืชื” ืชื—ืชื™ื• ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ื–ื™ื ืชื” ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืžื ื”

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 husbandโ€™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.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื–ืืช ืื•ืžืจืช ื›ื ืกื” ื‘ื—ื–ืงืช ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื•ื ืžืฆืืช ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืžื ื” ื•ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื”ื ื•ืฉื ืืช ื”ืืฉื” ื•ืœื ืžืฆื ืœื” ื‘ืชื•ืœื™ื ื”ื™ื ืื•ืžืจืช ืžืฉืืจืกืชื ื™ ื ืื ืกืชื™ ื•ื ืกืชื—ืคื” ืฉื“ื”ื• ื•ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื›ื™ ืืœื ืขื“ ืฉืœื ืื™ืจืกืชื™ืš ื•ื”ื™ื” ืžืงื—ื™ ืžืงื— ื˜ืขื•ืช ื•ืœื™ืช ืœื” ื›ืœืœ

And Rav แธคiyya 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 Naแธฅman 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 husbandโ€™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.

ื•ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืืคืฉืจ ืจื‘ ืขืžืจื ื•ื›ืœ ื’ื“ื•ืœื™ ื”ื“ื•ืจ ื™ืชื‘ื™ ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืœื”ื ืฉืžืขืชื ื•ืงืฉื™ื ืœื”ื• ื•ืฉื ื™ ืžืื™ ืžืงื— ื˜ืขื•ืช ื ืžื™ ืžืžืืชื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืžื ื” ืื™ืช ืœื” ื•ืืช ืืžืจืช ืœื™ืช ืœื” ื›ืœืœ

And Rav แธคiyya 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 Naแธฅmanโ€™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?

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืืŸ ื“ืงื ืžื•ืชื™ื‘ ืฉืคื™ืจ ืงื ืžื•ืชื™ื‘ ืžืงื— ื˜ืขื•ืช ืœื’ืžืจื™ ืžืฉืžืข ื•ืืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ืš ืชืจื™ืฅ ื•ืื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ืื ื™ืฉ ืขื“ื™ื ืฉื–ื™ื ืชื” ืชื—ืชื™ื• ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ื–ื™ื ืชื” ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ื ืžืฆืืช ืžื•ื›ืช ืขืฅ ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืžื ื”

And Rava said: The one who raised the objection, Rav Naแธฅman, 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.

ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื ื”ื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื” ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ืืœื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืžื”ื”ื™ื

But isnโ€™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.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ื ืกื” ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœืฉื•ื ื ื™ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื•ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืขื“ื™ื ืฉืœื ื ืกืชืจื” ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื ืกืชืจื” ื•ืœื ืฉื”ืชื” ื›ื“ื™ ื‘ื™ืื” ืื™ืŸ ื”ืฉื ื™ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื˜ืขื•ืŸ ื˜ืขื ืช ื‘ืชื•ืœื™ื ืฉื”ืจื™ ื›ื ืกื” ืจืืฉื•ืŸ

ยง 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 husbandโ€™s home is no longer a virgin.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua vโ€™ Elana Malka. "ื” ื ืชืŸ ื•ื” ืœืงื—. ื™ื”ื™ ืฉื ื” ืžื‘ื•ืจืš"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 7-13 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about the seven blessings, Sheva Brachot, recited at the wedding and for a week after...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 11: Virginity: A Lack of Sexual Activity or an Intact Hymen?

Different categories of women, including converts, captives who were freed, and maidservants - who were expected to have has sexual...

Ketubot 11

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 11

ืืฃ ืื ื• ื ืืžืจ ืื™ื™ืœื•ื ื™ืช ื“ื•ื›ืจื ื™ืช ื“ืœื ื™ืœื“ื”

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ื•ื”ืฉื‘ื•ื™ื” ื•ื”ืฉืคื—ื” ืฉื ืคื“ื• ื•ืฉื ืชื’ื™ื™ืจื• ื•ืฉื ืฉืชื—ืจืจื• ืคื—ื•ืชื•ืช ืžื‘ื ื•ืช ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชืŸ ืžืืชื™ื ื•ื™ืฉ ืœื”ืŸ ื˜ืขื ืช ื‘ืชื•ืœื™ืŸ

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 were freed with regard to the maidservant, when they were less than three years and one day old, 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 intact. And they are subject to a claim concerning their virginity.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื’ืจ ืงื˜ืŸ ืžื˜ื‘ื™ืœื™ืŸ ืื•ืชื• ืขืœ ื“ืขืช ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ

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.

ืžืื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ื–ื›ื•ืช ื”ื•ื ืœื• ื•ื–ื›ื™ืŸ ืœืื“ื ืฉืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ืชื ื™ื ื ื–ื›ื™ืŸ ืœืื“ื ืฉืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ื•ืื™ืŸ ื—ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืื“ื ืฉืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ื•

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 personโ€™s interests even in his absence? We already learned that explicitly in a mishna (Eiruvin 81b): One may act in a personโ€™s interests in his absence, but one may not act against a personโ€™s interests in his absence.

ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ื’ื•ื™ ื‘ื”ืคืงื™ืจื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื” ื“ื”ื ืงื™ื™ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืขื‘ื“ ื•ื“ืื™ ื‘ื”ืคืงื™ืจื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื”

Rav Hunaโ€™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.

ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื“ื˜ืขื ื˜ืขื ื“ืื™ืกื•ืจื ืื‘ืœ ืงื˜ืŸ ื–ื›ื•ืช ื”ื•ื ืœื•

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.

ืœื™ืžื ืžืกื™ื™ืข ืœื™ื” ื”ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ื•ื”ืฉื‘ื•ื™ื” ื•ื”ืฉืคื—ื” ืฉื ืคื“ื• ื•ืฉื ืชื’ื™ื™ืจื• ื•ืฉื ืฉืชื—ืจืจื• ืคื—ื•ืชื•ืช ืžื‘ื ื•ืช ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื“ืื˜ื‘ืœื™ื ื”ื• ืขืœ ื“ืขืช ื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the mishna supports Rav Hunaโ€™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 they were 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.

ืœื ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื‘ื’ืจ ืฉื ืชื’ื™ื™ืจื• ื‘ื ื™ื• ื•ื‘ื ื•ืชื™ื• ืขืžื• ื“ื ื™ื—ื ืœื”ื• ื‘ืžืื™ ื“ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืื‘ื•ื”ื•ืŸ

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื”ื’ื“ื™ืœื• ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœืžื—ื•ืช ืื™ืชื™ื‘ื™ื” ืื‘ื™ื™ ื”ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ื•ื”ืฉื‘ื•ื™ื” ื•ื”ืฉืคื—ื” ืฉื ืคื“ื• ื•ืฉื ืชื’ื™ื™ืจื• ื•ืฉื ืฉืชื—ืจืจื• ืคื—ื•ืชื•ืช ืžื‘ื ื•ืช ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชืŸ ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืื™ ืกืœืงื ื“ืขืชืš ื”ื’ื“ื™ืœื• ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœืžื—ื•ืช ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื ืŸ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื“ืื–ืœื” ื•ืื›ืœื” ื‘ื’ื™ื•ืชื”

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?

ืœื›ื™ ื’ื“ืœื” ืœื›ื™ ื’ื“ืœื” ื ืžื™ ืžืžื—ื™ื™ื ื•ื ืคืงื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื’ื“ื™ืœื” ืฉืขื” ืื—ืช ื•ืœื ืžื™ื—ืชื” ืฉื•ื‘ ืื™ื ื” ื™ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืžื—ื•ืช

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.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื ืืœื• ื ืขืจื•ืช ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื”ืŸ ืงื ืก ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืžืžื–ืจืช ื•ืขืœ ื”ื ืชื™ื ื” ื•ืขืœ ื”ื›ื•ืชื™ืช ื•ืขืœ ื”ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ื•ืขืœ ื”ืฉื‘ื•ื™ื” ื•ืขืœ ื”ืฉืคื—ื” ืฉื ืคื“ื• ื•ืฉื ืชื’ื™ื™ืจื• ื•ืฉื ืฉืชื—ืจืจื• ืคื—ื•ืชื•ืช ืžื‘ื ื•ืช ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื™ืฉ ืœื”ืŸ ืงื ืก ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื”ื’ื“ื™ืœื• ื™ื›ื•ืœื™ืŸ ืœืžื—ื•ืช ื™ื”ื‘ื™ื ืŸ ืœื” ืงื ืก ื“ืื–ืœื” ื•ืื›ืœื” ื‘ื’ื™ื•ืชื”

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?

ืœื›ื™ ื’ื“ืœื” ืœื›ื™ ื’ื“ืœื” ื ืžื™ ืžืžื—ื™ื™ื ื•ื ืคืงื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ื’ื“ื™ืœื” ืฉืขื” ืื—ืช ื•ืœื ืžื™ื—ืชื” ืฉื•ื‘ ืื™ื ื” ื™ื›ื•ืœื” ืœืžื—ื•ืช

The Gemara answers: Her father 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.

ืื‘ื™ื™ ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืจื‘ื ื”ืชื ืงื ืกื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื˜ืขืžื ืฉืœื ื™ื”ื ื—ื•ื˜ื ื ืฉื›ืจ

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.

ืจื‘ื ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืื‘ื™ื™ ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื˜ืขืžื ืฉืœื ืชื”ื ืงืœื” ื‘ืขื™ื ื™ื• ืœื”ื•ืฆื™ืื”

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.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืฉื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ืฉื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื•ืžื•ื›ืช ืขืฅ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชืŸ ืžืืชื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืžื•ื›ืช ืขืฅ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืžื ื”

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.

ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ืืœืžื ื” ื’ืจื•ืฉื” ื•ื—ืœื•ืฆื” ืžืŸ ื”ื ื™ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชืŸ ืžื ื”

With regard to a virgin who is either a widow, a divorcรฉe, or a แธฅalutza who achieved that status from a state of marriage, for all these women their marriage contract is one hundred dinars,

ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื˜ืขื ืช ื‘ืชื•ืœื™ื

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.

ื”ื’ื™ื•ืจืช ื•ื”ืฉื‘ื•ื™ื” ื•ื”ืฉืคื—ื” ืฉื ืคื“ื• ื•ืฉื ืชื’ื™ื™ืจื• ื•ืฉื ืฉืชื—ืจืจื• ื™ืชื™ืจื•ืช ืขืœ ื‘ื ื•ืช ืฉืœืฉ ืฉื ื™ื ื•ื™ื•ื ืื—ื“ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชืŸ ืžื ื” ื•ืื™ืŸ ืœื”ืŸ ื˜ืขื ืช ื‘ืชื•ืœื™ืŸ

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 they were more than three years and one day old, 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.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืงื˜ืŸ ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืขืฉืื” ืžื•ื›ืช ืขืฅ ื›ื™ ืืžืจื™ืชื” ืงืžื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื›ืช ืขืฅ ื‘ื‘ืฉืจ

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.

ืื™ื›ื ื“ืžืชื ื™ ืœื” ืœื”ื ืฉืžืขืชื ื‘ืืคื™ ื ืคืฉื” ืงื˜ืŸ ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืจื‘ ืืžืจ ืขืฉืื” ืžื•ื›ืช ืขืฅ ื•ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื›ืช ืขืฅ ื‘ื‘ืฉืจ

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.

ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืื•ืฉืขื™ื ื’ื“ื•ืœ ืฉื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ื•ืžื•ื›ืช ืขืฅ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชืŸ ืžืืชื™ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืžื•ื›ืช ืขืฅ ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืžื ื”

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 Ravโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ื’ื“ื•ืœ ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ืงื˜ื ื” ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ื“ืคื—ื•ืช ืžื›ืืŸ ื›ื ื•ืชืŸ ืืฆื‘ืข ื‘ืขื™ืŸ ื“ืžื™ ื•ืงื˜ืŸ ื”ื‘ื ืขืœ ื”ื’ื“ื•ืœื” ืขืฉืื” ืžื•ื›ืช ืขืฅ ื•ืžื•ื›ืช ืขืฅ ื’ื•ืคื ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ

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.

ืืžืจ ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ืžื—ืœื•ืงืช ื›ืฉื”ื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืžื“ืžื™ ืœื” ืœื‘ื•ื’ืจืช ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืžื“ืžื• ืœื” ืœื‘ืขื•ืœื” ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื”ื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื

Rami bar แธคama 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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืืžืื™ ืžื“ืžื™ ืœื” ืœื‘ื•ื’ืจืช ื ื“ืžื™ื™ื” ืœื‘ืขื•ืœื” ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ืื™ืชืขื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืื“ื ื”ื ืœื ืื™ืชืขื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ื™ื“ื™ ืื“ื ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืื“ืžื“ืžื• ืœื” ืœื‘ืขื•ืœื” ื ื“ืžื™ื™ื” ืœื‘ื•ื’ืจืช ื‘ื•ื’ืจืช ืœื ืื™ืชืขื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื” ืžืขืฉื” ื›ืœืœ ื”ื ืื™ืชืขื‘ื™ื“ ื‘ื” ืžืขืฉื”

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.

ืื‘ืœ ืœื ื”ื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื” ืœื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื›ืœ ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื”ื™ื ืื•ืžืจืช ืžื•ื›ืช ืขืฅ ืื ื™ ื•ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื›ื™ ืืœื ื“ืจื•ืกืช ืื™ืฉ ืืช ืจื‘ืŸ ื’ืžืœื™ืืœ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื ืืžื ืช

Rami bar แธคama 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 Naแธฅman 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.

ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื” ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื ื”ื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื” ืœืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืžืืชื™ื ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื” ืžื ื” ืœื ื”ื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื” ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื

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 Naแธฅman is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

ื•ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื ื“ืชื ื™ื ื›ื™ืฆื“ ื”ื•ืฆืืช ืฉื ืจืข ื‘ื ืœื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ืืžืจ ืคืœื•ื ื™ ืœื ืžืฆืืชื™ ืœื‘ืชืš ื‘ืชื•ืœื™ื ืื ื™ืฉ ืขื“ื™ื ืฉื–ื™ื ืชื” ืชื—ืชื™ื• ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืžื ื” ืื ื™ืฉ ืขื“ื™ื ืฉื–ื™ื ืชื” ืชื—ืชื™ื• ื‘ืช ืกืงื™ืœื” ื”ื™ื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื ื™ืฉ ืขื“ื™ื ืฉื–ื™ื ืชื” ืชื—ืชื™ื• ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ื–ื™ื ืชื” ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืžื ื”

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 husbandโ€™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.

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ื–ืืช ืื•ืžืจืช ื›ื ืกื” ื‘ื—ื–ืงืช ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื•ื ืžืฆืืช ื‘ืขื•ืœื” ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืžื ื” ื•ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื”ื ื•ืฉื ืืช ื”ืืฉื” ื•ืœื ืžืฆื ืœื” ื‘ืชื•ืœื™ื ื”ื™ื ืื•ืžืจืช ืžืฉืืจืกืชื ื™ ื ืื ืกืชื™ ื•ื ืกืชื—ืคื” ืฉื“ื”ื• ื•ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื›ื™ ืืœื ืขื“ ืฉืœื ืื™ืจืกืชื™ืš ื•ื”ื™ื” ืžืงื—ื™ ืžืงื— ื˜ืขื•ืช ื•ืœื™ืช ืœื” ื›ืœืœ

And Rav แธคiyya 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 Naแธฅman 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 husbandโ€™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.

ื•ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื™ืŸ ืืคืฉืจ ืจื‘ ืขืžืจื ื•ื›ืœ ื’ื“ื•ืœื™ ื”ื“ื•ืจ ื™ืชื‘ื™ ื›ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืฉืฉืช ืœื”ื ืฉืžืขืชื ื•ืงืฉื™ื ืœื”ื• ื•ืฉื ื™ ืžืื™ ืžืงื— ื˜ืขื•ืช ื ืžื™ ืžืžืืชื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืžื ื” ืื™ืช ืœื” ื•ืืช ืืžืจืช ืœื™ืช ืœื” ื›ืœืœ

And Rav แธคiyya 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 Naแธฅmanโ€™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?

ื•ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืืŸ ื“ืงื ืžื•ืชื™ื‘ ืฉืคื™ืจ ืงื ืžื•ืชื™ื‘ ืžืงื— ื˜ืขื•ืช ืœื’ืžืจื™ ืžืฉืžืข ื•ืืœื ืงืฉื™ื ื”ืš ืชืจื™ืฅ ื•ืื™ืžื ื”ื›ื™ ืื ื™ืฉ ืขื“ื™ื ืฉื–ื™ื ืชื” ืชื—ืชื™ื• ื‘ืกืงื™ืœื” ื–ื™ื ืชื” ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ื ืžืฆืืช ืžื•ื›ืช ืขืฅ ื™ืฉ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืžื ื”

And Rava said: The one who raised the objection, Rav Naแธฅman, 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.

ื•ื”ื ืจื‘ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื ื”ื›ื™ืจ ื‘ื” ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ืืœื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื”ื“ืจ ื‘ื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืžื”ื”ื™ื

But isnโ€™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.

ืชื ื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื›ื ืกื” ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœืฉื•ื ื ื™ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ื•ื™ืฉ ืœื” ืขื“ื™ื ืฉืœื ื ืกืชืจื” ืื™ ื ืžื™ ื ืกืชืจื” ื•ืœื ืฉื”ืชื” ื›ื“ื™ ื‘ื™ืื” ืื™ืŸ ื”ืฉื ื™ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื˜ืขื•ืŸ ื˜ืขื ืช ื‘ืชื•ืœื™ื ืฉื”ืจื™ ื›ื ืกื” ืจืืฉื•ืŸ

ยง 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 husbandโ€™s home is no longer a virgin.

Scroll To Top