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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 18, 2022 | 讬状讟 讘转诪讜讝 转砖驻状讘

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

Ketubot 12

Today’s daf is sponsored by Judith Weil in loving memory of Adina Hagege’s beloved mother-in-law, Ketti (Kamuna) Peretz Hagege, who passed away yesterday on the 18th of Tamuz. “May Adina and Eric know no more sorrow.”

If a man marries a woman who was already married but still a virgin, he cannot take her to court and claim that he believed she was a virgin. The braita mentions that even if there are witnesses that she was not alone with him enough time to have intercourse, he still cannot take her to court regarding her virginity. Is it possible to learn from these sources that whoever believed his wife that she was a virgin and then found out she is not, would still have to give her a ketuba of 100 zuz? The customs in Judea and Galilee were different regarding the status of the engagement and whether the couple would be secluded in a room during the time of the engagement. Even in Judea, where they this would happen, there were different customs in the matter and not all permitted this. If they were to have secluded, though, the man would not be able to claim in the court after the wedding that his wife was not a virgin. In the court of the kohanim, they would give ketubot of 400 zuz to daughters of kohanim who were not previously married and sages did not object to this custom. Did the widows also receive double the amount of a regular widow? Who else deserved a bigger ketuba? Why? If a man does not find his wife is a virgin and when they come to court, she claims that she was raped at the time of the engagement and he claims that she was not a virgin before the engagement and wants to lower her keuba to 100 zuz, who is believed? There is a dispute between Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer, who believe her, and Rabbi Yehoshua who believes him. Upon what halachic principles are their opinions based? Is this the same controversy that there is on the issue of disputed money where one claims they loaned someone money and the other claims that do not know?

 

讗诪专 专讘讛 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讻谞住讛 讘讞讝拽转 讘转讜诇讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讘注讜诇讛 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪谞讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讘注诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诇讬转 诇讛 讻诇诇 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 砖讛专讬 讻谞住讛 专讗砖讜谉

Rabba said: That is to say, if one married a woman with the presumptive status of a virgin, as there were witnesses that she did not engage in intercourse, and she was found to be a non-virgin, she is entitled to a marriage contract of one hundred dinars. The Gemara rejects the proof. Rav Ashi said: In general, actually, I would say to you that in that case she does not receive a marriage contract at all, as it is a mistaken transaction. But here it is different, and she does not totally lose her marriage contract, because the first husband brought her into his house. Therefore, the second husband should have considered that a woman who entered her husband鈥檚 home is no longer a virgin.

讜谞讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 转讞转讬讜 讝讬谞转讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖专讘讬讗 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讬讚砖 讜讘注诇 诇讗诇转专

The Gemara asks: And since there are witnesses that she did not engage in intercourse with the first husband, let us be concerned that perhaps she committed adultery after betrothal, while under the jurisdiction of the second husband, and rule that she is forbidden to him due to suspicion of adultery and is not entitled to a marriage contract at all. Rav Sherevya said: The baraita is referring to a case where he betrothed her and engaged in intercourse immediately. Therefore, there was no opportunity to engage in adultery between her betrothal and her marriage to the second husband.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘转讜诇讛 讗诇诪谞讛 讙专讜砖讛 讞诇讜爪讛 诪谉 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讻转讜讘转谉 诪谞讛 讜讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬谉 讘转讜诇讛 诪谉 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讻谞住讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讛

Others taught this statement of Rabba with regard to the mishna: Concerning a virgin who is a widow, a divorc茅e, or a 岣lutza who achieved that status from a state of marriage, for all these women their marriage contract is one hundred dinars, and they are not subject to a claim concerning their virginity. The Gemara asks: How can you find a virgin from a state of marriage? It is in a case where she entered the wedding canopy and did not engage in intercourse.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讻谞住讛 讘讞讝拽转 讘转讜诇讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讘注讜诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛 诪谞讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讘注诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诇讬转 诇讛 讻诇诇 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 砖讛专讬 谞讻谞住讛 诇讞讜驻讛

Rabba said: That is to say, if one married a woman with the presumptive status of a virgin and she was found to be a non-virgin, her marriage contract is one hundred dinars. The Gemara rejects the proof. Rav Ashi said: In general, actually, I would say to you that in general, she does not receive a marriage contract at all, as it is a mistaken transaction. But here it is different, and she does not totally lose her marriage contract, because she entered the wedding canopy. Therefore, the second husband should have considered that a woman who entered her husband鈥檚 home is no longer a virgin.

讜谞讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 转讞转讬讜 讝讬谞转讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖专讘讬讗 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讬讚砖 讜讘注诇 诇讗诇转专

The Gemara asks: And let us be concerned that perhaps she committed adultery after betrothal, while under the jurisdiction of the second husband. Rav Sherevya said: The baraita is referring to a case where he betrothed her and engaged in intercourse immediately. Therefore, there was no opportunity to engage in adultery between her betrothal and her marriage to the second husband.

诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讘专讬讬转讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讘诇 讗讘专讬讬转讗 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讗谞讗 讗注讚讬诐 住诪讻讬

The Gemara notes: The one who taught the exchange between Rabba and Rav Ashi with regard to the baraita, where there is explicit testimony that she did not engage in intercourse with the first husband and nevertheless no proof can be brought that if he discovers that she is not a virgin she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars, all the more so would he say that the same is true with regard to the mishna. And the one who taught the exchange with regard to the mishna, however, would not say the same with regard to the baraita, due to the fact that the husband could say to her: I relied on witnesses. Therefore, proof can be brought from the baraita that if he discovered that she is not a virgin, she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜讻诇 讗爪诇 讞诪讬讜 讘讬讛讜讚讛 砖诇讗 讘注讚讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讟注讜谉 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖诪转讬讬讞讚 注诪讛

MISHNA: A man who eats at the house of his father-in-law in Judea after betrothal and with-out witnesses to attest to the fact that he was not alone with his betrothed is unable to make a claim concerning virginity after marriage because in accordance with the custom in Judea, the assumption is that he secluded himself with her, and the concern is that it was he who engaged in intercourse with her.

讙诪壮 诪讚拽转谞讬 讛讗讜讻诇 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讜讻转讗 讘讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 诪拽讜诪讜转 诪拽讜诪讜转 讬砖 讻讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 诪讬讬讞讚讬谉 讗转 讛讞转谉 讜讗转 讛讻诇讛 砖注讛 讗讞转 拽讜讚诐 讻谞讬住转谉 诇讞讜驻讛 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 诇讘讜 讙住 讘讛 讜讘讙诇讬诇 诇讗 讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 讻谉

GEMARA: The Gemara infers: From the fact that the mishna teaches the halakha employing the phrase: A man who eats, by inference one may conclude that there is also a place in Judea where the groom does not eat at the house of his father-in-law, and does not enter into seclusion with his betrothed. Abaye said: Conclude from it that in Judea too there are different places with different customs, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: In Judea, at first they would seclude the groom and bride together for a brief period before their entry into the wedding canopy, so that he would grow accustomed to her companionship in order to ease the awkwardness when they would consummate the marriage. And in the Galilee they did not do so.

讘讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 诇讛诐 砖谞讬 砖讜砖讘讬谞讬谉 讗讞讚 诇讜 讜讗讞讚 诇讛 讻讚讬 诇诪砖诪砖 讗转 讛讞转谉 讜讗转 讛讻诇讛 讘砖注转 讻谞讬住转谉 诇讞讜驻讛 讜讘讙诇讬诇 诇讗 讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 讻谉

The baraita continues. In Judea, at first they would appoint for them two groomsmen [shushvinin], one for him and one for her, in order to examine the groom and the bride at the time of their entry into the wedding canopy and thereafter, to ensure that neither would engage in deception with regard to the presence or absence of blood from the rupture of the hymen. And in the Galilee they would not do so. As the custom of appointing groomsmen would be relevant only in a case where the groom and the bride had not been together in seclusion prior to marriage, this is apparently a custom in Judea different from the first custom cited in the mishna, where they would enter into seclusion prior to marriage.

讘讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 砖讜砖讘讬谞讬谉 讬砖谞讬诐 讘讘讬转 砖讞转谉 讜讻诇讛 讬砖谞讬诐 讘讛 讜讘讙诇讬诇 诇讗 讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 讻谉

The baraita continues. In Judea, at first the groomsmen would sleep in the house in which the groom and bride sleep, in order to examine the sheet on which the marriage was consummated immediately following intercourse. This was in order to ensure that the groom would not attempt to obscure the blood of the rupture of the hymen and claim that the bride was not a virgin. And in the Galilee they would not do so.

讜讻诇 砖诇讗 谞讛讙 讻诪谞讛讙 讛讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讟注讜谉 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗专讬砖讗 讻诇 砖谞讛讙 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The baraita concludes: And anyone who did not conduct himself in accordance with this custom cannot make a claim concerning virginity against the bride. The Gemara asks: Concerning which case in the baraita was this principle stated? If we say it is concerning the first clause of the baraita, regarding the custom to seclude the couple prior to marriage, in that case, the phrase: Anyone who conducted himself in accordance with this custom cannot make a claim concerning virginity, is what it needed to say, due to the concern that perhaps they had sexual relations before the marriage.

讗诇讗 讗住讬驻讗 讻诇 砖诇讗 诪讜砖诪砖 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

Rather, it is concerning the latter clause of the baraita: They would appoint for them two groomsmen to examine them, that the principle was stated. In that case, the phrase: Anyone who was not examined by the groomsmen, is what it needed to say, as it is dependent on the family of the bride, and not the phrase: Anyone who did not conduct himself in accordance with this custom, which indicates that it depends on him.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗专讬砖讗 讜转谞讬 讻诇 砖谞讛讙 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讛讗 讻诇 砖诇讗 谞讛讙 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖诇讗 谞讛讙 诪谞讛讙 讙诇讬诇 讘讙诇讬诇 讗诇讗 诪谞讛讙 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讙诇讬诇 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讟注讜谉 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讬驻讗 讜转谞讬 讻诇 砖诇讗 诪讜砖诪砖

Abaye said: Actually, the principle is stated concerning the first clause; and emend the baraita and teach: Anyone who conducted himself in accordance with this custom. Rava said to him: But isn鈥檛 it teaching explicitly: Anyone who did not conduct himself in accordance with this custom? One should not corrupt a baraita due to a difficulty that arose in understanding it. Rather, Rava said that this is what the baraita is saying: Anyone who did not practice the custom of the Galilee in the Galilee, but instead observed the custom of Judea in the Galilee, cannot make a claim concerning virginity against the bride. Rav Ashi said: Actually, this principle could be applied concerning the latter clause, and teach: Anyone who was not examined. When it said in the baraita: Anyone who did not conduct himself in accordance with this custom, it is referring to the custom of being examined.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讞转 讗诇诪谞转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讞转 讗诇诪谞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讻转讜讘转讛 诪谞讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讬讜 讙讜讘讬谉 诇讘转讜诇讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 讜诇讗 诪讬讞讜 讘讬讚诐 讞讻诪讬诐

MISHNA: For both a widow who is an Israelite woman and a widow who is the daughter of priests, her marriage contract is one hundred dinars. A court of priests would collect a marriage contract of four hundred dinars for a virgin daughter of a priest, twice the sum of the standard marriage contract for a virgin, and the Sages did not reprimand them.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 讜讗诇诪谞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 讗讞转 讗诇诪谞转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讞转 讗诇诪谞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讻转讜讘转谉 诪谞讛

GEMARA: A Sage taught in a baraita: And for a widow who is the daughter of priests, her marriage contract is two hundred dinars. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: For both a widow who is an Israelite woman and a widow who is the daughter of priests, their marriage contract is one hundred dinars?

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖转讬 转拽谞讜转 讛讜讜 诪注讬拽专讗 转拽讬谞讜 诇讘转讜诇讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 讜诇讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛

Rav Ashi said: There were two ordinances instituted: Initially, the court of priests instituted for a virgin daughter of a priest a marriage contract of four hundred dinars, and for a widow, a marriage contract of one hundred dinars.

讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚诪讝诇讝诇讬 讘讛讜 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛讜 诪讗转谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚拽讗 驻专砖讬谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗诪专讬 注讚 讚谞住讘讬谞谉 讗诇诪谞转 讻讛谞讬诐 谞讬讝讬诇 谞讬住讬讘 讘转讜诇讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 诇诪诇转讬讬讛讜

Once the members of the court saw that the priests were demeaning the widows, they instituted for them a marriage contract of two hundred dinars, so that they would treat them with greater esteem. Once they saw that the grooms were distancing themselves from them, as they said: Instead of marrying a widow who is the daughter of priests and paying a marriage contract of two hundred, let us go marry a virgin Israelite woman for the same price. Since men would no longer marry widows from priestly families, they restored matters to their original status. This indicates that the mishna and the baraita are addressing different time periods and different ordinances.

讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪砖驻讞讜转 讛诪讬讜讞住讜转 讘讬砖专讗诇 讗诐 专爪讜 诇注砖讜转 讻讚专讱 砖讛讻讛谞讬诐 注讜砖讬谉 注讜砖讬谉

搂 It is stated in the mishna that a court of priests would collect a marriage contract of four hundred dinars for a virgin daughter of a priest. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Not only with regard to a court of priests did the Sages say that they could collect a greater sum for the marriage contract of their daughters, but even families of distinguished lineage in Israel. If they wanted to act as the priests do, they may act in that manner.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛专讜爪讛 诇注砖讜转 讻讚专讱 砖讛讻讛谞讬诐 注讜砖讬谉 讻讙讜谉 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讜讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 注讜砖讬谉 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讜讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 爪讚 讻讛讜谞讛 讗讘诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who sought to act as the priests do, as in cases where an Israelite woman is married to a priest, or the daughter of a priest is married to an Israelite, may act in that manner. The Gemara infers: This allowance is specifically in cases where an Israelite woman is married to a priest, or the daughter of a priest is married to an Israelite, where there is an aspect of priesthood involved. However, apparently, in a case where the daughter of an Israelite is married to an Israelite, no, it is not allowed.

诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讬砖专讗诇 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讛 注诇讜讬讬 拽讗 诪注诇讬谞谉 诇讬讱 讗讘诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讚诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讛 注诇讜讬讬 拽讗 诪注诇讬谞谉 诇讬讱 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara rejects that inference. The baraita is stated employing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to state a case where the daughter of an Israelite is married to an Israelite, as in that case the groom cannot say to her: By marrying you, I am raising your social status, and it is clear that women from distinguished families would demand a marriage contract with a greater sum. However, in a case where an Israelite woman is married to a priest, where he can say to her: I am raising your social status, as you are marrying into the priesthood, you might think to say no, the woman cannot demand a marriage contract with a greater sum. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that even in the case of a woman from a distinguished family of Israelites marrying a priest, she may demand a marriage contract with a greater sum.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜砖讗 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讜诇讗 诪爪讗 诇讛 讘转讜诇讬诐 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 诪砖讗专住转谞讬 谞讗谞住转讬 讜谞住转讞驻讛 砖讚讛讜 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 注讚 砖诇讗 讗专住转讬讱 讜讛讬讛 诪拽讞讬 诪拽讞 讟注讜转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪驻讬讛 讗谞讜 讞讬讬谉 讗诇讗 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转 讘注讜诇讛 注讚 砖诇讗 转转讗专住 讜讛讟注转讜 注讚 砖转讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专讬讛

MISHNA: 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鈥檚, 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. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible. Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives; rather, this woman assumes the presumptive status of one who engaged in intercourse when she was not yet betrothed and she misled him, until she brings proof supporting her statement.

讙诪壮 讗转诪专 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讬 讞讬讬讘 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讬 驻讟讜专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讬 讞讬讬讘 讘专讬 讜砖诪讗 讘专讬 注讚讬祝 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讬 驻讟讜专 讗讜拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讘讞讝拽转 诪专讬讛

GEMARA: It was stated: With regard to one who approaches another and says: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other says: I don鈥檛 know, Rav Yehuda and Rav Huna say: The respondent is obligated to pay, because he did not deny the claim, and Rav Na岣an and Rabbi Yo岣nan say: He is exempt from payment. The Gemara elaborates. Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda say that the respondent is obligated to pay based on the principle: When there is a certain claim, e.g., that of the claimant, and an uncertain claim, e.g., that of the respondent, the certain claim prevails. Rav Na岣an and Rabbi Yo岣nan say: The respondent is exempt based on the principle: Establish the money in the possession of its owner, and the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Since the claimant does not support his claim with proof, the money remains in the possession of the respondent.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛讬转讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜讗诪专讜 诇讛 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 砖诇 注讜讘专 讝讛 诪讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讻讛谉 讛讜讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞转 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This ruling of Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda is essentially the statement of Shmuel, as we learned in a mishna (13a): In the case of an unmarried woman who was pregnant, and the Sages said to her: What is the nature of this fetus, i.e., who is the father. And she says: It is from a man called so-and-so and he is a priest and is certainly of valid lineage. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible, and the fetus is deemed to be of valid lineage. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel.

讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讬谞谞讗 讗诪专转 诇谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗祝 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讗讬 讗祝 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗讜拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讘讞讝拽转 诪专讬讛 讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘专讬 注讚讬祝

And Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said to Rav Yehuda: Big-toothed one [shinnana], you said to us in the name of Shmuel that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel even in the first dispute, the dispute cited in the mishna, which is the first in a series of disputes with regard to conflicting claims. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of even the first? What is unique about that dispute relative to the others? The Gemara answers: The novel element in the first dispute is that the claim of the bride is accepted despite the fact that although there is room to say: Establish the money in the possession of its owner, and since the money is in the possession of the husband and the woman is the claimant, Rabban Gamliel said that the certain claim of the bride prevails over the uncertain claim of the groom, who can only speculate about when she was raped.

诇讬诪讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that it is Rav Yehuda and Rav Huna who say their ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, who says that a certain claim prevails over an uncertain one even to collect money from the possession of the respondent. And it is Rav Na岣an and Rabbi Yo岣nan who say their ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, that one does not collect money based merely on a claim.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讙讜 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 诪讙讜 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara rejects that suggestion. Rav Na岣an could have said to you: That which I said, is even in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. Rabban Gamliel says his ruling only there, with regard to claims of a groom and a bride, where there is a miggo, a halakhic argument that the ability to make a more advantageous claim grants credibility to the claim one actually makes, that bolsters the bride鈥檚 claim. She could have claimed that she wasn鈥檛 raped at all, but rather that her hymen was ruptured by wood. That is a more advantageous claim because she is not disgraced in the eyes of the groom. Therefore, her claim that she was raped is accorded credibility. However here, where one claims that another owes him money, what miggo is there bolstering his claim and according it credibility?

讗讬 谞诪讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讜拽诪讛 讗讞讝拽讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 讞讝拽讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬

Alternatively, Rav Na岣an could have said to you: Rabban Gamliel says his ruling only there, where we say: Establish her legal status according to her presumptive status as a virgin, and the husband鈥檚 claim seeks to undermine that presumptive status. However here, what presumptive status does this claimant have supporting the claim that another owes him money? Therefore, even Rabban Gamliel would concede that his certain claim does not prevail.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讻讚拽讗 诪砖谞讬谞谉 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara notes: Indeed, it is also reasonable to explain as we are teaching, that it is Rav Na岣an who said his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel.

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah Shlema 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

Yevamot 12: Crying Rape Is Not Crying Wolf

3 mishnayot! The case of a man who eats in his father-in-law's home in Yehudah, specifically, after betrothal, and with...

Ketubot 12

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 12

讗诪专 专讘讛 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讻谞住讛 讘讞讝拽转 讘转讜诇讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讘注讜诇讛 讬砖 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 诪谞讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讘注诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诇讬转 诇讛 讻诇诇 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 砖讛专讬 讻谞住讛 专讗砖讜谉

Rabba said: That is to say, if one married a woman with the presumptive status of a virgin, as there were witnesses that she did not engage in intercourse, and she was found to be a non-virgin, she is entitled to a marriage contract of one hundred dinars. The Gemara rejects the proof. Rav Ashi said: In general, actually, I would say to you that in that case she does not receive a marriage contract at all, as it is a mistaken transaction. But here it is different, and she does not totally lose her marriage contract, because the first husband brought her into his house. Therefore, the second husband should have considered that a woman who entered her husband鈥檚 home is no longer a virgin.

讜谞讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 转讞转讬讜 讝讬谞转讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖专讘讬讗 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讬讚砖 讜讘注诇 诇讗诇转专

The Gemara asks: And since there are witnesses that she did not engage in intercourse with the first husband, let us be concerned that perhaps she committed adultery after betrothal, while under the jurisdiction of the second husband, and rule that she is forbidden to him due to suspicion of adultery and is not entitled to a marriage contract at all. Rav Sherevya said: The baraita is referring to a case where he betrothed her and engaged in intercourse immediately. Therefore, there was no opportunity to engage in adultery between her betrothal and her marriage to the second husband.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 讘转讜诇讛 讗诇诪谞讛 讙专讜砖讛 讞诇讜爪讛 诪谉 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讻转讜讘转谉 诪谞讛 讜讗讬谉 诇讛谉 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬谉 讘转讜诇讛 诪谉 讛谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讛讬讻讬 诪砖讻讞转 诇讛 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讻谞住讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讛

Others taught this statement of Rabba with regard to the mishna: Concerning a virgin who is a widow, a divorc茅e, or a 岣lutza who achieved that status from a state of marriage, for all these women their marriage contract is one hundred dinars, and they are not subject to a claim concerning their virginity. The Gemara asks: How can you find a virgin from a state of marriage? It is in a case where she entered the wedding canopy and did not engage in intercourse.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讻谞住讛 讘讞讝拽转 讘转讜诇讛 讜谞诪爪讗转 讘注讜诇讛 讻转讜讘转讛 诪谞讛 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 讘注诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 诇讬转 诇讛 讻诇诇 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 砖讛专讬 谞讻谞住讛 诇讞讜驻讛

Rabba said: That is to say, if one married a woman with the presumptive status of a virgin and she was found to be a non-virgin, her marriage contract is one hundred dinars. The Gemara rejects the proof. Rav Ashi said: In general, actually, I would say to you that in general, she does not receive a marriage contract at all, as it is a mistaken transaction. But here it is different, and she does not totally lose her marriage contract, because she entered the wedding canopy. Therefore, the second husband should have considered that a woman who entered her husband鈥檚 home is no longer a virgin.

讜谞讬讞讜砖 砖诪讗 转讞转讬讜 讝讬谞转讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖专讘讬讗 讻讙讜谉 砖拽讬讚砖 讜讘注诇 诇讗诇转专

The Gemara asks: And let us be concerned that perhaps she committed adultery after betrothal, while under the jurisdiction of the second husband. Rav Sherevya said: The baraita is referring to a case where he betrothed her and engaged in intercourse immediately. Therefore, there was no opportunity to engage in adultery between her betrothal and her marriage to the second husband.

诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讘专讬讬转讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 讜诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗讘诇 讗讘专讬讬转讗 诇讗 诪砖讜诐 讚诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讗谞讗 讗注讚讬诐 住诪讻讬

The Gemara notes: The one who taught the exchange between Rabba and Rav Ashi with regard to the baraita, where there is explicit testimony that she did not engage in intercourse with the first husband and nevertheless no proof can be brought that if he discovers that she is not a virgin she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars, all the more so would he say that the same is true with regard to the mishna. And the one who taught the exchange with regard to the mishna, however, would not say the same with regard to the baraita, due to the fact that the husband could say to her: I relied on witnesses. Therefore, proof can be brought from the baraita that if he discovered that she is not a virgin, she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars.

诪转谞讬壮 讛讗讜讻诇 讗爪诇 讞诪讬讜 讘讬讛讜讚讛 砖诇讗 讘注讚讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讟注讜谉 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐 诪驻谞讬 砖诪转讬讬讞讚 注诪讛

MISHNA: A man who eats at the house of his father-in-law in Judea after betrothal and with-out witnesses to attest to the fact that he was not alone with his betrothed is unable to make a claim concerning virginity after marriage because in accordance with the custom in Judea, the assumption is that he secluded himself with her, and the concern is that it was he who engaged in intercourse with her.

讙诪壮 诪讚拽转谞讬 讛讗讜讻诇 诪讻诇诇 讚讗讬讻讗 讚讜讻转讗 讘讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讗讻讬诇 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘讬讛讜讚讛 谞诪讬 诪拽讜诪讜转 诪拽讜诪讜转 讬砖 讻讚转谞讬讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 诪讬讬讞讚讬谉 讗转 讛讞转谉 讜讗转 讛讻诇讛 砖注讛 讗讞转 拽讜讚诐 讻谞讬住转谉 诇讞讜驻讛 讻讚讬 砖讬讛讗 诇讘讜 讙住 讘讛 讜讘讙诇讬诇 诇讗 讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 讻谉

GEMARA: The Gemara infers: From the fact that the mishna teaches the halakha employing the phrase: A man who eats, by inference one may conclude that there is also a place in Judea where the groom does not eat at the house of his father-in-law, and does not enter into seclusion with his betrothed. Abaye said: Conclude from it that in Judea too there are different places with different customs, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: In Judea, at first they would seclude the groom and bride together for a brief period before their entry into the wedding canopy, so that he would grow accustomed to her companionship in order to ease the awkwardness when they would consummate the marriage. And in the Galilee they did not do so.

讘讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 诪注诪讬讚讬谉 诇讛诐 砖谞讬 砖讜砖讘讬谞讬谉 讗讞讚 诇讜 讜讗讞讚 诇讛 讻讚讬 诇诪砖诪砖 讗转 讛讞转谉 讜讗转 讛讻诇讛 讘砖注转 讻谞讬住转谉 诇讞讜驻讛 讜讘讙诇讬诇 诇讗 讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 讻谉

The baraita continues. In Judea, at first they would appoint for them two groomsmen [shushvinin], one for him and one for her, in order to examine the groom and the bride at the time of their entry into the wedding canopy and thereafter, to ensure that neither would engage in deception with regard to the presence or absence of blood from the rupture of the hymen. And in the Galilee they would not do so. As the custom of appointing groomsmen would be relevant only in a case where the groom and the bride had not been together in seclusion prior to marriage, this is apparently a custom in Judea different from the first custom cited in the mishna, where they would enter into seclusion prior to marriage.

讘讬讛讜讚讛 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讛讬讜 砖讜砖讘讬谞讬谉 讬砖谞讬诐 讘讘讬转 砖讞转谉 讜讻诇讛 讬砖谞讬诐 讘讛 讜讘讙诇讬诇 诇讗 讛讬讜 注讜砖讬谉 讻谉

The baraita continues. In Judea, at first the groomsmen would sleep in the house in which the groom and bride sleep, in order to examine the sheet on which the marriage was consummated immediately following intercourse. This was in order to ensure that the groom would not attempt to obscure the blood of the rupture of the hymen and claim that the bride was not a virgin. And in the Galilee they would not do so.

讜讻诇 砖诇讗 谞讛讙 讻诪谞讛讙 讛讝讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讟注讜谉 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗专讬砖讗 讻诇 砖谞讛讙 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

The baraita concludes: And anyone who did not conduct himself in accordance with this custom cannot make a claim concerning virginity against the bride. The Gemara asks: Concerning which case in the baraita was this principle stated? If we say it is concerning the first clause of the baraita, regarding the custom to seclude the couple prior to marriage, in that case, the phrase: Anyone who conducted himself in accordance with this custom cannot make a claim concerning virginity, is what it needed to say, due to the concern that perhaps they had sexual relations before the marriage.

讗诇讗 讗住讬驻讗 讻诇 砖诇讗 诪讜砖诪砖 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛

Rather, it is concerning the latter clause of the baraita: They would appoint for them two groomsmen to examine them, that the principle was stated. In that case, the phrase: Anyone who was not examined by the groomsmen, is what it needed to say, as it is dependent on the family of the bride, and not the phrase: Anyone who did not conduct himself in accordance with this custom, which indicates that it depends on him.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗专讬砖讗 讜转谞讬 讻诇 砖谞讛讙 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讜讛讗 讻诇 砖诇讗 谞讛讙 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讻诇 砖诇讗 谞讛讙 诪谞讛讙 讙诇讬诇 讘讙诇讬诇 讗诇讗 诪谞讛讙 讬讛讜讚讛 讘讙诇讬诇 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讟注讜谉 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐 专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗住讬驻讗 讜转谞讬 讻诇 砖诇讗 诪讜砖诪砖

Abaye said: Actually, the principle is stated concerning the first clause; and emend the baraita and teach: Anyone who conducted himself in accordance with this custom. Rava said to him: But isn鈥檛 it teaching explicitly: Anyone who did not conduct himself in accordance with this custom? One should not corrupt a baraita due to a difficulty that arose in understanding it. Rather, Rava said that this is what the baraita is saying: Anyone who did not practice the custom of the Galilee in the Galilee, but instead observed the custom of Judea in the Galilee, cannot make a claim concerning virginity against the bride. Rav Ashi said: Actually, this principle could be applied concerning the latter clause, and teach: Anyone who was not examined. When it said in the baraita: Anyone who did not conduct himself in accordance with this custom, it is referring to the custom of being examined.

诪转谞讬壮 讗讞转 讗诇诪谞转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讞转 讗诇诪谞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讻转讜讘转讛 诪谞讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 讛讬讜 讙讜讘讬谉 诇讘转讜诇讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 讜诇讗 诪讬讞讜 讘讬讚诐 讞讻诪讬诐

MISHNA: For both a widow who is an Israelite woman and a widow who is the daughter of priests, her marriage contract is one hundred dinars. A court of priests would collect a marriage contract of four hundred dinars for a virgin daughter of a priest, twice the sum of the standard marriage contract for a virgin, and the Sages did not reprimand them.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 讜讗诇诪谞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讛讗谞谉 转谞谉 讗讞转 讗诇诪谞转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讗讞转 讗诇诪谞转 讻讛谞讬诐 讻转讜讘转谉 诪谞讛

GEMARA: A Sage taught in a baraita: And for a widow who is the daughter of priests, her marriage contract is two hundred dinars. The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: For both a widow who is an Israelite woman and a widow who is the daughter of priests, their marriage contract is one hundred dinars?

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 砖转讬 转拽谞讜转 讛讜讜 诪注讬拽专讗 转拽讬谞讜 诇讘转讜诇讛 讗专讘注 诪讗讜转 讝讜讝 讜诇讗诇诪谞讛 诪谞讛

Rav Ashi said: There were two ordinances instituted: Initially, the court of priests instituted for a virgin daughter of a priest a marriage contract of four hundred dinars, and for a widow, a marriage contract of one hundred dinars.

讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚诪讝诇讝诇讬 讘讛讜 转拽讬谞讜 诇讛讜 诪讗转谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讜 讚拽讗 驻专砖讬谉 诪讬谞讬讬讛讜 讚讗诪专讬 注讚 讚谞住讘讬谞谉 讗诇诪谞转 讻讛谞讬诐 谞讬讝讬诇 谞讬住讬讘 讘转讜诇讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讛讚专讬谞讛讜 诇诪诇转讬讬讛讜

Once the members of the court saw that the priests were demeaning the widows, they instituted for them a marriage contract of two hundred dinars, so that they would treat them with greater esteem. Once they saw that the grooms were distancing themselves from them, as they said: Instead of marrying a widow who is the daughter of priests and paying a marriage contract of two hundred, let us go marry a virgin Israelite woman for the same price. Since men would no longer marry widows from priestly families, they restored matters to their original status. This indicates that the mishna and the baraita are addressing different time periods and different ordinances.

讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讻讛谞讬诐 讘诇讘讚 讗诪专讜 讗诇讗 讗驻讬诇讜 诪砖驻讞讜转 讛诪讬讜讞住讜转 讘讬砖专讗诇 讗诐 专爪讜 诇注砖讜转 讻讚专讱 砖讛讻讛谞讬诐 注讜砖讬谉 注讜砖讬谉

搂 It is stated in the mishna that a court of priests would collect a marriage contract of four hundred dinars for a virgin daughter of a priest. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Not only with regard to a court of priests did the Sages say that they could collect a greater sum for the marriage contract of their daughters, but even families of distinguished lineage in Israel. If they wanted to act as the priests do, they may act in that manner.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛专讜爪讛 诇注砖讜转 讻讚专讱 砖讛讻讛谞讬诐 注讜砖讬谉 讻讙讜谉 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讜讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 注讜砖讬谉 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讜讘转 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讻讗 爪讚 讻讛讜谞讛 讗讘诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讗

The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: One who sought to act as the priests do, as in cases where an Israelite woman is married to a priest, or the daughter of a priest is married to an Israelite, may act in that manner. The Gemara infers: This allowance is specifically in cases where an Israelite woman is married to a priest, or the daughter of a priest is married to an Israelite, where there is an aspect of priesthood involved. However, apparently, in a case where the daughter of an Israelite is married to an Israelite, no, it is not allowed.

诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 拽讗诪专 诇讗 诪讘注讬讗 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讬砖专讗诇 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讛 注诇讜讬讬 拽讗 诪注诇讬谞谉 诇讬讱 讗讘诇 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 诇讻讛谉 讚诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讛 注诇讜讬讬 拽讗 诪注诇讬谞谉 诇讬讱 讗讬诪讗 诇讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara rejects that inference. The baraita is stated employing the style of: It is not necessary. It is not necessary to state a case where the daughter of an Israelite is married to an Israelite, as in that case the groom cannot say to her: By marrying you, I am raising your social status, and it is clear that women from distinguished families would demand a marriage contract with a greater sum. However, in a case where an Israelite woman is married to a priest, where he can say to her: I am raising your social status, as you are marrying into the priesthood, you might think to say no, the woman cannot demand a marriage contract with a greater sum. Therefore, the baraita teaches us that even in the case of a woman from a distinguished family of Israelites marrying a priest, she may demand a marriage contract with a greater sum.

诪转谞讬壮 讛谞讜砖讗 讗转 讛讗砖讛 讜诇讗 诪爪讗 诇讛 讘转讜诇讬诐 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 诪砖讗专住转谞讬 谞讗谞住转讬 讜谞住转讞驻讛 砖讚讛讜 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 注讚 砖诇讗 讗专住转讬讱 讜讛讬讛 诪拽讞讬 诪拽讞 讟注讜转 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪驻讬讛 讗谞讜 讞讬讬谉 讗诇讗 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞讝拽转 讘注讜诇讛 注讚 砖诇讗 转转讗专住 讜讛讟注转讜 注讚 砖转讘讬讗 专讗讬讛 诇讚讘专讬讛

MISHNA: 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鈥檚, 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. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible. Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives; rather, this woman assumes the presumptive status of one who engaged in intercourse when she was not yet betrothed and she misled him, until she brings proof supporting her statement.

讙诪壮 讗转诪专 诪谞讛 诇讬 讘讬讚讱 讜讛诇讛 讗讜诪专 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专讬 讞讬讬讘 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讬 驻讟讜专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专讬 讞讬讬讘 讘专讬 讜砖诪讗 讘专讬 注讚讬祝 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专讬 驻讟讜专 讗讜拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讘讞讝拽转 诪专讬讛

GEMARA: It was stated: With regard to one who approaches another and says: I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other says: I don鈥檛 know, Rav Yehuda and Rav Huna say: The respondent is obligated to pay, because he did not deny the claim, and Rav Na岣an and Rabbi Yo岣nan say: He is exempt from payment. The Gemara elaborates. Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda say that the respondent is obligated to pay based on the principle: When there is a certain claim, e.g., that of the claimant, and an uncertain claim, e.g., that of the respondent, the certain claim prevails. Rav Na岣an and Rabbi Yo岣nan say: The respondent is exempt based on the principle: Establish the money in the possession of its owner, and the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Since the claimant does not support his claim with proof, the money remains in the possession of the respondent.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 诇专讘 讬讜住祝 讛讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 讜专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讬讗 讚转谞谉 讛讬转讛 诪注讜讘专转 讜讗诪专讜 诇讛 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 砖诇 注讜讘专 讝讛 诪讗讬砖 驻诇讜谞讬 讜讻讛谉 讛讜讗 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 谞讗诪谞转 讜讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This ruling of Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda is essentially the statement of Shmuel, as we learned in a mishna (13a): In the case of an unmarried woman who was pregnant, and the Sages said to her: What is the nature of this fetus, i.e., who is the father. And she says: It is from a man called so-and-so and he is a priest and is certainly of valid lineage. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible, and the fetus is deemed to be of valid lineage. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel.

讜讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诇专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 砖讬谞谞讗 讗诪专转 诇谉 诪砖诪讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗祝 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讗讬 讗祝 讘专讗砖讜谞讛 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讗讜拽讬 诪诪讜谞讗 讘讞讝拽转 诪专讬讛 讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘专讬 注讚讬祝

And Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said to Rav Yehuda: Big-toothed one [shinnana], you said to us in the name of Shmuel that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel even in the first dispute, the dispute cited in the mishna, which is the first in a series of disputes with regard to conflicting claims. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of even the first? What is unique about that dispute relative to the others? The Gemara answers: The novel element in the first dispute is that the claim of the bride is accepted despite the fact that although there is room to say: Establish the money in the possession of its owner, and since the money is in the possession of the husband and the woman is the claimant, Rabban Gamliel said that the certain claim of the bride prevails over the uncertain claim of the groom, who can only speculate about when she was raped.

诇讬诪讗 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讜专讘 谞讞诪谉 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专讬 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注

The Gemara suggests: Let us say that it is Rav Yehuda and Rav Huna who say their ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, who says that a certain claim prevails over an uncertain one even to collect money from the possession of the respondent. And it is Rav Na岣an and Rabbi Yo岣nan who say their ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, that one does not collect money based merely on a claim.

讗诪专 诇讱 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讗讬讻讗 诪讙讜 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 诪讙讜 讗讬讻讗

The Gemara rejects that suggestion. Rav Na岣an could have said to you: That which I said, is even in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. Rabban Gamliel says his ruling only there, with regard to claims of a groom and a bride, where there is a miggo, a halakhic argument that the ability to make a more advantageous claim grants credibility to the claim one actually makes, that bolsters the bride鈥檚 claim. She could have claimed that she wasn鈥檛 raped at all, but rather that her hymen was ruptured by wood. That is a more advantageous claim because she is not disgraced in the eyes of the groom. Therefore, her claim that she was raped is accorded credibility. However here, where one claims that another owes him money, what miggo is there bolstering his claim and according it credibility?

讗讬 谞诪讬 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛转诐 讗诇讗 讚讗诪专讬谞谉 讗讜拽诪讛 讗讞讝拽讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讗讬 讞讝拽讛 讗讬转 诇讬讛 诇讛讗讬

Alternatively, Rav Na岣an could have said to you: Rabban Gamliel says his ruling only there, where we say: Establish her legal status according to her presumptive status as a virgin, and the husband鈥檚 claim seeks to undermine that presumptive status. However here, what presumptive status does this claimant have supporting the claim that another owes him money? Therefore, even Rabban Gamliel would concede that his certain claim does not prevail.

讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 讻讚拽讗 诪砖谞讬谞谉 讚专讘 谞讞诪谉 讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇

The Gemara notes: Indeed, it is also reasonable to explain as we are teaching, that it is Rav Na岣an who said his ruling in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel.

Scroll To Top