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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 18, 2015 | 讻状讟 讘砖讘讟 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Ketubot 16

砖讛驻讛 砖讗住专 讛讜讗 讛驻讛 砖讛转讬专 讜讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讛讬讗 砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇拽讞转讬讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

This is so, as the mouth that prohibited, i.e., claimed that the field had belonged to the other鈥檚 father, is the mouth that permitted, i.e., claimed that he purchased the field. Even if he had not admitted that it had belonged to the other鈥檚 father, the field would have remained in his possession. Therefore, his claim is accepted. However, if there are witnesses that the field belonged to his father, and the one who has the field in his possession says: I purchased it from him, he is not deemed credible and his claim is rejected.

讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讘注诇 诪讛讬诪谉 诇讬诪讗 转谞谉 住转诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讗 讗诪专 讗讬讛讬 诪讛讬诪谞讗

GEMARA: The Gemara infers: The reason that the bride鈥檚 claim is accepted is specifically due to the fact that there are witnesses that she went out of her father鈥檚 house to the wedding with a hinnuma. However, if there are no witnesses, the husband is deemed credible. Let us say that the unattributed ruling that we learned in the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, as, if the ruling was according to Rabban Gamliel, didn鈥檛 he say that she is deemed credible?

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 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 讘讘专讬 讜砖诪讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讘讘专讬 讜讘专讬 诇讗 讗诪专

The Gemara answers: Even if you will say that the ruling in the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, Rabban Gamliel stated his opinion only there, in a case where the claim of the bride is certain and the claim of the groom is uncertain, as the groom does not know what actually happened. However, here, in a case where the claim of the bride is certain and the claim of the groom is also certain, as he is certain that he married her as a widow, Rabban Gamliel did not say that her claim is deemed credible.

讜讚拽讗专讬 诇讛 诪讗讬 拽讗专讬 诇讛 讛讗 讘专讬 讜讘专讬 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚专讜讘 谞砖讬诐 讘转讜诇讜转 谞讬砖讗讜转 讻讬 讘专讬 讜砖诪讗 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: And he who asked the question, why did he ask it? The cases are clearly different, as this is a case of a certain claim and a certain claim. The Gemara answers: Since most women are married as virgins, one might have thought that the legal status in this case is like that of a case of a certain claim and an uncertain claim, as her claim is supported by a majority of cases.

讜讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬讬专讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪讜讚讛 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 讗讬讬专讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇诪讗谉 诪讜讚讛

And it also stands to reason that the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, who concedes that without witnesses the woman鈥檚 claim is not deemed credible, despite the fact that the case is comparable to one of a certain claim and an uncertain claim, as the mishna teaches: And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes. Granted, if you say that Rabban Gamliel is speaking in the first clause of the mishna and he concedes that even though it is similar to a case of certain and uncertain, her claim is not accepted, it works out well. Rabban Gamliel concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua in the first clause of the mishna and the mishna cites a case where Rabbi Yehoshua concedes to Rabban Gamliel. However, if you say that Rabban Gamliel is not speaking in the first clause of the mishna and he does not concede, to whom does Rabbi Yehoshua concede in the latter clause?

诪讬 住讘专转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讛讗讬 驻讬专拽讬谉 拽讗讬 讗诪讙讜 拽讗讬 讜讗驻讬专拽讬谉 拽诪讗 拽讗讬

The Gemara rejects that proof: Do you think that the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is in reference to a mishna in this chapter? Actually, it is in reference to the principle of miggo, and it is in reference to the first chapter. Rabbi Yehoshua is saying that although he does not accept the claim supported by a miggo in the first chapter, here he accepts the claim supported by the principle: The mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted, which is based on the same reasoning as miggo, i.e., the fact that he could have made a more advantageous claim lends credibility to the less advantageous claim. In this case, he could have remained silent and the field would have remained in his possession. If challenged, he could have claimed that the field was his. Therefore, his less advantageous claim, that the field was not originally his but he purchased it from the father of the claimant, is accepted.

讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讛讗 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 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 讛转诐 诪讗讬 诪讙讜 讗讬讻讗 讛专讬 讻专讬住讛 讘讬谉 砖讬谞讬讛

The Gemara elaborates: In reference to which case in the first chapter did Rabbi Yehoshua make his statement? If you say that it is in reference to this case (13a): If a single woman was pregnant, and people said to her: What is the nature of that fetus, and she says to them: It is from a man called so-and-so and he is a priest, Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives. There, what miggo is there lending credibility to her claim? In that case, her belly is between her teeth, i.e., her pregnancy is conspicuous, and consequently she does not have the option of making the more advantageous claim that she did not engage in intercourse.

讗诇讗 讗讛讗 专讗讜讛 诪讚讘专转 注诐 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专讜 诇讛 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 砖诇 讗讬砖 讝讛 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 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 讛转诐 诪讗讬 诪讙讜 讗讬讻讗 讛谞讬讞讗 诇讝注讬专讬 讚讗诪专 诪讗讬 诪讚讘专转 谞住转专讛 诪讙讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬讗 讗诪专讛 诇讗 谞讘注诇转讬 讜拽讗诪专讛 谞讘注诇转讬 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 诪讗讬 诪讚讘专转 谞讘注诇转 诪讗讬 诪讙讜 讗讬讻讗

Rather, it is in reference to this case (13a): If people saw a woman speaking to one man, and they said to her: What is the nature of this man? And she said to them: He is a man called so-and-so and he is a priest, Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not on based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives. Again this is challenged: There, what miggo is there? This works out well according to Ze鈥檈iri, who said: What is the meaning of speaking mentioned in the mishna? It means that she secluded herself with a man. In this case there is a miggo. Since, if she wished to lie, she could have said: I did not engage in intercourse at all, and instead she said: I engaged in intercourse with a man of unflawed lineage. Therefore, she is deemed credible according to Rabban Gamliel. However, according to Rav Asi, who said: What is the meaning of speaking? It means that she engaged in intercourse, what miggo is there? There was no better claim available to her.

讜讗诇讗 讗讛讗 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 诪讜讻转 注抓 讗谞讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 讚专讜住转 讗讬砖 讗转 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 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪驻讬讛 讗谞讜 讞讬讬谉 讛转诐 诪讗讬 诪讙讜 讗讬讻讗

Rather, it is in reference to this case (13a), where she says: I am one whose hymen was ruptured by wood, and the groom says: No; rather, you are one who was trampled by a man. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not on the basis of the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives. There, what miggo is there?

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 讘诪谞讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 诪讙讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬讗 讗诪专讛 诪讜讻转 注抓 讗谞讬 转讞转讬讱 讜讗讬转 诇讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜拽讗诪专讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讚诇讬转 诇讛 讗诇讗 诪谞讛 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讘诪讗转讬诐 讜诪谞讛 诪讗讬 诪讙讜 讗讬讻讗

Granted, according to Rabbi Elazar, who said that the bride claims that she is entitled to a marriage contract of one hundred dinars, and the groom claims that she is entitled to nothing at all, as in that case, there is a miggo. Since, if she wished to lie, she could have said: I am one whose hymen was ruptured by wood under your authority after betrothal, and she would have been entitled to two hundred dinars, as she was a virgin at betrothal. And therefore, when she says that her hymen was already ruptured initially, prior to betrothal, when she is entitled to only one hundred dinars, she is deemed credible. However, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said: The bride claims that she is entitled to a marriage contract of two hundred dinars; and the groom claims that that she is entitled to a marriage contract of one hundred dinars, what miggo is there? Her claim is the most advantageous claim available to her.

讗诇讗 讗讛讗 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 讗讬专住转讬讱

Rather, it is in reference to this case (12b): One who marries a woman and did not find her hymen intact, and she says: After you betrothed me, I was raped and his field was inundated, i.e., it is attributable to your own misfortune. And he says: No; rather, you were raped before I betrothed you, and my transaction was a mistaken transaction.

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 讚诪讙讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬讗 讗诪专讛 诪讜讻转 注抓 讗谞讬 转讞转讬讱 讚诇讗 拽讗 驻住诇讛 谞驻砖讛 诪讻讛讜谞讛 讜拽讗诪专讛 谞讗谞住转讬 讚拽讗 驻住诇讛 谞驻砖讛 诪讻讛讜谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚诪讛讬诪谞讗 讜拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘讛讗讬 诪讙讜 讚讛讻讗 诪讜讚讬谞讗 诇讱 讘讛讛讜讗 诪讙讜 讚讛转诐 驻诇讬讙谞讗 注讬诇讜讜讱

Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives, as, in that case there is a miggo. Since, if she wished to lie, she could have said: I am one whose hymen was ruptured by wood under your jurisdiction after betrothal, which is a more advantageous claim, because she does not thereby disqualify herself from marrying into the priesthood. But she said: I was raped after betrothal, which is a less advantageous claim, because she disqualified herself from the priesthood. Therefore, Rabban Gamliel says that she is deemed credible. And Rabbi Yehoshua says to Rabban Gamliel: With regard to this miggo in the mishna here, I concede to you that the miggo is effective. With regard to that miggo there in the first chapter, I disagree with you.

诪讻讚讬 讛讗讬 诪讙讜 讜讛讗讬 诪讙讜 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讗讬 诪讙讜 诪讛讗讬 诪讙讜 讛讻讗 讗讬谉 砖讜专 砖讞讜讟 诇驻谞讬讱 讛转诐 讛专讬 砖讜专 砖讞讜讟 诇驻谞讬讱

The Gemara asks: But after all, this is a case of miggo and that is a case of miggo. In what way, in the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, is this miggo different from that miggo? The Gemara answers: Here, in the case of contested ownership of the field, there is no slaughtered ox before you, i.e., there is no reason to question his claim of ownership, as the field is in his possession. However, there, in the case of the woman who was found not to be a virgin, there is a slaughtered ox before you, i.e., there is reason to question her virginity, and it is only in response to that question that she makes her claim. Therefore, although it is supported by a miggo, Rabbi Yehoshua does not accept her claim.

讜讻讬讜谉 讚专讜讘 谞砖讬诐 讘转讜诇讜转 谞讬砖讗讜转 讻讬 诇讗 讗转讜 注讚讬诐 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 专讜讘 谞砖讬诐 讘转讜诇讜转 谞讬砖讗讜转 讜诪讬注讜讟 讗诇诪谞讜转 讜讻诇 讛谞砖讗转 讘转讜诇讛 讬砖 诇讛 拽讜诇

搂 The Gemara resumes discussion of the inference that it drew at the outset with regard to witnesses that the bride was a virgin. And since the Gemara established earlier that the woman鈥檚 claim is supported by the fact that most women are married as virgins, if witnesses did not come, what of it? That majority should be sufficient to establish that she married as a virgin. Ravina said: It is because there is room to say that although most women are married as virgins and a minority of women marry as widows or non-virgins, there is an additional presumption: The marriage of anyone who is married as a virgin generates publicity,

讜讝讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 拽讜诇 讗讬转专注 诇讛 专讜讘讗

and with regard to this woman, because her marriage did not generate publicity, the effect of the majority is undermined.

讗讬 讻诇 讛谞砖讗转 讘转讜诇讛 讬砖 诇讛 拽讜诇 讻讬 讗转讜 注讚讬诐 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛谞讱 住讛讚讬 砖拽专讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 专讜讘 讛谞砖讗转 讘转讜诇讛 讬砖 诇讛 拽讜诇 讜讝讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 拽讜诇 讗讬转专注 诇讛 专讜讘讗

The Gemara asks: If in fact, the marriage of anyone who is married as a virgin generates publicity, and the marriage of this woman did not generate publicity, when witnesses come, what of it? These are false witnesses, as their testimony runs counter to the presumption governing all marriages. Rather, Ravina said that it is not a universal presumption, but a majority. The marriage of most women who are married as virgins generates publicity, but for this woman, since her marriage did not generate publicity, the effect of the majority is undermined. Therefore, the testimony that she went out of her father鈥檚 house to her wedding with a hinnuma overrides the lack of publicity.

讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讬爪转讛 讘讛讬谞讜诪讗 讜讻讜壮 讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 诪驻拽讗 注讚讬诐 讘讛讗讬 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜讙讘讬讗 讜讛讚专 诪驻拽讗 诇讛 诇讻转讜讘讛 讘讛讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讙讘讬讗 讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讻转讜讘讛 注住拽讬谞谉

搂 It was stated in the mishna: If there are witnesses that she went out of her father鈥檚 house to her wedding with a hinnuma, or with her hair uncovered, in a manner typical of virgins, payment of her marriage contract is two hundred dinars. The Gemara asks: And since she collects payment without producing her marriage contract, let us be concerned that she might produce witnesses in this court and collect payment, and then produce her marriage contract in that other court and collect with it payment a second time. Rabbi Abbahu said: This indicates that one writes a receipt indicating that the woman received payment. Were the woman to attempt to collect payment of her marriage contract a second time, her husband would produce the receipt. Rav Pappa said: We are dealing in the mishna with a place where one does not write a marriage contract. It is only in a case where there is no concern lest she produce her marriage contract that she collects payment based on the testimony of witnesses.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讘专讬讬转讗 讗讬讘讚讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讛讟诪讬谞讛 讻转讜讘转讛 谞砖专驻讛 讻转讜讘转讛 专拽讚讜 诇驻谞讬讛 砖讞拽讜 诇驻谞讬讛 讛注讘讬专讜 诇驻谞讬讛 讻讜住 砖诇 讘砖讜专讛 讗讜 诪驻讛 砖诇 讘转讜诇讬诐 讗诐 讬砖 诇讛 注讚讬诐 讘讗讞讚 诪讻诇 讗诇讜 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讗转讬诐

And there are some who teach the dispute between Rabbi Abbahu and Rav Pappa with regard to the baraita that says: In a case where a woman lost her marriage contract or concealed her marriage contract and she claims that she is unable to find it; or her marriage contract was burned, and there is no proof with regard to the sum to which she is entitled; or practices performed exclusively at the weddings of virgins were performed at her wedding, e.g., people danced before her, or played before her, or passed before her a cup of good tidings or a cloth of virginity; if she has witnesses with regard to any one of these practices, her marriage contract is two hundred dinars.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 诪驻拽讗 注讚讬诐 讘讛讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讙讘讬讗 讜讛讚专 诪驻拽讗 诇讻转讜讘转讛 讘讛讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讙讘讬讗 讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讻转讜讘讛 注住拽讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: And since she collects payment without producing her marriage contract, let us be concerned that she might produce witnesses in this court and collect payment, and then produce her marriage contract in that other court and collect payment with it a second time. Rabbi Abbahu said: This indicates that one writes a receipt indicating that the woman received payment. Were the woman to attempt to collect payment of her marriage contract a second time, her husband would produce the receipt. Rav Pappa said: We are dealing in the mishna with a place where one does not write a marriage contract.

讜讛讗 讗讬讘讚讛 讻转讜讘转讛 拽转谞讬 讚讻转讘 诇讛 讗讬讛讜 住讜祝 住讜祝 诪驻拽讗 诇讛 讜讙讘讬讗 讘讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讘讚讛 讗讬讘讚讛 讘讗讜专

The Gemara asks: But how could Rav Pappa say that the baraita is dealing with a place where one does not write a marriage contract? Isn鈥檛 it taught in that baraita: If a woman lost her marriage contract? The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a case where her husband wrote her a marriage contract contrary to the local custom. The Gemara asks: If he wrote her a marriage contract, the concern remains that ultimately she will produce the marriage contract and collect payment with it a second time. The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of lost? The woman lost her marriage contract in the fire. In that case, there is no longer any concern.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 谞砖专驻讛 讜注讜讚 讛讟诪讬谞讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讜转讜 讗讬讘讚讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 讻诇 讗讬讘讚讛 讻讬 讛讟诪讬谞讛 讘驻谞讬谞讜 讚诪讬 讜诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 注讚 讚讗诪专讬 注讚讬诐 谞砖专驻讛 讻转讜讘转讛

The Gemara asks: If so, that is the case of: Her marriage contract was burned, listed separately in the baraita. And furthermore, what is there to say with regard to the case of concealed, where the concern that she will collect payment twice remains? And furthermore, if burned comes to explain the meaning of lost, why do I need the baraita to list the case of lost at all? It would have been sufficient for the baraita to mention the case of a burned marriage contract. Rather, the meaning of the baraita is: The legal status of any case where the woman claims that she lost her marriage contract is like that of a case where she concealed it before us, and we give her payment of her marriage contract only when the witnesses say that her marriage contract was burned. Otherwise, even if witnesses testify that the practices characteristic of the wedding of a virgin were performed at her wedding, she does not collect payment of her marriage contract.

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 讻讬 拽讜砖讬讗

The Gemara notes: The one who teaches this dispute between Rabbi Abbahu and Rav Pappa with regard to the baraita, all the more so would he teach it with regard to the mishna. Applying Rav Pappa鈥檚 opinion to the mishna does not necessitate the emendation and reinterpretation necessitated by its application to the baraita. However, the one who teaches this dispute with regard to the mishna would not teach it then with regard to the baraita, in accordance with the difficulty raised there, as the plain meaning of the baraita is that it is a place where one writes a marriage contract.

讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 讻讜壮 讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 诪驻拽讗 注讚讬 讛讬谞讜诪讗 讘讛讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讙讘讬讗 讜讛讚专 诪驻拽讗 注讚讬 讛讬谞讜诪讗 讘讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讙讘讬讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讜讚讗讬 讻转讘讬谞谉 砖讜讘专

With regard to that same passage in the mishna: If there are witnesses that she went out of her father鈥檚 house to her wedding with a hinnuma, or with her hair uncovered, in a manner typical of virgins, payment of her marriage contract is two hundred dinars, the Gemara asks: But let us be concerned lest she first produce witnesses that she went out with a hinnuma, in this court, and collect payment, and then produce witnesses that she went out with a hinnuma, in that court, and collect payment a second time. The Gemara answers: In a place where it is not possible to guarantee that she will not collect her marriage contract more than once in any other way, certainly we write a receipt, even according to the opinion that as a rule, one does not write a receipt.

讛注讘讬专讜 诇驻谞讬讛 讻讜住 砖诇 讘砖讜专讛 诪讗讬 讻讜住 砖诇 讘砖讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讻讜住 讬讬谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 诪注讘讬专讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛 讻诇讜诪专 专讗讜讬讛 讛讬转讛 讝讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讟讜 讗诇诪谞讛 诪讬 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讝讜 专讗砖讬转 讻转专讜诪讛 专讗砖讬转

搂 It is taught in that baraita: Or passed before her a cup of good tidings. The Gemara asks: What is a cup of good tidings? Rav Adda bar Ahava says: A cup of teruma wine is passed before the virgin bride, meaning that this woman would have been eligible to eat teruma had she married a priest. Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: Is that to say that a widow does not eat teruma if she marries a priest? Clearly she does. Therefore, what is the proof from teruma that she is a virgin? Rather, Rav Pappa says: The cup of teruma is passed before her to indicate that this bride is first, as she has not yet engaged in intercourse, like teruma that is the first gift separated from the produce.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 诪注讘讬专讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讘转讜诇讛 诪注讘讬专讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛 住转讜诪讛 讘注讜诇讛 诪注讘讬专讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛 驻转讜讞讛 讗诪讗讬 谞讬注讘专 拽诪讬 讘转讜诇讛 讜拽诪讬 讘注讜诇讛 诇讗 谞讬注讘专 讻诇诇 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚转驻住讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗诪专讛 讗谞讗 讘转讜诇讛 讛讜讗讬 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 注讘专讜 拽诪讗讬 讗转谞讜住讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转谞讬住讜

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The custom is that one passes a barrel of wine before her. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: One passes a sealed barrel of wine before a virgin, and one passes an open barrel of wine before a non-virgin. The Gemara asks: Why is that necessary? Let us pass the sealed barrel before the virgin, and before the non-virgin let us not pass a barrel at all. Why is it necessary to publicize the fact that she is a non-virgin? The Gemara explains: It is necessary, as, at times there could be a case where a non-virgin unilaterally seized two hundred dinars as payment for her marriage contract and said: I was a virgin, and the fact that they did not pass a sealed barrel before me was due to circumstances beyond their control. In order to prevent deceit of that kind, an open barrel is passed before the non-virgin, so that people will remember that she is not a virgin.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 诪专拽讚讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讛讻诇讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐

The Sages taught: How does one dance before the bride, i.e., what does one recite while dancing at her wedding? Beit Shammai say:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Ketubot 16

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 16

砖讛驻讛 砖讗住专 讛讜讗 讛驻讛 砖讛转讬专 讜讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讛讬讗 砖诇 讗讘讬讜 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇拽讞转讬讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讗讬谞讜 谞讗诪谉

This is so, as the mouth that prohibited, i.e., claimed that the field had belonged to the other鈥檚 father, is the mouth that permitted, i.e., claimed that he purchased the field. Even if he had not admitted that it had belonged to the other鈥檚 father, the field would have remained in his possession. Therefore, his claim is accepted. However, if there are witnesses that the field belonged to his father, and the one who has the field in his possession says: I purchased it from him, he is not deemed credible and his claim is rejected.

讙诪壮 讟注诪讗 讚讗讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讛讗 诇讬讻讗 注讚讬诐 讘注诇 诪讛讬诪谉 诇讬诪讗 转谞谉 住转诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚讗讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讗 讗诪专 讗讬讛讬 诪讛讬诪谞讗

GEMARA: The Gemara infers: The reason that the bride鈥檚 claim is accepted is specifically due to the fact that there are witnesses that she went out of her father鈥檚 house to the wedding with a hinnuma. However, if there are no witnesses, the husband is deemed credible. Let us say that the unattributed ruling that we learned in the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, as, if the ruling was according to Rabban Gamliel, didn鈥檛 he say that she is deemed credible?

讗驻讬诇讜 转讬诪讗 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 讘讘专讬 讜砖诪讗 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讘讘专讬 讜讘专讬 诇讗 讗诪专

The Gemara answers: Even if you will say that the ruling in the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, Rabban Gamliel stated his opinion only there, in a case where the claim of the bride is certain and the claim of the groom is uncertain, as the groom does not know what actually happened. However, here, in a case where the claim of the bride is certain and the claim of the groom is also certain, as he is certain that he married her as a widow, Rabban Gamliel did not say that her claim is deemed credible.

讜讚拽讗专讬 诇讛 诪讗讬 拽讗专讬 诇讛 讛讗 讘专讬 讜讘专讬 讛讜讗 讻讬讜谉 讚专讜讘 谞砖讬诐 讘转讜诇讜转 谞讬砖讗讜转 讻讬 讘专讬 讜砖诪讗 讚诪讬

The Gemara asks: And he who asked the question, why did he ask it? The cases are clearly different, as this is a case of a certain claim and a certain claim. The Gemara answers: Since most women are married as virgins, one might have thought that the legal status in this case is like that of a case of a certain claim and an uncertain claim, as her claim is supported by a majority of cases.

讜讛讻讬 谞诪讬 诪住转讘专讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讬 讗诪专转 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬讬专讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪讜讚讛 砖驻讬专 讗诇讗 讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 讗讬讬专讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇诪讗谉 诪讜讚讛

And it also stands to reason that the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, who concedes that without witnesses the woman鈥檚 claim is not deemed credible, despite the fact that the case is comparable to one of a certain claim and an uncertain claim, as the mishna teaches: And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes. Granted, if you say that Rabban Gamliel is speaking in the first clause of the mishna and he concedes that even though it is similar to a case of certain and uncertain, her claim is not accepted, it works out well. Rabban Gamliel concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua in the first clause of the mishna and the mishna cites a case where Rabbi Yehoshua concedes to Rabban Gamliel. However, if you say that Rabban Gamliel is not speaking in the first clause of the mishna and he does not concede, to whom does Rabbi Yehoshua concede in the latter clause?

诪讬 住讘专转 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讛讗讬 驻讬专拽讬谉 拽讗讬 讗诪讙讜 拽讗讬 讜讗驻讬专拽讬谉 拽诪讗 拽讗讬

The Gemara rejects that proof: Do you think that the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is in reference to a mishna in this chapter? Actually, it is in reference to the principle of miggo, and it is in reference to the first chapter. Rabbi Yehoshua is saying that although he does not accept the claim supported by a miggo in the first chapter, here he accepts the claim supported by the principle: The mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted, which is based on the same reasoning as miggo, i.e., the fact that he could have made a more advantageous claim lends credibility to the less advantageous claim. In this case, he could have remained silent and the field would have remained in his possession. If challenged, he could have claimed that the field was his. Therefore, his less advantageous claim, that the field was not originally his but he purchased it from the father of the claimant, is accepted.

讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗讛讗 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 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 讛转诐 诪讗讬 诪讙讜 讗讬讻讗 讛专讬 讻专讬住讛 讘讬谉 砖讬谞讬讛

The Gemara elaborates: In reference to which case in the first chapter did Rabbi Yehoshua make his statement? If you say that it is in reference to this case (13a): If a single woman was pregnant, and people said to her: What is the nature of that fetus, and she says to them: It is from a man called so-and-so and he is a priest, Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives. There, what miggo is there lending credibility to her claim? In that case, her belly is between her teeth, i.e., her pregnancy is conspicuous, and consequently she does not have the option of making the more advantageous claim that she did not engage in intercourse.

讗诇讗 讗讛讗 专讗讜讛 诪讚讘专转 注诐 讗讞讚 讜讗诪专讜 诇讛 诪讛 讟讬讘讜 砖诇 讗讬砖 讝讛 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 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 讛转诐 诪讗讬 诪讙讜 讗讬讻讗 讛谞讬讞讗 诇讝注讬专讬 讚讗诪专 诪讗讬 诪讚讘专转 谞住转专讛 诪讙讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬讗 讗诪专讛 诇讗 谞讘注诇转讬 讜拽讗诪专讛 谞讘注诇转讬 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘 讗住讬 讚讗诪专 诪讗讬 诪讚讘专转 谞讘注诇转 诪讗讬 诪讙讜 讗讬讻讗

Rather, it is in reference to this case (13a): If people saw a woman speaking to one man, and they said to her: What is the nature of this man? And she said to them: He is a man called so-and-so and he is a priest, Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not on based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives. Again this is challenged: There, what miggo is there? This works out well according to Ze鈥檈iri, who said: What is the meaning of speaking mentioned in the mishna? It means that she secluded herself with a man. In this case there is a miggo. Since, if she wished to lie, she could have said: I did not engage in intercourse at all, and instead she said: I engaged in intercourse with a man of unflawed lineage. Therefore, she is deemed credible according to Rabban Gamliel. However, according to Rav Asi, who said: What is the meaning of speaking? It means that she engaged in intercourse, what miggo is there? There was no better claim available to her.

讜讗诇讗 讗讛讗 讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 诪讜讻转 注抓 讗谞讬 讜讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讻讬 讗诇讗 讚专讜住转 讗讬砖 讗转 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 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讗讜诪专 诇讗 诪驻讬讛 讗谞讜 讞讬讬谉 讛转诐 诪讗讬 诪讙讜 讗讬讻讗

Rather, it is in reference to this case (13a), where she says: I am one whose hymen was ruptured by wood, and the groom says: No; rather, you are one who was trampled by a man. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not on the basis of the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives. There, what miggo is there?

讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讚讗诪专 讘诪谞讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 诪讙讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬讗 讗诪专讛 诪讜讻转 注抓 讗谞讬 转讞转讬讱 讜讗讬转 诇讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜拽讗诪专讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讚诇讬转 诇讛 讗诇讗 诪谞讛 诪讛讬诪谞讗 讗诇讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗诪专 讘诪讗转讬诐 讜诪谞讛 诪讗讬 诪讙讜 讗讬讻讗

Granted, according to Rabbi Elazar, who said that the bride claims that she is entitled to a marriage contract of one hundred dinars, and the groom claims that she is entitled to nothing at all, as in that case, there is a miggo. Since, if she wished to lie, she could have said: I am one whose hymen was ruptured by wood under your authority after betrothal, and she would have been entitled to two hundred dinars, as she was a virgin at betrothal. And therefore, when she says that her hymen was already ruptured initially, prior to betrothal, when she is entitled to only one hundred dinars, she is deemed credible. However, according to Rabbi Yo岣nan, who said: The bride claims that she is entitled to a marriage contract of two hundred dinars; and the groom claims that that she is entitled to a marriage contract of one hundred dinars, what miggo is there? Her claim is the most advantageous claim available to her.

讗诇讗 讗讛讗 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 讗讬专住转讬讱

Rather, it is in reference to this case (12b): One who marries a woman and did not find her hymen intact, and she says: After you betrothed me, I was raped and his field was inundated, i.e., it is attributable to your own misfortune. And he says: No; rather, you were raped before I betrothed you, and my transaction was a mistaken transaction.

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 讚诪讙讜 讚讗讬 讘注讬讗 讗诪专讛 诪讜讻转 注抓 讗谞讬 转讞转讬讱 讚诇讗 拽讗 驻住诇讛 谞驻砖讛 诪讻讛讜谞讛 讜拽讗诪专讛 谞讗谞住转讬 讚拽讗 驻住诇讛 谞驻砖讛 诪讻讛讜谞讛 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讚诪讛讬诪谞讗 讜拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 诇专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讘讛讗讬 诪讙讜 讚讛讻讗 诪讜讚讬谞讗 诇讱 讘讛讛讜讗 诪讙讜 讚讛转诐 驻诇讬讙谞讗 注讬诇讜讜讱

Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives, as, in that case there is a miggo. Since, if she wished to lie, she could have said: I am one whose hymen was ruptured by wood under your jurisdiction after betrothal, which is a more advantageous claim, because she does not thereby disqualify herself from marrying into the priesthood. But she said: I was raped after betrothal, which is a less advantageous claim, because she disqualified herself from the priesthood. Therefore, Rabban Gamliel says that she is deemed credible. And Rabbi Yehoshua says to Rabban Gamliel: With regard to this miggo in the mishna here, I concede to you that the miggo is effective. With regard to that miggo there in the first chapter, I disagree with you.

诪讻讚讬 讛讗讬 诪讙讜 讜讛讗讬 诪讙讜 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讛讗讬 诪讙讜 诪讛讗讬 诪讙讜 讛讻讗 讗讬谉 砖讜专 砖讞讜讟 诇驻谞讬讱 讛转诐 讛专讬 砖讜专 砖讞讜讟 诇驻谞讬讱

The Gemara asks: But after all, this is a case of miggo and that is a case of miggo. In what way, in the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, is this miggo different from that miggo? The Gemara answers: Here, in the case of contested ownership of the field, there is no slaughtered ox before you, i.e., there is no reason to question his claim of ownership, as the field is in his possession. However, there, in the case of the woman who was found not to be a virgin, there is a slaughtered ox before you, i.e., there is reason to question her virginity, and it is only in response to that question that she makes her claim. Therefore, although it is supported by a miggo, Rabbi Yehoshua does not accept her claim.

讜讻讬讜谉 讚专讜讘 谞砖讬诐 讘转讜诇讜转 谞讬砖讗讜转 讻讬 诇讗 讗转讜 注讚讬诐 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 专讜讘 谞砖讬诐 讘转讜诇讜转 谞讬砖讗讜转 讜诪讬注讜讟 讗诇诪谞讜转 讜讻诇 讛谞砖讗转 讘转讜诇讛 讬砖 诇讛 拽讜诇

搂 The Gemara resumes discussion of the inference that it drew at the outset with regard to witnesses that the bride was a virgin. And since the Gemara established earlier that the woman鈥檚 claim is supported by the fact that most women are married as virgins, if witnesses did not come, what of it? That majority should be sufficient to establish that she married as a virgin. Ravina said: It is because there is room to say that although most women are married as virgins and a minority of women marry as widows or non-virgins, there is an additional presumption: The marriage of anyone who is married as a virgin generates publicity,

讜讝讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 拽讜诇 讗讬转专注 诇讛 专讜讘讗

and with regard to this woman, because her marriage did not generate publicity, the effect of the majority is undermined.

讗讬 讻诇 讛谞砖讗转 讘转讜诇讛 讬砖 诇讛 拽讜诇 讻讬 讗转讜 注讚讬诐 诪讗讬 讛讜讬 讛谞讱 住讛讚讬 砖拽专讬 谞讬谞讛讜 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 专讜讘 讛谞砖讗转 讘转讜诇讛 讬砖 诇讛 拽讜诇 讜讝讜 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬谉 诇讛 拽讜诇 讗讬转专注 诇讛 专讜讘讗

The Gemara asks: If in fact, the marriage of anyone who is married as a virgin generates publicity, and the marriage of this woman did not generate publicity, when witnesses come, what of it? These are false witnesses, as their testimony runs counter to the presumption governing all marriages. Rather, Ravina said that it is not a universal presumption, but a majority. The marriage of most women who are married as virgins generates publicity, but for this woman, since her marriage did not generate publicity, the effect of the majority is undermined. Therefore, the testimony that she went out of her father鈥檚 house to her wedding with a hinnuma overrides the lack of publicity.

讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 砖讬爪转讛 讘讛讬谞讜诪讗 讜讻讜壮 讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 诪驻拽讗 注讚讬诐 讘讛讗讬 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讜讙讘讬讗 讜讛讚专 诪驻拽讗 诇讛 诇讻转讜讘讛 讘讛讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讙讘讬讗 讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讻转讜讘讛 注住拽讬谞谉

搂 It was stated in the mishna: If there are witnesses that she went out of her father鈥檚 house to her wedding with a hinnuma, or with her hair uncovered, in a manner typical of virgins, payment of her marriage contract is two hundred dinars. The Gemara asks: And since she collects payment without producing her marriage contract, let us be concerned that she might produce witnesses in this court and collect payment, and then produce her marriage contract in that other court and collect with it payment a second time. Rabbi Abbahu said: This indicates that one writes a receipt indicating that the woman received payment. Were the woman to attempt to collect payment of her marriage contract a second time, her husband would produce the receipt. Rav Pappa said: We are dealing in the mishna with a place where one does not write a marriage contract. It is only in a case where there is no concern lest she produce her marriage contract that she collects payment based on the testimony of witnesses.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讘专讬讬转讗 讗讬讘讚讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讛讟诪讬谞讛 讻转讜讘转讛 谞砖专驻讛 讻转讜讘转讛 专拽讚讜 诇驻谞讬讛 砖讞拽讜 诇驻谞讬讛 讛注讘讬专讜 诇驻谞讬讛 讻讜住 砖诇 讘砖讜专讛 讗讜 诪驻讛 砖诇 讘转讜诇讬诐 讗诐 讬砖 诇讛 注讚讬诐 讘讗讞讚 诪讻诇 讗诇讜 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讗转讬诐

And there are some who teach the dispute between Rabbi Abbahu and Rav Pappa with regard to the baraita that says: In a case where a woman lost her marriage contract or concealed her marriage contract and she claims that she is unable to find it; or her marriage contract was burned, and there is no proof with regard to the sum to which she is entitled; or practices performed exclusively at the weddings of virgins were performed at her wedding, e.g., people danced before her, or played before her, or passed before her a cup of good tidings or a cloth of virginity; if she has witnesses with regard to any one of these practices, her marriage contract is two hundred dinars.

讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 诪驻拽讗 注讚讬诐 讘讛讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讙讘讬讗 讜讛讚专 诪驻拽讗 诇讻转讜讘转讛 讘讛讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讙讘讬讗 讘讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 讝讗转 讗讜诪专转 讻讜转讘讬谉 砖讜讘专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗诪专 讘诪拽讜诐 砖讗讬谉 讻讜转讘讬谉 讻转讜讘讛 注住拽讬谞谉

The Gemara asks: And since she collects payment without producing her marriage contract, let us be concerned that she might produce witnesses in this court and collect payment, and then produce her marriage contract in that other court and collect payment with it a second time. Rabbi Abbahu said: This indicates that one writes a receipt indicating that the woman received payment. Were the woman to attempt to collect payment of her marriage contract a second time, her husband would produce the receipt. Rav Pappa said: We are dealing in the mishna with a place where one does not write a marriage contract.

讜讛讗 讗讬讘讚讛 讻转讜讘转讛 拽转谞讬 讚讻转讘 诇讛 讗讬讛讜 住讜祝 住讜祝 诪驻拽讗 诇讛 讜讙讘讬讗 讘讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讘讚讛 讗讬讘讚讛 讘讗讜专

The Gemara asks: But how could Rav Pappa say that the baraita is dealing with a place where one does not write a marriage contract? Isn鈥檛 it taught in that baraita: If a woman lost her marriage contract? The Gemara answers: The baraita is referring to a case where her husband wrote her a marriage contract contrary to the local custom. The Gemara asks: If he wrote her a marriage contract, the concern remains that ultimately she will produce the marriage contract and collect payment with it a second time. The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of lost? The woman lost her marriage contract in the fire. In that case, there is no longer any concern.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 谞砖专驻讛 讜注讜讚 讛讟诪讬谞讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讜转讜 讗讬讘讚讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讗诇讗 讻诇 讗讬讘讚讛 讻讬 讛讟诪讬谞讛 讘驻谞讬谞讜 讚诪讬 讜诇讗 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 注讚 讚讗诪专讬 注讚讬诐 谞砖专驻讛 讻转讜讘转讛

The Gemara asks: If so, that is the case of: Her marriage contract was burned, listed separately in the baraita. And furthermore, what is there to say with regard to the case of concealed, where the concern that she will collect payment twice remains? And furthermore, if burned comes to explain the meaning of lost, why do I need the baraita to list the case of lost at all? It would have been sufficient for the baraita to mention the case of a burned marriage contract. Rather, the meaning of the baraita is: The legal status of any case where the woman claims that she lost her marriage contract is like that of a case where she concealed it before us, and we give her payment of her marriage contract only when the witnesses say that her marriage contract was burned. Otherwise, even if witnesses testify that the practices characteristic of the wedding of a virgin were performed at her wedding, she does not collect payment of her marriage contract.

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 讻讬 拽讜砖讬讗

The Gemara notes: The one who teaches this dispute between Rabbi Abbahu and Rav Pappa with regard to the baraita, all the more so would he teach it with regard to the mishna. Applying Rav Pappa鈥檚 opinion to the mishna does not necessitate the emendation and reinterpretation necessitated by its application to the baraita. However, the one who teaches this dispute with regard to the mishna would not teach it then with regard to the baraita, in accordance with the difficulty raised there, as the plain meaning of the baraita is that it is a place where one writes a marriage contract.

讗诐 讬砖 注讚讬诐 讻讜壮 讜诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 诪驻拽讗 注讚讬 讛讬谞讜诪讗 讘讛讗讬 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜讙讘讬讗 讜讛讚专 诪驻拽讗 注讚讬 讛讬谞讜诪讗 讘讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讜讙讘讬讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讜讚讗讬 讻转讘讬谞谉 砖讜讘专

With regard to that same passage in the mishna: If there are witnesses that she went out of her father鈥檚 house to her wedding with a hinnuma, or with her hair uncovered, in a manner typical of virgins, payment of her marriage contract is two hundred dinars, the Gemara asks: But let us be concerned lest she first produce witnesses that she went out with a hinnuma, in this court, and collect payment, and then produce witnesses that she went out with a hinnuma, in that court, and collect payment a second time. The Gemara answers: In a place where it is not possible to guarantee that she will not collect her marriage contract more than once in any other way, certainly we write a receipt, even according to the opinion that as a rule, one does not write a receipt.

讛注讘讬专讜 诇驻谞讬讛 讻讜住 砖诇 讘砖讜专讛 诪讗讬 讻讜住 砖诇 讘砖讜专讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讻讜住 讬讬谉 砖诇 转专讜诪讛 诪注讘讬专讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛 讻诇讜诪专 专讗讜讬讛 讛讬转讛 讝讜 诇讗讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪转拽讬祝 诇讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讟讜 讗诇诪谞讛 诪讬 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讘转专讜诪讛 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讝讜 专讗砖讬转 讻转专讜诪讛 专讗砖讬转

搂 It is taught in that baraita: Or passed before her a cup of good tidings. The Gemara asks: What is a cup of good tidings? Rav Adda bar Ahava says: A cup of teruma wine is passed before the virgin bride, meaning that this woman would have been eligible to eat teruma had she married a priest. Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: Is that to say that a widow does not eat teruma if she marries a priest? Clearly she does. Therefore, what is the proof from teruma that she is a virgin? Rather, Rav Pappa says: The cup of teruma is passed before her to indicate that this bride is first, as she has not yet engaged in intercourse, like teruma that is the first gift separated from the produce.

转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讞讘讬转 砖诇 讬讬谉 诪注讘讬专讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讘转讜诇讛 诪注讘讬专讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛 住转讜诪讛 讘注讜诇讛 诪注讘讬专讬谉 诇驻谞讬讛 驻转讜讞讛 讗诪讗讬 谞讬注讘专 拽诪讬 讘转讜诇讛 讜拽诪讬 讘注讜诇讛 诇讗 谞讬注讘专 讻诇诇 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚转驻住讛 诪讗转讬诐 讜讗诪专讛 讗谞讗 讘转讜诇讛 讛讜讗讬 讜讛讗讬 讚诇讗 注讘专讜 拽诪讗讬 讗转谞讜住讬 讛讜讗 讚讗转谞讬住讜

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The custom is that one passes a barrel of wine before her. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: One passes a sealed barrel of wine before a virgin, and one passes an open barrel of wine before a non-virgin. The Gemara asks: Why is that necessary? Let us pass the sealed barrel before the virgin, and before the non-virgin let us not pass a barrel at all. Why is it necessary to publicize the fact that she is a non-virgin? The Gemara explains: It is necessary, as, at times there could be a case where a non-virgin unilaterally seized two hundred dinars as payment for her marriage contract and said: I was a virgin, and the fact that they did not pass a sealed barrel before me was due to circumstances beyond their control. In order to prevent deceit of that kind, an open barrel is passed before the non-virgin, so that people will remember that she is not a virgin.

转谞讜 专讘谞谉 讻讬爪讚 诪专拽讚讬谉 诇驻谞讬 讛讻诇讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐

The Sages taught: How does one dance before the bride, i.e., what does one recite while dancing at her wedding? Beit Shammai say:

Scroll To Top