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

Today's Daf Yomi

February 11, 2015 | 讻状讘 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 9

讛讗讜诪专 驻转讞 驻转讜讞 诪爪讗转讬 谞讗诪谉 诇讗讜住专讛 注诇讬讜

A groom who says: I encountered an unobstructed orifice, claiming that when he consummated the marriage he discovered that his bride was not a virgin, is credible to render her forbidden to himself. Although it is not always possible to corroborate his claim with testimony that his wife committed adultery after betrothal, he is credible to render her forbidden to him as though she had in fact committed adultery.

讜讗诪讗讬 住驻拽 住驻讬拽讗 讛讜讗 住驻拽 转讞转讬讜 住驻拽 讗讬谉 转讞转讬讜 讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 转讞转讬讜 住驻拽 讘讗讜谞住 住驻拽 讘专爪讜谉

The Gemara asks: But why is she forbidden to him? It is a case of compound uncertainty. It is uncertain whether she engaged in intercourse while under his jurisdiction, after betrothal, in which case she would be forbidden to him, and it is uncertain whether she engaged in intercourse while not under his jurisdiction, in which case she would not be forbidden to him. And if you say that she engaged in intercourse while under his jurisdiction, it is uncertain whether she engaged in intercourse by coercion, in which case she would not be forbidden to him, and it is uncertain whether she engaged in intercourse willingly, in which case she would be forbidden to him. In cases of compound uncertainty, the ruling is lenient. Why, then, is his claim deemed credible?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讗砖转 讻讛谉 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讗砖转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讻讙讜谉 讚拽讘讬诇 讘讛 讗讘讜讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚

No, it is necessary to teach this ruling only in the case of the wife of a priest, who is rendered forbidden to her husband even if she engaged in intercourse by coercion. In that case, there is a single uncertainty. And if you wish, say instead that this ruling is relevant even to the wife of an Israelite, and it is in a case where her father accepted her betrothal when she was less than three years and one day old. Intercourse with a girl less than three years old does not permanently rupture the hymen, and therefore there is no uncertainty whether she engaged in intercourse before or after betrothal. Clearly, it took place after betrothal, and there is only one uncertainty: Did she engage in intercourse by coercion or willingly?

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 拽讚砖转讬讱 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 诇讗 拽讚砖转谞讬 讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 讘拽专讜讘讬讜 讜讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛

The Gemara asks: If this is a case where there is only one uncertainty, what is it teaching us? We already learned this explicitly: With regard to a man who says to a woman: I betrothed you, and she says: You did not betroth me, and there are no witnesses to corroborate either claim, she is permitted to marry any of his relatives, e.g., his brother, because based on her claim they are not related. And it is prohibited for him to marry her relatives, as based on his claim she is his betrothed. Apparently, one is capable of creating a prohibition for himself without corroborating witnesses.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讚讜讚讗讬 拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讬拽诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 拽讬诐 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara says that it was necessary to teach the case of the claim of virginity, lest you say: There, where certainly it is clear to him that he betrothed her, it is prohibited for him to marry her relatives. However, here, perhaps it is not clear to him that she was not a virgin, as he is not experienced in these matters and is mistaken. Therefore, Rabbi Elazar teaches us that his claim is nevertheless credible and she is forbidden to him.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 谞讗住专转 注诇 讘注诇讛 讗诇讗 注诇 注住拽讬 拽讬谞讜讬 讜住转讬专讛 讜讻诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛

And did Rabbi Elazar say that? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say: A woman is forbidden to her husband due to adultery, only over matters of jealous warning and seclusion, and as it was in the incident that transpired involving David and Bathsheba? A wife is forbidden to her husband only in a case where he warns her not to seclude herself with a certain man and witnesses testify that she subsequently entered into seclusion with him.

讜转住讘专讗 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讘拽讬谞讜讬 讜住转讬专讛 讛讜讛 讜注讜讚 诪讬 讗住专讜讛

And how can you understand it in that manner? Was the incident that transpired with jealous warning and seclusion? Furthermore, did the Sages render Bathsheba forbidden to her husband? Had she been forbidden to her husband, she would have also been forbidden to David, based on the following principle: Just as an adulteress is forbidden to her husband, she is also forbidden to her paramour.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 谞讗住专转 注诇 讘注诇讛 讗诇讗 注诇 注住拽讬 拽讬谞讜讬 讜住转讬专讛 诪诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 拽讬谞讜讬 讜住转讬专讛 讜诇讗 讗讬转住专讗 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗 拽讬谞讜讬 讜住转讬专讛 讗讬谉 驻转讞 驻转讜讞 诇讗

That is not difficult, as this is what Rabbi Elazar is saying: The fact that a woman is forbidden to her husband due to adultery only over matters of jealous warning and seclusion is derived from the incident that transpired involving David and Bathsheba, as there was no jealous warning and seclusion, and therefore she was not forbidden to her husband. In any case, it is difficult, as the statements of Rabbi Elazar are contradictory. It may be inferred: By means of jealous warning and seclusion, yes, a man renders his wife forbidden to him; by means of the claim that he encountered an unobstructed orifice, no, he does not render her forbidden.

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 拽讬谞讜讬 讜住转讬专讛 讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 诇讗

The Gemara rejects that inference: And according to your reasoning, that the statement of Rabbi Elazar restricts to jealous warning and seclusion the manner in which a husband can render his wife forbidden, infer: By means of jealous warning and seclusion, yes, a man renders his wife forbidden to him; by means of the testimony of two witnesses that she engaged in adulterous relations, no, he does not render her forbidden. That cannot be so, as clearly two witnesses establish her as one who committed adultery and render her forbidden to her husband.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 谞讗住专转 注诇 讘注诇讛 讘注讚 讗讞讚 讗诇讗 讘砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 讜拽讬谞讜讬 讜住转讬专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注讚 讗讞讚 谞诪讬 讜驻转讞 驻转讜讞 讻砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 讚诪讬

The Gemara explains: Rather, this is what Rabbi Elazar is saying: A woman is not rendered forbidden to her husband through the testimony of one witness. Rather, she is rendered forbidden only by means of the testimony of two witnesses who testify that she engaged in adulterous relations. And if there was jealous warning and seclusion, she is rendered forbidden even by means of the testimony of one witness as well, if he comes after the husband warned his wife and testifies that she engaged in adulterous relations. And the legal status of the claim: I encountered an unobstructed orifice, is like that of two witnesses, and it renders her forbidden even without jealous warning and seclusion.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 讗住专讜讛 讛转诐 讗讜谞住 讛讜讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉

And if you would say with regard to the incident that transpired involving David and Bathsheba: For what reason did the Sages not deem her forbidden, when clearly David committed adultery with a married woman? The Gemara answers: There it was rape, and she did not engage in intercourse willingly. And if you wish, say instead that the Sages did not deem her forbidden, as that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said:

讻诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诇诪诇讞诪转 讘讬转 讚讜讚 讙讟 讻专讬转讜转 讻讜转讘 诇讗砖转讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转 讗讞讬讱 转驻拽讚 诇砖诇讜诐 讜讗转 注专讘转诐 转拽讞 诪讗讬 讜讗转 注专讘转诐 转拽讞 转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讘专讬诐 讛诪注讜专讘讬谉 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛

Anyone who goes to a war waged by the royal house of David writes a conditional bill of divorce to his wife. This was done to prevent a situation in which the wife of the soldier would be unable to remarry because her husband did not return from battle and there were no witnesses with regard to his fate. The conditional bill of divorce accorded the wife the status of a divorc茅e and freed her to remarry, as it is written: 鈥淎nd to your brothers bring greetings and take their pledge [arubatam]鈥 (I聽Samuel 17:18). What is the meaning of: And take arubatam? Rav Yosef taught: It is referring to matters that are shared [hame鈥檕ravin] between the husband and his wife, i.e., marriage. Since apparently it was customary for men at war to send their wives a conditional divorce, and since Uriah later died, Bathsheba assumed divorced status retroactively from the time that he set out to war. Therefore, she was not forbidden to David.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讘转讜诇讛 谞砖讗转 诇讬讜诐 讛专讘讬注讬 诇讬讜诐 专讘讬注讬 讗讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讞诪讬砖讬 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讬拽专讜专讬 讚注转讗

搂 Apropos the credibility of the claim: I encountered an unobstructed orifice, Abaye said: We, too, learn in the mishna proof for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar: A virgin is married on Wednesday. Abaye infers: On Wednesday, yes, a virgin is married; on Thursday, no, she is not married. What is the reason for this ruling? It is due to the fact that if the marriage were to be held on Thursday, several days would elapse before the court would next convene, and in the interim his resolve will cool and his anger subside. The concern is that consequently he will fail to claim before the court that his bride was not a virgin.

讜诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇诪讬转讘 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 谞讬转讬讘 诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜住专讛 注诇讬讜 讜讚拽讗 讟注讬谉 讟注谞讛

The Gemara asks: And for what matter is that a source of concern? If the concern is with regard to giving her payment for her marriage contract, i.e., if he fails to go to court, her legal status at the time of marriage will remain that of a virgin, and when the time comes she will receive payment for her marriage contract to which she is not entitled; then let him give it to her if he wishes. Why is that a concern? Rather, it is with regard to rendering her forbidden to him, and that would result in a case where he makes a claim.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚拽讟注讬谉 讟注谞转 驻转讞 驻转讜讞 诇讗 讚拽讟注讬谉 讟注谞转 讚诪讬诐

What, is it not referring to a case where he makes the claim: I encountered an unobstructed orifice, after engaging in intercourse with his bride, and his claim is accorded credibility to render her forbidden to him in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar? The Gemara rejects that proof: No, it can be explained that it is a case where he makes the claim that there was no blood, which would have resulted from rupture of the hymen had she been a virgin. That is a claim based on objective, verifiable evidence and not merely dependent on his subjective sensation.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗讜诪专 驻转讞 驻转讜讞 诪爪讗转讬 谞讗诪谉 诇讛驻住讬讚讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 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 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 讟注讬谉 讛讗 讘讙诇讬诇 诪爪讬 讟注讬谉

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said that a groom who says: I encountered an unobstructed orifice, is deemed credible with regard to causing her to lose her marriage contract. Rav Yosef said: What is he teaching us? We already learned explicitly in a mishna (12a): A man who eats at the house of his father-in-law in Judea after betrothal, without witnesses to attest to the fact that he was not alone with her, cannot make a claim about his bride鈥檚 virginity after marriage, because in accordance with the custom in Judea, the assumption is that he secluded himself with her and it was he who engaged in intercourse with her. The Gemara infers: It is in Judea that he cannot claim that she is not a virgin, but in the Galilee, he can claim that this is the case.

讜诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇讗讜住专讛 注诇讬讜 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇讛驻住讬讚讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讜讚拽讗 讟注讬谉 讟注谞讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚拽讗 讟注讬谉 讟注谞转 驻转讞 驻转讜讞 诇讗 讚拽讗 讟注讬谉 讟注谞转 讚诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: And for what matter is this claim directed? If it is to render her forbidden to him, then in Judea why is the claim not credible? If he is certain that he did not engage in intercourse with her, and finds that she is not a virgin, apparently she committed adultery and that claim should render her forbidden. Rather, is it not that he is seeking to cause her to lose her marriage contract in a case where he makes a claim? And what, is it not referring to a case where he makes the claim: I encountered an unobstructed orifice, and apparently he is accorded credibility? The Gemara rejects that proof: No, it can be explained that it is a case where he makes the claim that there was no blood.

  • 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 9

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 9

讛讗讜诪专 驻转讞 驻转讜讞 诪爪讗转讬 谞讗诪谉 诇讗讜住专讛 注诇讬讜

A groom who says: I encountered an unobstructed orifice, claiming that when he consummated the marriage he discovered that his bride was not a virgin, is credible to render her forbidden to himself. Although it is not always possible to corroborate his claim with testimony that his wife committed adultery after betrothal, he is credible to render her forbidden to him as though she had in fact committed adultery.

讜讗诪讗讬 住驻拽 住驻讬拽讗 讛讜讗 住驻拽 转讞转讬讜 住驻拽 讗讬谉 转讞转讬讜 讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 转讞转讬讜 住驻拽 讘讗讜谞住 住驻拽 讘专爪讜谉

The Gemara asks: But why is she forbidden to him? It is a case of compound uncertainty. It is uncertain whether she engaged in intercourse while under his jurisdiction, after betrothal, in which case she would be forbidden to him, and it is uncertain whether she engaged in intercourse while not under his jurisdiction, in which case she would not be forbidden to him. And if you say that she engaged in intercourse while under his jurisdiction, it is uncertain whether she engaged in intercourse by coercion, in which case she would not be forbidden to him, and it is uncertain whether she engaged in intercourse willingly, in which case she would be forbidden to him. In cases of compound uncertainty, the ruling is lenient. Why, then, is his claim deemed credible?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讘讗砖转 讻讛谉 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讗砖转 讬砖专讗诇 讜讻讙讜谉 讚拽讘讬诇 讘讛 讗讘讜讛 拽讬讚讜砖讬谉 驻讞讜转讛 诪讘转 砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讜讬讜诐 讗讞讚

No, it is necessary to teach this ruling only in the case of the wife of a priest, who is rendered forbidden to her husband even if she engaged in intercourse by coercion. In that case, there is a single uncertainty. And if you wish, say instead that this ruling is relevant even to the wife of an Israelite, and it is in a case where her father accepted her betrothal when she was less than three years and one day old. Intercourse with a girl less than three years old does not permanently rupture the hymen, and therefore there is no uncertainty whether she engaged in intercourse before or after betrothal. Clearly, it took place after betrothal, and there is only one uncertainty: Did she engage in intercourse by coercion or willingly?

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 讛讗讜诪专 诇讗砖讛 拽讚砖转讬讱 讜讛讬讗 讗讜诪专转 诇讗 拽讚砖转谞讬 讛讬讗 诪讜转专转 讘拽专讜讘讬讜 讜讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讘拽专讜讘讜转讬讛

The Gemara asks: If this is a case where there is only one uncertainty, what is it teaching us? We already learned this explicitly: With regard to a man who says to a woman: I betrothed you, and she says: You did not betroth me, and there are no witnesses to corroborate either claim, she is permitted to marry any of his relatives, e.g., his brother, because based on her claim they are not related. And it is prohibited for him to marry her relatives, as based on his claim she is his betrothed. Apparently, one is capable of creating a prohibition for himself without corroborating witnesses.

诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讛转诐 讚讜讚讗讬 拽讬诐 诇讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 诪讬拽诐 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 拽讬诐 诇讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

The Gemara says that it was necessary to teach the case of the claim of virginity, lest you say: There, where certainly it is clear to him that he betrothed her, it is prohibited for him to marry her relatives. However, here, perhaps it is not clear to him that she was not a virgin, as he is not experienced in these matters and is mistaken. Therefore, Rabbi Elazar teaches us that his claim is nevertheless credible and she is forbidden to him.

讜诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讛讻讬 讜讛讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 谞讗住专转 注诇 讘注诇讛 讗诇讗 注诇 注住拽讬 拽讬谞讜讬 讜住转讬专讛 讜讻诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛

And did Rabbi Elazar say that? But didn鈥檛 Rabbi Elazar say: A woman is forbidden to her husband due to adultery, only over matters of jealous warning and seclusion, and as it was in the incident that transpired involving David and Bathsheba? A wife is forbidden to her husband only in a case where he warns her not to seclude herself with a certain man and witnesses testify that she subsequently entered into seclusion with him.

讜转住讘专讗 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讘拽讬谞讜讬 讜住转讬专讛 讛讜讛 讜注讜讚 诪讬 讗住专讜讛

And how can you understand it in that manner? Was the incident that transpired with jealous warning and seclusion? Furthermore, did the Sages render Bathsheba forbidden to her husband? Had she been forbidden to her husband, she would have also been forbidden to David, based on the following principle: Just as an adulteress is forbidden to her husband, she is also forbidden to her paramour.

讛讗 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 谞讗住专转 注诇 讘注诇讛 讗诇讗 注诇 注住拽讬 拽讬谞讜讬 讜住转讬专讛 诪诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 讚诇讗 讛讜讛 拽讬谞讜讬 讜住转讬专讛 讜诇讗 讗讬转住专讗 诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗 拽讬谞讜讬 讜住转讬专讛 讗讬谉 驻转讞 驻转讜讞 诇讗

That is not difficult, as this is what Rabbi Elazar is saying: The fact that a woman is forbidden to her husband due to adultery only over matters of jealous warning and seclusion is derived from the incident that transpired involving David and Bathsheba, as there was no jealous warning and seclusion, and therefore she was not forbidden to her husband. In any case, it is difficult, as the statements of Rabbi Elazar are contradictory. It may be inferred: By means of jealous warning and seclusion, yes, a man renders his wife forbidden to him; by means of the claim that he encountered an unobstructed orifice, no, he does not render her forbidden.

讜诇讟注诪讬讱 拽讬谞讜讬 讜住转讬专讛 讗讬谉 注讚讬诐 诇讗

The Gemara rejects that inference: And according to your reasoning, that the statement of Rabbi Elazar restricts to jealous warning and seclusion the manner in which a husband can render his wife forbidden, infer: By means of jealous warning and seclusion, yes, a man renders his wife forbidden to him; by means of the testimony of two witnesses that she engaged in adulterous relations, no, he does not render her forbidden. That cannot be so, as clearly two witnesses establish her as one who committed adultery and render her forbidden to her husband.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 谞讗住专转 注诇 讘注诇讛 讘注讚 讗讞讚 讗诇讗 讘砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 讜拽讬谞讜讬 讜住转讬专讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘注讚 讗讞讚 谞诪讬 讜驻转讞 驻转讜讞 讻砖谞讬 注讚讬诐 讚诪讬

The Gemara explains: Rather, this is what Rabbi Elazar is saying: A woman is not rendered forbidden to her husband through the testimony of one witness. Rather, she is rendered forbidden only by means of the testimony of two witnesses who testify that she engaged in adulterous relations. And if there was jealous warning and seclusion, she is rendered forbidden even by means of the testimony of one witness as well, if he comes after the husband warned his wife and testifies that she engaged in adulterous relations. And the legal status of the claim: I encountered an unobstructed orifice, is like that of two witnesses, and it renders her forbidden even without jealous warning and seclusion.

讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 诪注砖讛 砖讛讬讛 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 诇讗 讗住专讜讛 讛转诐 讗讜谞住 讛讜讛 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 谞讞诪谞讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜谞转谉

And if you would say with regard to the incident that transpired involving David and Bathsheba: For what reason did the Sages not deem her forbidden, when clearly David committed adultery with a married woman? The Gemara answers: There it was rape, and she did not engage in intercourse willingly. And if you wish, say instead that the Sages did not deem her forbidden, as that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Na岣ani said that Rabbi Yonatan said:

讻诇 讛讬讜爪讗 诇诪诇讞诪转 讘讬转 讚讜讚 讙讟 讻专讬转讜转 讻讜转讘 诇讗砖转讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讗转 讗讞讬讱 转驻拽讚 诇砖诇讜诐 讜讗转 注专讘转诐 转拽讞 诪讗讬 讜讗转 注专讘转诐 转拽讞 转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 讚讘专讬诐 讛诪注讜专讘讬谉 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛

Anyone who goes to a war waged by the royal house of David writes a conditional bill of divorce to his wife. This was done to prevent a situation in which the wife of the soldier would be unable to remarry because her husband did not return from battle and there were no witnesses with regard to his fate. The conditional bill of divorce accorded the wife the status of a divorc茅e and freed her to remarry, as it is written: 鈥淎nd to your brothers bring greetings and take their pledge [arubatam]鈥 (I聽Samuel 17:18). What is the meaning of: And take arubatam? Rav Yosef taught: It is referring to matters that are shared [hame鈥檕ravin] between the husband and his wife, i.e., marriage. Since apparently it was customary for men at war to send their wives a conditional divorce, and since Uriah later died, Bathsheba assumed divorced status retroactively from the time that he set out to war. Therefore, she was not forbidden to David.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗祝 讗谞谉 谞诪讬 转谞讬谞讗 讘转讜诇讛 谞砖讗转 诇讬讜诐 讛专讘讬注讬 诇讬讜诐 专讘讬注讬 讗讬谉 诇讬讜诐 讞诪讬砖讬 诇讗 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪砖讜诐 讗讬拽专讜专讬 讚注转讗

搂 Apropos the credibility of the claim: I encountered an unobstructed orifice, Abaye said: We, too, learn in the mishna proof for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar: A virgin is married on Wednesday. Abaye infers: On Wednesday, yes, a virgin is married; on Thursday, no, she is not married. What is the reason for this ruling? It is due to the fact that if the marriage were to be held on Thursday, several days would elapse before the court would next convene, and in the interim his resolve will cool and his anger subside. The concern is that consequently he will fail to claim before the court that his bride was not a virgin.

讜诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇诪讬转讘 诇讛 讻转讜讘讛 谞讬转讬讘 诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜住专讛 注诇讬讜 讜讚拽讗 讟注讬谉 讟注谞讛

The Gemara asks: And for what matter is that a source of concern? If the concern is with regard to giving her payment for her marriage contract, i.e., if he fails to go to court, her legal status at the time of marriage will remain that of a virgin, and when the time comes she will receive payment for her marriage contract to which she is not entitled; then let him give it to her if he wishes. Why is that a concern? Rather, it is with regard to rendering her forbidden to him, and that would result in a case where he makes a claim.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚拽讟注讬谉 讟注谞转 驻转讞 驻转讜讞 诇讗 讚拽讟注讬谉 讟注谞转 讚诪讬诐

What, is it not referring to a case where he makes the claim: I encountered an unobstructed orifice, after engaging in intercourse with his bride, and his claim is accorded credibility to render her forbidden to him in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar? The Gemara rejects that proof: No, it can be explained that it is a case where he makes the claim that there was no blood, which would have resulted from rupture of the hymen had she been a virgin. That is a claim based on objective, verifiable evidence and not merely dependent on his subjective sensation.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗讜诪专 驻转讞 驻转讜讞 诪爪讗转讬 谞讗诪谉 诇讛驻住讬讚讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 转谞讬谞讗 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 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪爪讬 讟注讬谉 讛讗 讘讙诇讬诇 诪爪讬 讟注讬谉

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said that a groom who says: I encountered an unobstructed orifice, is deemed credible with regard to causing her to lose her marriage contract. Rav Yosef said: What is he teaching us? We already learned explicitly in a mishna (12a): A man who eats at the house of his father-in-law in Judea after betrothal, without witnesses to attest to the fact that he was not alone with her, cannot make a claim about his bride鈥檚 virginity after marriage, because in accordance with the custom in Judea, the assumption is that he secluded himself with her and it was he who engaged in intercourse with her. The Gemara infers: It is in Judea that he cannot claim that she is not a virgin, but in the Galilee, he can claim that this is the case.

讜诇诪讗讬 讗讬 诇讗讜住专讛 注诇讬讜 讘讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪讗讬 诇讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诇讛驻住讬讚讛 讻转讜讘转讛 讜讚拽讗 讟注讬谉 讟注谞讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讚拽讗 讟注讬谉 讟注谞转 驻转讞 驻转讜讞 诇讗 讚拽讗 讟注讬谉 讟注谞转 讚诪讬诐

The Gemara asks: And for what matter is this claim directed? If it is to render her forbidden to him, then in Judea why is the claim not credible? If he is certain that he did not engage in intercourse with her, and finds that she is not a virgin, apparently she committed adultery and that claim should render her forbidden. Rather, is it not that he is seeking to cause her to lose her marriage contract in a case where he makes a claim? And what, is it not referring to a case where he makes the claim: I encountered an unobstructed orifice, and apparently he is accorded credibility? The Gemara rejects that proof: No, it can be explained that it is a case where he makes the claim that there was no blood.

Scroll To Top