Kommentar zu Ketubot 1:11

hello

בתולה נשאת ליום רביעי – but not on Thursday night, for one would suspect that he would be excited/troubled with the marriage [ceremony] and he would not be able to engage in intercourse.

Introduction Ketuboth opens by discussing on which days of the week a virgin marries, and on which days of the week a widow marries. Note that these customs have not been observed for a very long time, probably already from the time of the Talmud. Some of the talmudic sources mention persecution of the custom by Roman authorities.

שמא יש לו טענת בתולים – such that he [i.e., the husband] would say, I engaged in sexual intercourse but I did not find blood; it made no difference whether she was a minor or a young maiden or an adult, or whether I found an absence of virginity [in her]. If she was a minor or a young maiden , but if she was an adult, there can be no claim of the absence of virginity.

A virgin is married on the fourth day [of the week] and a widow on the fifth day, for twice in the week the courts sit in the towns, on the second day [of the week] and on the fifth day, so that if he [the husband] had a claim as to the virginity [of the bride] he could go early [on the morning of the fifth day of the week] to the court. According to the mishnah a virgin is married on Wednesday so that if the husband wants to make a claim against her that she was not a virgin, he can come directly to the court which sits on Mondays and Thursdays and make a claim against her. If his virginity claim against her is accepted by the court, he may divorce her without paying her the ketubah. The chapter will continue to discuss the issue of virginity claims and how the judge is to adjudicate them. Note that virginity claims are already mentioned in Deuteronomy 22:13-22. The virginity of the bride was of high value in the ancient world and a man who thought that he was marrying a virgin but found that she was not had the right to claim that he had mistakenly married her. The Talmud asks why it is so important that the husband rush to the court to make his virginity claim. After all, couldn’t he marry on Tuesday and wait two days to make his claim. The answer in the Talmud is that the rabbis were concerned that he might forgive his wife and stay married to her. If she had had adultery while betrothed to him, she is considered an adulteress and may not remained married to him. To therefore encourage him to make a claim, the rabbis enacted that he should marry on Wednesday. There are several other reasons given for this custom in the Talmud, including a belief that these are “lucky days”. Another interpretation is that a wedding on Monday allows the husband three days after Shabbat to prepare the feast (my how times have changed). I actually wrote an article in Hebrew about this subject and it was part of my doctorate as well (also in Hebrew). If anybody would like a copy I would be glad to send them one. The issue is actually quite complex. The mishnah does not state why widows are married on Thursday. According to the Talmud this is so their husbands will not go to work the next morning. On Friday morning, after the wedding, the husband will not go to work because it is the day after the wedding, and Friday is not a full work day in any case. Therefore, the new couple will have three days to celebrate together. With a virgin this is not a problem since there is a mandatory seven day celebration for a virgin. During this celebration, which is today called “the sheva berachot” after the seven blessings said at each meal, the husband is not supposed to go to work. Note that the custom of a seven day celebration is ancient and is mentioned already in the Bible in connection to Jacob’s marriage to Leah. He waits seven days before he marries Rachel.

ישכים ויבא לב"ד – all the while his anger is upon him, lest he become appeased and be pacified and sustain her and lest she invite unfaithfulness against him and she became forbidden to him. , and the Gemara raises the question , if she should get married on Sunday and if he has a claim [against her] concerning her virginity , he should get up early on Monday morning to go to the Jewish court. And they responded that the Sages were considerate towards the daughters of Israel (in ordaining weddings to be held on the fourth day of the week) that he should be engaged in preparations for the [wedding] meal for three days, Sunday Monday and Tuesday and on Wednesday, he would consummate the marriage. And at a time when the Jewish courts would not be in session on Mondays and Thursdays, a woman may be married on any day, but that he should be engaged in the preparations for the [wedding] meal for three days. And because of the ordinance for the poor, we have the practice in some places to marry on Fridays. And the reason that a widow [would marry] on Thursdays, is because the Sages were considerate towards the daughters of Israel that he should be happy with her for three days: Thurday, Friday and Shabbat. And a person who marries a widow it is prohibited to engage in work for three days, but one who marries a virgin [is prohibited to engage in work] all seven days. And regarding the wedding blessings [in the Birkat HaMazon/the blessing following the meal], it makes no difference whether a young man married a widow or whether a widower married a virgin, we recite the wedding blessings all seven days. But a widower who married a widow, [recites them] one day.

בתולה אלמה גרושה – that is to say, a virgin who is a widow or divorcee or a woman who was released from leviratical marriage [by a halitzah] by the brother of now-deceased betrothed, and she went back and married [another], her Ketubah/marriage contract from the second husband is two hundred [zuz].

Introduction This mishnah begins to discuss the size of a woman’s ketubah. To remind ourselves, the ketubah referred to in this mishnah is the minimum payment that a husband must pay his wife upon his death or divorce. The function of the ketubah was twofold: to provide financial protection for a woman if she was divorced or widowed and to create a financial deterrent for divorce. In other words the husband would not want to divorce his wife because it would cost him too much money (I believe this deterrent is often still effective today.)

ויש לה טענת בתולים – if the second [husband] did not find her to be a virgin, she has lost her Ketubah, for it is a mistaken purchase as there was a presumption of her being a virgin when she married.

A virgin her kethubah is two hundred [zuz], and a widow a maneh (100. This section provides the basic halakhah that will be discussed throughout the remainder of the chapter. Assumedly there are two reasons why a widow (which in this context includes a divorcee) receives a smaller ketubah. First of all, she already received a ketubah from her first marriage, and therefore has some money already saved up. Second, and probably more importantly, there was a need to encourage men to marry widows and divorcees. Most men probably preferred first-time marriages. Second marriages were made cheaper, therefore, to prevent older women from remaining husband-less. Needless to say, that people should be married was an important value to the rabbis.

A virgin, who is a widow, [or] divorced, or a halutzah from betrothal her kethubah is two hundred [zuz], and there is upon her a claim of non-virginity. The Mishnah now begins to discuss exceptional cases, ones which slightly deviate from the typical first marriage or the typical widow or divorcee. If a woman has been betrothed, but then was divorced before marriage or her husband died before the marriage was completed is in one sense a virgin and in one sense not. She is a virgin in that she has never had sexual relations, but she is a widow or divorcee as well. [Note that in Hebrew the word for virgin “betulah” can mean either a woman whose physical signs of virginity are intact or it can mean a young woman who has never been married. The same ambiguity occurs in the Greek word, “parthenon”.] According to our mishnah, such a woman receives a full ketubah, should she remarry.

A female proselyte, a woman captive, and a woman slave, who have been redeemed, converted, or freed [when they were] less than three years and one day old their kethubah is two hundred [zuz] there is upon them a claim of non-virginity. In order to understand this section we must understand a few things. First of all, all of the women mentioned in this mishnah are assumed to have already had sex. It was assumed that female captives were raped by their captors and therefore a woman who had been taken captive was assumed to no longer be a virgin. It was also assumed that non-Jews were extremely licentious, and that they would have sex with young girls (I realize that this is extremely bigoted, but there probably was some degree of truth to it in the world in which the rabbis lived). Therefore a woman who converted was assumed to have already had sex. Thirdly, it was assumed that slaves were licentious or perhaps were commonly raped by their masters. In any case, they too were categorically not considered virgins. Seemingly all three of these types of women should have ketuboth of one maneh [=100 zuz] and their husbands should not be able to claim that they weren’t virgins, because they were married under the assumption that they were not virgins. However, the other assumption that the mishnah makes is that if a girl is raped before the age of three, her signs of virginity will eventually heal and return [this medical assumption was not unique to the rabbis]. Therefore if these women made the transition from slave to free Jew or proselyte to Jew or from captive to being freed before the age of three, it was assumed that their virginity would return and they could be assumed to be virgins. A note about the Mishnah’s references to sexual intercourse with young girls: The Mishnah will occasionally reference sexual relations with young girls, even under the age of three. I expect that this will cause discomfort to people reading the mishnah, and when I think of my own three year old daughter, this makes me queasy as well. We would do well to realize that the Mishnah’s discussion of all legal possibilities does not imply their tacit approval of them. The Mishnah discusses many crimes without expressing horror over them, because the Mishnah is often interested in legal consequences. The rabbis certainly did not condone sexual relations with girls this young.

שבא על הקטנה – [a minor girl who is] less than three years and one day [old], for her coition is not coition.

Introduction This mishnah discusses three types of women who don’t fit into the normal categories of virgin/non-virgin. This is either because they have had sexual intercourse but didn’t lose their physical signs of virginity, or because they are not physically virgins, even though they never had intercourse.

וקטן – [a minor boy who is] less than nine [years of age] as his coition is not coition if he engages in sexual relations with an adult women.

When an adult has had sexual intercourse with a young girl, or when a small boy has had intercourse with an adult woman, or a girl who was injured by a piece of wood [in all these cases] their kethubah is two hundred [zuz], the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: a girl who was injured by a piece of wood her kethubah is a maneh. There are three women mentioned in this mishnah. The first is a young girl who had intercourse with an adult man. As we mentioned in yesterday’s mishnah, the Sages believed that if a girl has sexual intercourse before three, her hymen will regenerate when she gets older. Therefore, when this girl gets older she will have her physical signs of virginity, even though she has had sexual intercourse. The second woman is an adult woman who had sexual intercourse with a young boy. According to the Sages a boy less than nine years old cannot have real intercourse, such that he causes a woman to lose her virginity. Again, this woman has her physical signs of virginity, but she has had sexual intercourse. The third woman is called a “mukath etz”, literally translated as “hit by a stick”. This refers to a woman who lost her hymen by something other than intercourse. In our day we might say she went horseback riding. This woman no longer has physical signs of virginity, but she has never had sexual intercourse. According to Rabbi Meir, all three of these women receive a full ketubah. According to Rabbi Meir in order to be considered a non-virgin a woman must have lost her physical signs of virginity through sexual intercourse. The Sages rule that the “mukath etz” does not receive a full ketubah. The Sages seem to define “virginity” by physicality alone: one who does not have her physical signs of virginity is not a “halakhic” virgin and does not receive a ketubah of 200 zuz.

ומוכת עץ – if [piece of wood] had been inserted in her at that same place

כתובתן מאתים – it they simply married in an undefined manner

וחכמים אומרים: מוכת עץ כתובתה מנה – And the Halakha is according to the Sages, and even if he did not know her, her Ketubah is a Maneh, and it is considered an errant purchase.

בתולה שהיא אלמנה או גרושה או חלוצה מן הנשואים – if she went back and got married in an undefined manner, her Ketubah is a Maneh, for she is under the presumption [of being] no longer a virgin, we confirm , when she enters the marriage canopy.

Introduction This mishnah teaches the opposite cases of those taught in mishnah two.

A virgin, who was a widow, a divorcee, or a halutzah from marriage her kethubah is a maneh, and there is no claim of non-virginity upon her. The women in this mishnah have been previously married, and not merely betrothed as were the women in mishnah two. Nevertheless, they are still virgins for their husbands divorced them or died after entering the huppah (the wedding room) before having had sexual intercourse. Note that this could certainly occur if the woman was menstruating at the time of marriage. The mishnah rules that although these women are physically virgins, they are halakhically considered to be non-virgins and are treated as such. Their ketubah payment in a subsequent marriage will therefore be only a maneh and not the full 200 zuz. If their husband in a subsequent marriage marries them and finds them not to be a virgin, he cannot make a virginity claim against them. One reason that they are considered to be non-virgins is that by definition a woman who was once married can no longer be a virgin, for the word for virgin in Hebrew implies unmarried. A second reason is that although the woman claims to be a virgin, since she was married, we cannot assume that she is telling the truth.

A female proselyte, a woman captive and a woman slave, who have been redeemed, converted, or freed [when they were] more than three years and one day old their kethubah is a maneh, and there is no claim of non-virginity upon her. The women in this mishnah converted, were freed from slavery or were freed from captivity after the age of three years and one day. Since it is assumed that in their previous state they had sexual intercourse they cannot claim to be virgins when they grow up and get married. This is because if a girl has sexual intercourse past the age of three years her physical signs of virginity will not return (see the commentary on mishnah two).

האוכל אצל חמיו ביהודה – When they were making the festive meal [celebrating her] betrothal in the house of the bride’s father in Judea, it was the practice that the betrothing [male] would be alone with his betrothed [female] in order that he may become bold towards her (i.e., become intimate). Therefore, when she gets married after that, there is no claim of [her not being] a virgin.

Introduction This mishnah discusses two exceptions to general marriage practice, one a custom in Judah and the second the custom of the priests.

He who eats with his father-in-law in Judea without the presence of witnesses cannot raise a claim of non-virginity against his wife because he has been alone with her. The usual custom in Mishnaic times was to wait for up to a year between the betrothal and the wedding. During this time the couple were not supposed to have sexual relations. Generally speaking, the young woman remained in her parental home during this period and the husband-to-be was elsewhere. However, our mishnah refers to a practice in Judea, whereby the groom would “eat” at his father-in-law’s house. This may refer to an extended stay. If he should do so without witnesses that he was apart from his fiancee, he cannot later claim that she was not a virgin at the time of the wedding. Once he has been alone with her, we are suspicious that he has had relations with her, and therefore he loses the right to make a virginity claim against her.

It is the same whether [the woman is] an Israelite widow or a priestly widow her kethubah is a maneh. The court of the priests collected for a virgin four hundred zuz, and the sages did not protest. A widow receives a ketubah of one maneh (100 zuz) whether she was from an Israelite family or from a priestly family. However, the court of priests demanded that virgins from priestly families receive double the normal ketubah payment. We should remember that in this time period priestly families still formed a quasi-elite. Furthermore, occasionally the mishnah refers to “court of priests”. The priests may have had their own legal system, one which derived from the autonomy they had during Temple times. Priests tended to live in the same area and intermarriage between priestly families was common. While the Sages did not protest against the custom of the double ketubah, one can sense that the fact that the mishnah mentions that they didn’t protest, signifies some discomfort with the practice.

ונסתחפה שדך – an inundating rain has come upon your field ( which is a euphemism) and ruined it, that is to say, your luck has caused this- and you [must] give me my Ketubah-value.

Introduction Our mishnah begins a series of debates between Rabban Gamaliel, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua over the credibility of certain legal claims that a woman might make. Our mishnah deals with virginity claims, the main topic of the chapter.

והיה מקחי מקח טעות – and you don’t have a Ketubah [settlement] from me.

If a man marries a woman and does not find her to be a virgin: She says, “After you betrothed me I was raped, and so your field has been washed away” And he says, “No, rather [it occurred] before I betrothed you and my acquisition was a mistaken acquisition” Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: she is believed. Rabbi Joshua says: We do not live by her mouth, rather she is in the presumption of having had intercourse before she was betrothed and having deceived him, until she brings proof for her statement. In the scenario in our mishnah, a man comes to court after the first night with his wife and claims that she was not a virgin. She responds by admitting that she was not a virgin, but counter-claims that she had lost her virginity by being raped and that the rape had occurred after her betrothal. Both of these claims are essential to her defense. The fact that the intercourse took place after betrothal means that she did not deceive him by allowing him to betroth her under the false precept that she was a virgin. The fact that she had sexual intercourse unwillingly is essential if she wishes not to be considered an adulteress. If she had intercourse with someone other than her husband after the betrothal she would be an adulteress and as such she would not receive her ketubah. If the court believes both of her claims, then she would receive her ketubah. Note that the mishnah uses a metaphor for the woman: she is a field whose top, fertile layer has been swept away, causing a loss to the man. The comparison of women to fields or houses, as bothersome as it might be to our modern ears, is not uncommon in rabbinic literature. The husband counterclaims that she had relations before betrothal, and that he acquired her under the mistaken assumption that she was a virgin. It is unclear whether or not he wishes to pay her a ketubah of 100 or he wishes to be totally exempt from paying her a ketubah. What is clear is that the dispute in this mishnah is financial: she wishes to receive her full ketubah and he wishes to lessen his payment. Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer rule that the woman is believed and that she receives a ketubah of 200 zuz. The talmud explains that since the woman is “certain” in her claim, whereas the man does not really know when she lost her virginity, she is believed. Rabbi Joshua says she is not believed until she can bring proof to back up her words. The talmud explains that Rabbi Joshua reasons that since this is a monetary case, and we generally hold that in monetary cases the burden of proof is on the party which wishes to extract money from the other party, in this case the burden of proof is upon her. In order to extract her ketubah money from him she must prove that she was a virgin at the time of betrothal.

נאמנת – and we make her take an equitable oath (i.e., one who is sued for a debt denies the latter entirely) that such is according to her words and she takes her Ketubah-value. And such is the Halakha. And if she said: “You found me to be a virgin,” she is not believed, but the Rabbis found the husband to be trustworthy and even without an oath, for it is presumption that a husband will not busy himself with the [wedding] meal and cause her a loss.

דרוסת איש – she had sexual relations with a man.

Introduction This mishnah contains another debate between a man and woman over the circumstances in which she lost her physical signs of virginity.

נאמנת – and she does not lose her Ketubah-payment. But nevertheless, if she was the wife of a Kohen and following the time of her betrothal, when she married, he claimed that “you had engaged in sexual relations with a man” we remove her from him, lest after he had betrothed her, she had had sexual relations with [another] man, since he said to her, “you had sexual relations with a man,” she is considered to him as a piece [of meat] that is forbidden, and even if by uncontrollable accident had engaged in sexual relations, we establish for ourselves that if she is the wife of a Kohen who had by uncontrollable accident [had sexual relations with another man], she is forbidden to her husband, and he must divorce her and provide her Ketubah-settlement.

She says, “I was struck by a piece of wood”, And he says, “No, you, rather you have been trampled by a man” Rabban gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: she is believed, And Rabbi Joshua says: We do not live by her mouth, rather she is in the presumption of having been trampled by a man, until she brings proof for her statement. In this case, when the husband comes to court claiming that his wife was not a virgin, the woman responds that she did not lose her physical signs of virginity through sexual intercourse but rather by “being struck by a piece of wood”, meaning she lost her hymen in some other way. According to Rabbi Meir (see mishnah three) if the court believes her, she would receive a full ketubah of 200. According to the Sages she receives a ketubah of 100. In any case, she is claiming that she does receive some ketubah. The man responds that she lost her virginity by having engaged in sexual intercourse. The phrase “trampled by a man” is an illustrative means of saying that she had sex with a man and not that she lost her virginity from a “stick”. Assumedly his goal is to not pay her any ketubah. Again Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer rule in her favor. The same reason which I offered in yesterday’s mishnah applies here: since she is certain and he is uncertain, she is believed. Similarly, Rabbi Joshua holds that she is not believed, and that the money remains with the husband. Again, the same reason as in yesterday’s mishnah applies: in order for her to extract money she must provide proof.

מדברת – engaging in sexual relations with

Introduction This mishnah discusses a woman who is suspected of having had relations with a man prohibited from marrying an Israelite and she claims that while she did have relations with her, he was not the type of man prohibited from marrying an Israelite. Again there is debate over whether or not she is believed.

וכהן הוא – of traceable genealogy, distinguished birth/well-connected

They saw her talking with someone in the marketplace, and they said to her, “What sort of a man is he?” [And she answered, “He is] the so-and-so and he is a priest” Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: she is believed, And Rabbi Joshua says: we do not live by her mouth, rather she is in the presumption of having had relations with a natin or a mamzer, until she brings proof for her statement. In the Talmud there is debate over what the woman was seen doing. According to some, she was seen having intercourse with an unknown man, and that “talking” is a euphemism for sex. Others say that she was merely talking with him, but there was suspicion that they had had sex. It is important to remember that the situation is that she is a single woman and there is no issue of adultery. However, if she had had relations with a man who was forbidden from marrying an Israelite, such as a mamzer or a natin, she would subsequently be prohibited from marrying a priest. When asked who this man was she provides his name and says that he is a priest. Note that it is not essential that he is a priest; it is sufficient that he is a man who is not prohibited from marrying an Israelite. Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer again rule that the woman is believed and may subsequently marry a priest. Since she has a presumption of being fit to marry a priest, it requires solid evidence to remove her from this presumption. Rabbi Joshua holds that since she was secluded with him, she loses her presumption of being fit to marry a priest. She must bring proof that this person was not prohibited from marrying an Israelite and until then she may not marry a priest.

נאמנת – and she is fit to marry into the priesthood.

מה טיבו של עובר זה וכו' – Rabban Gamaliel states that she is to be believed and she and are daughter are fit to [be married into] the priesthood. But [concerning] the matter of inheritance, Rabban Gamaliel did not state that this fetus should inherit him, and the Halakha is according to Rabban Gamaliel in all the sections of our Mishnah. And even so, ab initio, she should not marry into the priesthood – neither one who speaks (i.e., one who has had sexual relationships) with one person and not the pregnant, other than if most of the people of the city are of traceable genealogy and this particular woman was impregnated from one of them who had separated himself outside of the city and had sexual relations [with her], for we say: “whatever comes out of a mixed multitude is presumed to have come from the majority “(i.e., has the legal status of the majority -see Talmud Ketubot 15a and Zevahim 73a), and so, she may marry into the priesthood whether she or her daughter.

Introduction In this mishnah a single woman is discovered pregnant, and it is unknown to others who the father is. If the father was from those prohibited from marrying Israelites, then the child will follow his status. Furthermore, the woman will also be prohibited from subsequently marrying a priest (as in yesterday’s mishnah). Again, the rabbis debate whether or not the woman is believed.

She was pregnant and they said to her, “What is the nature of this fetus?’ [And she answered, “It is] from so-and-so and he is a priest.” Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: she is believed, And Rabbi Joshua says: we do not live by her mouth, rather she is in the presumption of having had relations with a natin or a mamzer, until she brings proof for her statement. This mishnah is nearly identical to yesterday’s mishnah, the only difference being that this woman is pregnant. The reason why the mishnah reiterates the positions outlined in the previous mishnah is to teach that Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer believe the woman even if she is pregnant. In yesterday’s mishnah, it was unclear whether or not she had even had sex with the man in question. When asked who he was, she could have said that she never had relations with him. Therefore, when she admitted that she did but said that she was a priest (i.e. one who is allowed to marry an Israelite), she is believed. However, in today’s mishnah it is certain that she had relations with someone and she could not make a better claim than to say that the man was fit to marry an Israelite. [This type of reasoning is common in the mishnah, and it is called “migo”, which means that when a person could have made a better claim, he is believed when he makes a worse claim]. Nevertheless, Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Eliezer hold that she is believed. A further innovation is that not only is the woman believed, and she is subsequently allowed to marry a priest, but her child is assumed to be fit to marry an Israelite. In other words, even though we don’t know for sure that the child is not a mamzer or a natin, the law treats him/her as if he was not. Rabbi Joshua again states that the woman is not believed. Furthermore, her child is assumed to be the child of a natin or a mamzer and may not marry an Israelite until s/he proves otherwise.

אם רוב העיר משיאין לכהונה – Even though that a majority of one in a general way is sufficient, regarding priestly descent is concerned, they put up a higher standard (i.e., made the law more stringent – Talmud Ketubot 13a). And here, the rabbis required a double majority: most of the party [of priests] that pass through the place and most of the people of the city. But, ab initio, we do not marry into the priesthood other than with the double majority – and such is the Halakha.

Introduction The previous two mishnayoth discussed the ability of a woman to marry into the priesthood. The final mishnah of chapter one continues to discuss this subject.

Rabbi Yose said: it happened that a young girl went down to draw water from a spring and she was raped. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri said: if most of the inhabitants of the town marry [their daughters] into the priesthood, this [girl] may [also] marry into the priesthood. The question in this mishnah is can this girl marry into the priesthood. If the man who raped her was forbidden to marry an Israelite, then she is forbidden to marry a priest. This is true even though she did not willingly engage in intercourse with the man. Although this sounds like the woman is being punished for having been raped, we would do well to keep in mind that priests were extremely cautious about the “purity” of their lineage. The laws of who can and cannot marry a priest have nothing to do with morality, at least not as we understand it. Rather they have to do with the prohibition of defiling the priestly line. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri rules that if most of the inhabitants of the town are men who are allowed to marry into the priesthood, meaning that their wives and daughters are allowed to marry priests, then this girl is allowed to marry a priest.