הָאוֹכֵל אֵצֶל חָמִיו בִּיהוּדָה שֶׁלֹּא בְעֵדִים, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמִּתְיַחֵד עִמָּהּ. אַחַת אַלְמְנַת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאַחַת אַלְמְנַת כֹּהֵן, כְּתֻבָּתָן מָנֶה. בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים הָיוּ גוֹבִין לַבְּתוּלָה אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת זוּז, וְלֹא מִחוּ בְיָדָם חֲכָמִים:
If one had eaten at his in-laws without witnesses in Judah, she is not subject to a claim of virginity, for he is left alone with her. [When they made the betrothal feast in the house of the bride's father in Judah, it was the practice that the groom be left alone with her to become familiar with her. Therefore, when he afterwards married her, he did not have a claim of virginity.] Both the kethubah of the widow of an Israelite and that of the widow of a Cohein are one manah. A beth-din of Cohanim would claim four hundred zuz for (the kethubah of) a virgin (who was the daughter of a Cohein), and the sages did not protest.
Jerusalem Talmud Gittin
HALAKHAH: “There was no law of siqariqon in Judea” etc. In earlier times they decided on a persecution in Judea because they had a tradition from their forefathers that Jehudah had killed Esaw, as it is written: “Your hand is on your enemies’ neck.” They went and enslaved them, took their fields and sold them to third parties. The original owners could come and repossess; therefore the land was left absolutely in the hand of the siqariqon since they refrained from buying. “They decreed that the law of siqariqon should not apply in Jehudah. When was this said? About war killings before the war. But about anybody killed in and after the war, the notion of siqariqon does not apply.” But are those killed before the war not like those killed after the war? Explain it that a siqariqon came and robbed and suppressed; there was no time left to write the sales contract before murder engulfed the entire world, that practice should not be partial.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
