Commentaire sur Ketoubot 1:7

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.