Torah Community Connections

Week 60 - Monday - 14 January 2001

KETUBOT: CHAPTER 1: MISHNAH 7

She says, "I was injured by a piece of wood," and he says, "Not so, but rather you were trodden by a man" -- Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say, She is believed. But Rabbi Yehoshua says, We do not live from her mouth! Rather she is presumed to be trodden by a man, until she brings proof for her words.

Kehati

We learned (mishnah 3) that the ketubah of a woman injured by a piece of wood is two hundred according to Rabbi Meir, and one hundred according to the Sages. The law is in accordance with the Sages, that her ketubah is one hundred, similar to that of a non virgin. There is a difference, however, between a woman injured by a piece of wood and a non virgin, for the law is that if a woman injured by a piece of wood is wed on the assumption that she is a virgin, and it is later found that she was injured by a piece of wood, she does not lose her ketubah, whereas a non virgin wed on the assumption that she is a virgin, and it is later found that she was a non virgin, the husband may claim that it was an erroneous acquisition, and she loses her ketubah. Our mishnah discusses an argument between the husband and wife, in a case in which she was wed to him on the assumption that she was a virgin, and he did not find her to be a virgin.

She says, "I was injured by a piece of wood" -- I lost my virginity due to an injury caused by a piece of wood, and I am entitled to my ketubah, and he says, "Not so -- it is possible that your words are not correct, but rather you were trodden by a man" -- you are a non virgin who engaged in sexual relations with someone else, before I betrothed you, and my acquisition was made in error; Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say, She -- the woman, is believed -- regarding her claim that she was injured by a piece of wood, and she is entitled to her ketubah of one hundred dinars (and according to Rabbi Meir, two hundred dinars).

But Rabbi Yehoshua says, We do not live from her mouth -- we do not rely upon her words, but rather she is presumed to be trodden by a man -- as the husband claims, until she brings proof for her words -- that she had not engaged in sexual relations, but had been injured by a piece of wood. The reasons for this disagreement are the same as those in the preceding mishnah: Rabban Gamliel holds that her claim is "certain", while the husband's claim is uncertain, and in an instance of a "certain" claim against an "uncertain" claim, the "certain" claim has preference, and in this case we do not follow the current possession of the money, for we say, the woman retains her presumptive status, and we presume that Jewish women do not act wantonly. Rabbi Yehoshua, on the other hand, holds that "money remains in the possession of its current owner," and the claimant must furnish proof (Rabbeinu Nissim).

KETUBOT: CHAPTER 1: MISHNAH 8

If they saw her talking with one in the marketplace, and said to her, "What is the nature of this one?" "He is so-and-so and he is a kohen" -- Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say, She is believed. And Rabbi Yehoshua says, We do not live from her mouth! Rather she is presumed to have engaged in sexual relations with a natin or a mamzer, until she brings proof for her words.

Kehati

Our mishnah discusses the case of an Israelite woman who is suspected of having had sexual relations with a man unfit for the priesthood, such as a natin or a mamzer, who are forbidden to marry into the general congregation of Jews (see Yev. 4:13; 8:3), and she claims that this man is fit. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree regarding this case, as they did in the preceding mishnayot.

If they saw her -- an unmarried woman, talking -- secluded -- with one -- who was -- in the marketplace -- some texts omit the words "in the marketplace" and said to her -- the woman, "What is the nature of this one? -- with whom you were secluded, perhaps he is a natin or a mamzer, or another such person sexual relations with whom render you ineligible to marry a kohen? And he says:

"He is so-and-so and he is a kohen" -- i.e., he is of good lineage and does not render me ineligible for kohanim; the wording used by the mishnah, "and he is a kohen," is not specific (and the mishnah is equally applicable to cases that do not involve kohanim).

Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer says, She -- the woman is believed -- that the man with whom she was secluded is of good lineage, and she is permitted to marry a kohen. As was explained in the previous mishnayot, she retains the presumptive status of propriety (Tosefot Yom Tov).

But Rabbi Yehoshua says, We do not live from her mouth -- she is not believed, rather she is presumed to have engaged in sexual relations with a natin or a mamzer -- we assume that she had sexual relations with someone unfit, such as a natin or a mamzer, and she is disqualified from marrying a kohen, until she brings proof for her words -- that she engaged in sexual relations with so-and-so, and he is of good lineage. Rabbi Yehoshua holds that since she was secluded with him, she forfeits her presumed status of propriety.

The halakhah follows Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer (Rambam, Hil. Isurei Biyah 18:13).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives