Torah Community Connections

Week 60 - Sunday - 14 January 2001

KETUBOT: CHAPTER 1: MISHNAH 5

One who eats with his father-in-law in Judea without witnesses, may not claim virginity, because he was secluded with her. The ketubah of both an Israelite widow and a priestly widow, is a maneh. The Court of kohanim would collect for a virgin four hundred zuz, and the Sages did not prevent them.

Kehati

We learned above that a woman who is widowed or divorced after erusin (betrothal) is presumed to be a virgin, and therefore if she marries again, and her second husband claims that he did not find her to be a virgin, we investigate his claim regarding both whether his wife is prohibited to him, and whether his wife is entitled to a ketubah of two hundred. Our mishnah teaches that if a husband was secluded with his wife prior to nisu'in (marriage), after becoming betrothed to him, he can no longer claim that he did not find her to be a virgin.

One who eats with his father-in-law in Judea without witnesses -- it was customary in Judea for the arus (the betrothed) to stay in his father-in-law's house prior to his marriage and eat at his table. He was permitted to be alone with his arusah (betrothed), so that he could become familiar with her and "his love would enter her heart" (Hameiri). Our mishnah teaches that whoever acted in this manner in Judea, without witnesses, he may not -- after the marriage -- claim virginity -- that he did not find his wife to be a virgin, because he was secluded with her -- prior to the marriage, and we suspect that he himself had relations with her; he is not believed if he says that he did not have relations with her, because he had been secluded with her without witnesses.

The ketubah -- from their second husband of both an Israelite widow -- the daughter of an Israelite, and -- or -- a priestly widow -- the daughter of a kohen, is a maneh -- one hundred zuz. The ketubah of a priestly virgin, however, is larger than that of an Israelite virgin, because the Court of kohanim -- in the Temple which ruled on matters concerning kohanim, and protected the lineage of the priesthood, would collect for the virgin -- daughter of a kohen wed to a kohen, and surely for one wed to an Israelite, four hundred zuz -- double the ketubah of the daughter of an Israelite (the zuz and the dinar are equivalent), and the Sages did not prevent them -- on the contrary, the Sages viewed this as a good custom, and considered it an admirable practice in all families of distinguished lineage in Israel (Gemara).

Some explain the reason why the ketubah of a priestly widow was not raised is so that men would not refuse to marry her, for if they were to raise her ketubah, people would say, It is preferable to marry a virgin daughter of an Israelite rather than the widowed daughter of a kohen. According to one opinion, the "Court of kohanim" refers to the Courts with twenty-three judges which sat in the cities of the kohanim, just as there were Courts composed of twenty-three in each city in Israel (Shitah Mekubetzet, from Likutei Ge'onim).

KETUBOT: CHAPTER 1: MISHNAH 6

If one wed a woman and did not find her to be a virgin, she says, "After you betrothed me I was violated, and your field was inundated." And he says, "It is not so, but rather before I betrothed you, and my acquisition was made in error" -- Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say, She is believed. Rabbi Yehoshua says, We do not live from her mouth! Rather, she is presumed to have engaged in sexual relations before she was betrothed, and she misled him, until she brings a proof for her words.

Kehati

The mishnayot have until now discussed the husband's claim that his wife is not a virgin, without entering into the specific statements of the husband and the wife. Our mishnah and the following one deal with the arguments between the husband and his wife after he claims that he did not find her to be a virgin.

If one wed a woman -- whom he presumes to be a virgin, and did not find her to be a virgin -- and she admits to this, but she says, "After you betrothed me -- after the erusin -- I was violated -- by a man, and your field was inundated" -- a heavy rain fell on your field and flooded it, i.e., after I already was in your domain, it was your misfortune that I was violated, and I am entitled to my ketubah.

And he -- her husband, says, "It is not so -- perhaps your words are not correct, but rather before I betrothed you -- you engaged in sexual relations, and my acquisition was made in error" -- for I wedded you on the presumption that you were a virgin, and you misled me, and you therefore lose your ketubah; Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say, She is believed -- we believe her claim, and she is entitled to her ketubah of two hundred dinars. The Gemara explains that the wife is believed because her claim is "certain" (bari), while the husband's claim is only "uncertain" (shema), and in an instance of a "certain" claim against an "uncertain" claim, the "certain" claim has preference. And although we usually say, "money remains in the possession of its current owner," and "the burden of proof is on the claimant," nevertheless we do not apply this, because we give the woman her previous status, that the woman was a virgin from the day of her birth until the erusin.

Rabbi Yehoshua says, We do not live from her mouth -- we do not rely upon her words, Rather, she is presumed to have engaged in sexual relations before she was betrothed -- to him, and she misled him -- she was wed to him as a presumed virgin, and his acquisition was in error, until she brings a proof for her words -- that she was violated after the erusin. Rabbi Yehoshua is of the opinion that since there is a monetary aspect involved, we say, "money remains in the possession of its current owner," and "the claimant must furnish a proof." The halakhah follows Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer (Rambam, Hil. Ishut 11:11).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives