Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth

Folio 16a

FOR THE MOUTH THAT BOUND IS THE MOUTH THAT LOOSENS.¹  BUT IF THERE ARE WITNESSES THAT IT²  BELONGED TO HIS FATHER AND HE SAYS, 'I BOUGHT IT FROM HIM.' HE IS NOT BELIEVED.

GEMARA. The reason³  is that there are witnesses,⁴  but if there are no witnesses the husband is believed. Is it to say that the anonymous and undisputed decision⁵  recorded in our Mishnah is not according to Rabban Gamaliel? For if it were according to Rabban Gamaliel, did not he say that she is believed?⁶  — You may even say [that it is according to] Rabban Gamaliel; [for] Rabban Gamaliel says [it]⁷  only there in [a case of] 'sure' and 'perhaps'.⁸  but here⁹  where they are both¹⁰  sure¹¹  [in their statements] he¹²  did not say [it]¹³  — But he who raised the question, how could he raise it at all?¹⁴  Surely this is a case where they are both 'sure' [in their statements]! — Since most women get married as virgins [you might say that] it¹⁵  is like 'sure and perhaps'.¹⁶  This¹⁷  may also be proved by the following reasoning, since it is stated: AND R. JOSHUA ADMITS [etc.]¹⁸  It is well if you say [that] Rabban Gamaliel admits.¹⁹  But if you say [that] Rabban Gamaliel does not admit.²⁰  to whom does [then] R. Joshua admit?²¹  Do you think [that] R. Joshua refers to this chapter?²²  He refers to miggo²³  in the first chapter.²⁴  To which?²⁵  Is it to say [that he refers] to this: If she was pregnant, and they said to her. 'What is the nature of this embryo'. [and she answered, 'it is] from man So-and-so and he is a priest'. Rabban Gamaliel and R. Eliezer say: She is believed, [and] R. Joshua says: We do not live from her mouth?²⁶  What miggo is there in that case?²⁷  Behold, her stomach reaches up to her teeth!²⁸  Again [should it refer] to this: They saw her talking with someone and they said to her: 'what is the character of this man?' [and she answered, 'it is] man So-and-so and he is a priest'. Rabban Gamaliel and R. Eliezer say: She is believed [and] R. Joshua says: We do not live from her mouth?²⁹  [There too.] what miggo is there? True, there is according to Ze'iri, Who says [that] 'she was talking' means 'she was hiding herself' [with a man]. [in which case she has] a miggo, for if she wished she could say. 'I had no intercourse,' and [still] she said, 'I had intercourse,' [therefore] she is believed. But according to R. Assi, who says [that] 'she was talking' means 'she had intercourse, what miggo is there?³⁰  Or again [should he refer] to this: She says. 'I was injured by [a piece of] wood,' and he says. 'Not so, but thou wast trodden by a man.' Rabban Gamaliel and R. Eliezer say: She is believed, and R. Joshua says: We do not live from her mouth?³¹  [There too] what miggo is there? True, there is according to R. Eliezer, who says that [the dispute between the husband and the wife is] with regard to a maneh and nothing.³²  [In which case she has] a miggo, for if she wished she could say. 'I was injured by a piece of wood under thee,'³³  and she would get two hundred [zuz.],³⁴  and [still] she said [that she was injured] earlier,³⁵  [therefore] she is believed. But according to R. Johanan who says that [the dispute between the husband and the wife is] with regard to two hundred [zuz] and a maneh,³⁶  what miggo is there?³⁷  — But [he refers] to this: If one has married a woman and has not found in her virginity [and] she says. 'After thou hadst betrothed me [to thyself] I was violated and thy field has been inundated,' and he says, 'Not so, but [it happened] before I betrothed thee [to myself]'. Rabban Gamaliel and R. Eliezer say: She is believed, and R. Joshua says: We do not live from her mouth,³⁸  For [here there is] a miggo, because if she wished she could say. 'I was injured by a piece of wood under thee,' and [by saying this] she would not make herself unfit for the priesthood. and [still] she said, 'l have been violated', and [by saying this] she made herself unfit for the priesthood; therefore Rabban Gamaliel said that she is believed. And R. Joshua said to Rabban Gamaliel: With regard to this miggo here,³⁹  I agree with you, but with regard to that miggo there,⁴⁰  I differ from you. Now, this is a miggo and that is a miggo, what difference is there between this miggo and that miggo.? Here⁴¹  there is no slaughtered ox before you, there⁴²  there is a slaughtered ox before you.⁴³

But since most women get married as virgins.⁴⁴  [even] if no witnesses came,⁴⁵  what of it?⁴⁶  — Rabina said: Because one can say:⁴⁷  most women marry as maidens and a minority as widows. And whenever a maiden gets married, it is spoken about,⁴⁸

1. I.e., if that person had been silent the other man would not have known that the field ever belonged to his father. We have, therefore, to believe both his statements.
2. The field.
3. Of the decision given in our Mishnah that the kethubah of the woman is two hundred zuz.
4. That she went out on her wedding day with the hinuma and uncovered head.
5. Lit., 'we have learnt without definition.'
6. V. supra 12b.
7. That she is believed.
8. There (in the Mishnah 22b) the husband cannot be 'sure' with regard to his statement, while the wife can be sure. V. Rashi.
9. In our Mishnah.
10. The husband and the wife.
11. Lit., 'in sure and sure'.
12. Rabban Gamaliel.
13. That the wife is believed. The wife is not believed more than the husband.
14. The answer is so obvious.
15. The case in our Mishnah.
16. The statement of the wife is more 'sure' than that of her husband. And therefore you might say that she is believed even when there are no witnesses that she went out with a hinuma' and her head uncovered. And as this is, apparently, not the view of our Mishnah, the questioner raised his question.
17. That Rabban Gamaliel would admit that, if there were no witnesses that she went out with a hinuma' and her head uncovered, the husband would be believed (Rashi).
18. V. second clause of our Mishnah.
19. Lit., 'Rabban Gamaliel treats of "he admits".' I.e., It is well, if it is assumed that Rabban Gamaliel admits that, in the absence of witnesses, (v. n. 13) the husband is believed, since it is a case of 'sure' and 'sure'; in which case the author of the first clause of the Mishnah is Rabban Gamaliel, who while differing from R. Joshua in a case of 'sure' and 'perhaps' (as in the Mishnah on 12b), agrees here with R. Joshua, since it is a case of 'sure' and 'sure'. And, therefore, it is said in the second clause of the Mishnah 'AND R. JOSHUA ADMITS,' namely In the first clause of the Mishnah Rabban Gamaliel admits to R. Joshua. and in the second clause R. Joshua admits to Rabban Gamaliel (Rashi).
20. V. n. 15.
21. To what do the words 'AND R. JOSHUA ADMITS' refer, seeing that no mention is made previously in the Mishnah of any dispute.
22. I.e., to the first clause in the first Mishnah of this Chapter.
23. I.e., the controversy regarding miggo v. supra p. 67. n. 8.
24. Lit., 'he refers to miggo and he refers to the first chapter'.
25. I. e., to which ease does he refer?
26. V. supra 13a, second Mishnah, second clause.
27. Lit., 'there'.
28. She could not say that she had no intercourse! What other statement could she have made which would have been more to her advantage?
29. V. supra 13a. second Mishnah, first clause.
30. She could not say that she had no intercourse since there is evidence to the contrary! What other statement could she have made which would have been more to her advantage?
31. V. infra 13a, first Mishnah.
32. v. Supra 13a.
33. Since our betrothal. In which ease she is entitled to two hundred zuz.
34. V. supra p. 69.
35. That is, before the betrothal and thus claims only a maneh.
36. V. supra p. 68. And she would get two hundred (zuz) if she was injured by a piece of wood, whether she was injured before or after the betrothal.
37. V. preceding note.
38. V. supra 12b.
39. The second clause of our Mishnah. The man could have been silent, therefore we believe also his second statement.
40. In the Mishnah 22b.
41. In the second clause of our Mishnah.
42. In the Mishnah 12b.
43. The phrase 'there is a slaughtered ox before you' means, there is a fact which cannot be wiped out or denied. This applies to the Mishnah 12b. The virginity is not there. This fact remains. According to R. Joshua in such a case a miggo is of no avail. But in our Mishnah the other person would not have known that the field once belonged to his father if the present holder had not told him so. This is meant by the phrase, 'There is no slaughtered ox before you.' There is no fact here if the holder of the field had not stated it. In such a case a miggo is applied, because we assume that the holder of the field would not have said it if he had not bought the field from the other man's father.
44. Reverting to the argument at the beginning of this folio.
45. That she went out with a hinuma and uncovered head.
46. She should be regarded as having belonged to the majority and therefore having been a virgin at her marriage, so that her kethubah would be two hundred (zuz).
47. Lit., 'there is to say'.
48. Lit., 'she has a voice.' A girl's marriage is much more spoken about than a widow's marriage. A girl's marriage is also much more festive and much more public.

and since this one was not spoken about,¹  [the presumption that she belonged to] the majority has become shaken. — But if [you maintain that] whenever a maiden gets married it is spoken about, [then even] when witnesses come,²  what of it?³  They are false witnesses!⁴  — But, said Rabina: most marriages of maidens are spoken about,⁵  and [in the case of] this one, since it was not spoken about, [the presumption that she — the bride — belonged to] the majority has been shaken.⁶

IF THERE ARE WITNESSES THAT SHE WENT OUT WITH A HINUMA, etc. Should we not be afraid that perhaps she might produce witnesses before this court and get [her kethubah] paid and [later] she might produce the written document [of the kethubah] before another court and get [her kethubah] paid [a second time] by that [document]? — R. Abbahu said: This teaches [that] one writes a quittance.⁷  R. Papa said:⁸  It speaks of a place in which one does not write a kethubah document.⁹

Some refer¹⁰  this¹¹  to the [following] Baraitha: If she lost her kethubah document, or she hid it, or it was burnt, [then the matter is as follows:] if they danced before her, played before her, passed before her the cup of [glad] tidings,¹²  or the cloth of virginity¹³  [and] if she has witnesses with regard to one of these [things],¹⁴  her kethubah is two hundred [zuz]. Now should we not be afraid that perhaps she might produce witnesses before this court and get [her kethubah] paid and [later] she might produce the written document before another court and get [her kethubah] paid [a second time] by that document? — R. Abbahu said: This teaches [that] one writes a quittance. R. Papa said: It speaks of a place in which one does not write a kethubah document. But does it not say '[if] she lost her kethubah document'?¹⁵  — [It so happened] that he wrote her [one]. But may she not after all produce it and get [her kethubah] paid [a second time] with it! The meaning of 'she lost [it]' is 'she lost [it] in fire.'¹⁶  If so, it is the same as 'it was burnt!' And then, what can you say with regard to 'she hid [it]?'¹⁷  And furthermore, why [mention] 'she lost [it]'?¹⁸  — But [this is what the Baraitha means]: if she lost it, it is as if she had hidden it before us, and we do not give her [the kethubah money] until witnesses say [that] her kethubah document has been burnt.¹⁹  He who refers this²⁰  to the Baraitha, all the more [does he refer it] to the Mishnah. But he who refers this to our Mishnah [does] not [refer it] to the Baraitha, because of the difficulty.²¹

IF THERE ARE WITNESSES, etc. Should we not be afraid that perhaps she might produce witnesses of hinuma before this court and get [her kethubah] paid and [later] she might produce [other] witnesses of hinuma before another court and get [her kethubah] paid [a second time]? — Where it is not possible otherwise,²²  we certainly write a quittance. [It is said above in the Baraitha]: '[If] they passed before her the cup of [glad] tidings.'²³  What is the cup of [glad] tidings? R. Adda the son of Ahaba said: One passes before her a cup of wine of Terumah,²⁴  as if to say. 'This one is worthy of eating Terumah.'²⁵  R. Papa demurred to this: Does not a widow eat Terumah?²⁶  But, said R. Papa [as if to say] 'This one is "first"27 as Terumah is "first".'²⁸  It has been taught: R. Judah says: One passes before her a cask of wine. R. Adda the son of Ahaba said: [If she was] a virgin one passes before her a closed one, [and if] she has had intercourse with a man one passes before her an open one. Why? Let us pass [a cask of wine] before a virgin and let us not pass [a cask of wine] at all before one who had intercourse? — [It may happen] some times that she has seized²⁹  two hundred [so] and [then] says. 'I was a virgin and they did not pass [a cask of wine] before me because they were prevented by an accident.'³⁰  Our Rabbis taught: How does one dance³¹  before the bride? Beth Shammai say:

1. If this had been known as a maiden's marriage it would have been made public and there would have been people to come forward and give evidence that she went out with a hinuma and her head uncovered.
2. And say that she went out with a hinuma and uncovered head.
3. Since this marriage was not spoken about, one should say that she was not married as a maiden.
4. Since other people knew nothing about it.
5. Not 'all marriages of maidens'.
6. Therefore, the presence or absence of witnesses makes all the difference.
7. [And the husband produces a quittance that he paid her the kethubah, cf. B.B. 171b.]
8. [He holds that no quittance may be written for fear of putting the lender at a disadvantage in case he loses it. What they do on payment is to tear up the bond without which the creditor cannot claim his debt.]
9. [And the woman collects her dues in the court since it is a condition enjoined by the court, v. infra 51a.]
10. Lit., 'teach'.
11. The controversy of R. Abbahu and R. Papa.
12. [H], v. infra.
13. On the day of her marriage.
14. Which are only done at the marriage of a virgin.
15. And this shows that a kethubah document was written.
16. And she cannot produce it any more.
17. If she hid it, she can produce it.
18. As 'she lost (it)' is mentioned separately, it cannot mean 'in fire'.
19. This means that if 'she lost' it or 'she hid' it. she does not get the kethubah money unless she finds the document and produces it. If she says 'it was burnt,' she must produce witnesses that it was burnt. This answer is indeed unsatisfactory.
20. The controversy of R. Abbahu and R. Papa.
21. V. supra note 10.
22. [In a place where no kethubah is written, and the woman collects her dues at the court by means of witnesses, and there is the possibility for her to produce two sets of witnesses before two different courts and collect ber kethubah twice.]
23. [H] v. Krauss T.A. II, p. 459. In J. Keth II, 1, [H] 'a barrel of glad tidings' is mentioned.
24. V. Glos.
25. That is, she is unblemished and fit to marry a priest.
26. A widow may also marry a priest.
27. I. e., she is a virgin and for the first time dedicated to married life.
28. Terumah is called 'first', cf. Num. XV, 20, 21; Deut. XVIII, 4.
29. If she is in possession of the two hundred zuz the onus probandi is on the other party.
30. Rashi says: They were intoxicated from the wine which they drank at the wedding, and the other party could not bring evidence to disprove her statements. But now that a cask of wine has to be passed also before one who was not a virgin, witnesses will be available to testify that in the latter case an open cask was passed before her.
31. What does one sing or recite?