Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) A KALAH WHO IS FOUND TO BE A NON-VIRGIN

(a) (Rabah): We may infer from the Beraisa that if the Kalah claimed to be a virgin at the time of Chupah, and she is found to be a non-virgin, she receives a Kesuvah of 100.
(b) Rejection (Rav Ashi): We can say, in a normal case, she receives nothing; the case of the Beraisa is different, since she already had Chupah.
(c) Question: We should be concerned, perhaps she committed adultery after engagement!
(d) Answer (Rav Sharbiya): The case is, the Chasan had relations with her (and found that she is not a virgin) right after engagement.
(e) Another version says that all this was said on our Mishnah.
(f) (Rabah): We may infer from the Mishnah that if the Kalah claimed to be a virgin at the time of Chupah, and she is found to be a non-virgin, she receives a Kesuvah of 100.
(g) Rejection (Rav Ashi): We can say, in a normal case, she receives nothing; the case of the Mishnah is different, since she already had Chupah.
(h) Question: We should be concerned, perhaps she had relations after engagement!
(i) Answer (Rav Sharbiya): The case is, the Chasan had relations with her right after engagement.

1. The version that says that this was taught on the Beraisa, all the more so it applies to the Mishnah (Rav Ashi's response, that the Chasan *cannot* claim that he only married her because he thought she was a virgin).
2. The version that says that this was taught on the Mishnah, says that Rav Ashi's response would not apply to the Beraisa - the Chasan *could* claim that he relied on the witnesses (and only married her because he thought she was a virgin).

(a) (Mishnah): One who eats by his father-in-law (during engagement) without witnesses (that he was not in seclusion with the Kalah) cannot claim (after the Chupah) that she is not a virgin, since (we suspect) that he was in seclusion with her (and he had relations with her).
(b) (Gemara): The language 'one who eats' suggests that in some places in Yehudah, the Chasan does not eat (by his father-in-law).
(c) (Abaye): We see that the custom only applies in certain places in Yehudah.
(d) Support (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): In Yehudah, at first they would isolate the Chasan with the Kalah for a short period before the Chupah in order that he should be familiar with her; in Galil, they would not do this;
(e) In Yehudah they would prepare 2 Shushbinim (friends of the newlyweds), one for him and one for her when they had Chupah (to ensure that neither will falsify the evidence of virginal blood on the sheet); in Galil, this was not done;
(f) In Yehudah, Shushbinim used to sleep in the house with them; in Galil, no.
(g) Anyone who did not act thusly has no claim of non-virginity.
(h) Question: On which clause was this said?

1. If it was said on the first clause - it should say, anyone who *did* act thusly!
2. If it refers to the 2nd clause - it should say, anyone that was not checked!

(i) Answer#1 (Abaye): It is going on the first clause; the Beraisa should say, anyone who *did* act thusly.
(j) Objection (Rava): But the Beraisa says, anyone that did *not* act thusly!
(k) Answer#2 (Rava): The Beraisa means: anyone who did not act as the Galil custom in Galil, but rather as the Yehudah custom in Galil (i.e. he was secluded with the Kalah during engagement) has no claim of non-virginity.
(l) Answer#3 (Rav Ashi): Really, it refers to the 2nd clause; the Beraisa should say, anyone that was not checked.

(a) (Mishnah): The Kesuvah of a widow is 100, whether her father is a Kohen or Yisrael;
(b) Kohanim conducted that the Kesuvah of a virgin Kohenes is 400; Chachamim did not protest.
(c) (Gemara - Beraisa): The Kesuvah of a Kohenes widow is 200.
(d) Question: But our Mishnah says that it is 100!
(e) Answer (Rav Ashi): There were 2 enactments. First it was enacted to collect 400 for a virgin and 100 for a widow.

(f) When Chachamim saw that this caused Kohenes widows to be disgraced, they enacted that their Kesuvah should be 200.
(g) Men stopped marrying them - for the same price, one can marry a virgin Yisraelis!
(h) Chachamim returned to the initial law, that a Kohenes widow receives 100.
(i) (Rav Yehudah): Families of good lineage in Yisrael may also enact that the Kesuvah of their daughters should be larger.
(j) Question (Beraisa): One who wants to do as the Kohanim, such as a Yisraelis to a Kohen, or a Kohenes to a Yisrael may do so.

1. We observe, this is only allowed when one of the parties is a Kohen!

(k) Answer: No, the Beraisa is teaching a Chidush - not only a Yisraelis marrying a Yisrael, but even a Yisraelis marrying a Kohen, whose lineage is better than hers, the kesuvah may be increased.

(a) (Mishnah): A Chasan finds that the Kalah is not a virgin. She says that she was raped after engagement, it is his bad luck. He says, (perhaps) she had relations before the engagement, and the engagement is invalid (because he was deceived);
(b) R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer: She is believed; R. Yehoshua says she is not believed unless she can bring proof.
(c) (Gemara): Reuven: You owe me 100.
(d) Shimon: I do not know.
(e) Rav Yehudah and Rav Huna: Shimon must pay, because Reuven's certain claim is better than Shimon's doubtful claim.
(f) Rav Nachman and R. Yochanan: Shimon is exempt; when in doubt, we leave money in its status quo (i.e. we do not force him to pay).
(g) Suggestion (Abaye): Rav Yehudah and Rav Huna hold as Shmuel.

1. (Mishnah): A single girl is pregnant; she claims that the father has proper lineage. R. Gamliel and R. Eliezer say that she is believed.
2. Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel: The law is like R. Gamliel.
3. Rav Shmuel Bar Yehudah: You previously said that the law is as R. Gamliel even in our Mishnah!

i. It is a bigger Chidush that the law is as R. Gamliel in our Mishnah.
ii. We might have thought to leave the money in its status quo; nevertheless, R. Gamliel says that the certain claim wins.

(h) Suggestion: Rav Yehudah and Rav Huna hold as R. Gamliel, and Rav Nachman and R. Yochanan hold as R. Yehoshua.
(i) Rejection: Rav Nachman can hold as R. Gamliel.

1. Reason#1: R. Gamliel only said that she is believed because she has a Migo (if she was lying, she could have said a better claim, I became a Mukas Etz after engagement, and she would remain permitted to Kohanim. Since she did not claim thusly, we assume she is telling the truth.) In our case (you owe me 100), this does not apply.
2. Reason#2: R. Gamliel only said his law when we establish her in her status quo (she was born a virgin, and we assume that she was still a virgin at the time of engagement); this does not apply in our case.

(j) It stands to reason that this is correct, Rav Nachman really holds as R. Gamliel.