Ketubot 25 – Who is a Kohen?

The previous argument about collusion, where Kohanim were mentioned only incidentally, leads to a full-blown discussion of who is a Kohen.

Rabbi Yehudah, who required two witnesses, has a reason for this. Suppose he sees a man eating the Kohen's portion (terumah). In that case, he will presume that this is a genealogically pure Kohen and permit him to marry without further investigation. Thus, if we were to allow one witness to testify about a Kohen regarding terumah, this would automatically count as evidence for family matters, which cannot be because two witnesses are required in all family matters. The other point of view is that eating terumah does not mean that he is a pure Kohen; thus, we can accept one witness for this.

A man told Resh Lakish about another man: "I know that he is a Kohen because he was always called first to read from the Torah." Resh Lakish answered, "Did you also see him receive terumah?" Rabbi Elazar objected, "And if there were no granaries there, you would not have any Kohanim," but Resh Lakish did not accept it.

Later, Resh Lakish heard this from his own teacher, Rabbi Yochanan. He was cross with Rabbi Elazar: "Had you told me it was from Rabbi Yochanan, I would have believed you right away!"

Art: The White Granary by Edward Wilkins Waite

Ketubot 24 – Collusion

A similar case to two women testifying about each other is where two Kohanim are testifying that they are indeed Kohanim. If one says, "I am a Kohen," and the other says, "I am a Kohen," – we do not believe him. But if they testify about each other, they are accepted.

However, Rabbi Yehudah disagrees: we should never establish a person as a Kohen (to allow him to eat Kohen's portion) through the words of one witness, especially here, where they may have colluded to testify for each other.

But is it true that Rabbi Yehudah suspects collusion? Didn't we learn this case: if two vendors of produce come to a town, and one of them says, "My produce is not properly tithed, however, his produce is" – we do not believe his testimony because we suspect that in the next town they will say the reverse, and this is a ploy to inspire credibility, and here Rabbi Yehudah permits to buy their produce. But he should suspect them and forbid it!

Explained Rav Adda bar Ahavah, "Someone has learned this ruling about vendors wrong. He exchanged his opinion. Exchange them back, and Rabbi Yehudah is the one who suspects collusion."

Abaye said, "No need to exchange opinions! Rather, here it is different because vendors are selling doubtful tithes, "d'mai," and this is not such a strict prohibition, so Rabbi Yehudah believes them anyway. Then how do the Sages disbelieve? – They say that if he has his wares, weights, and scales, it is evident that he denigrates his produce only because of collusion.

Art: Fruit and Vegetable Stall by Frans Snyders

Ketubot 23 – Captured woman

Once some women were captured by idolaters and brought to Nahardea to be ransomed. Their father, Shmuel, placed guards over them so that they would not be violated by their captors. Shmuel said to his father, "And until now, who guarded them?" This was logical but not according to human dignity, so the father of Shmuel remarked, "And if these were your daughters, would you treat them as lightly?"

Occasional remarks by a righteous may take effect, and later the daughters of Shmuel were indeed captured. The captors brought them to Israel for ransom. The knowledgeable women left their captors outside and entered the court of Rav Chanina. Each of them declared, "I was captured but am pure." According to the previously stated rule that "the mouth that forbids is the mouth that permits," they were believed. When their captors entered afterward, it made no difference.

Rav Chanina said, "These are children of a legal master," and indeed, it was found that they were Shmuel's daughters.

If two women were captured by idolaters, but unlike in the case before, there were witnesses to their capture, and each of them said, "I was captured, but I am sure," – she is not believed because we know about her capture independently, and not only from her words. However, if each testifies about the other that she is pure, they are believed.

Art: The Capture by Franz Roubaud

Ketubot 22 – I was married, but I am divorced now

A woman lived in the city, and everybody presumed she was single. Then she states: “Actually, I was married but divorced." She is believed and does not need to present the divorce letter, "Get." Why? Does not she render herself prohibited to the whole world with the first statement? – No, because we apply the principle of "the mouth that prohibits is the mouth that permits." In other words, we only know that she was married on her own terms. Now that she says that she is divorced, we believe that also.

A similar example: a woman who says, "I was abducted by idolaters, but I am pure," is believed and can get married to a Kohen – even though usually any woman who had relations with an idolater cannot marry a Kohen any longer. If we only know about her capture from her, we believe her other statement. If, however, there was a witness to her being captured, she must bring more decisive proof.

Compare this to a case where a woman says that she was married and then – that she was never married. Now she is not believed. Why not? Because, unlike the first case, her second statement contradicts the first. She must give a plausible explanation. For example, a charming woman used to say that she was engaged, but then she got engaged to one of her new suitors. She explained that previously unfit people used to woe her, and to get rid of them, she claimed that she was already engaged and that now a proper person came. She was believed.

Art: The Abduction of Helen by Guido Reni

Ketubot 12 – What they did in Judea

In Judea, people had the custom of celebrating the engagement with a big meal in the bride's father's house. Often the groom was left alone with the bride. This was done for him to become familiar with her. Another reason: ruling princes used to claim the right of the first night. If the bride was familiar with her groom, she would not submit willingly, and a woman who is violated is still permitted to her husband. However, because of the possibility of them cohabiting before the chuppah, in Judea, the groom could not claim "not finding signs of virginity" in his wife and thus could not deprive her of the full amount of the Ketubah obligation based on this claim.

So far, we have never considered what the bride replies to the groom's claims. Let's look at this situation: the groom says he did not find her a virgin. She explains that true, she was not, but that was because she was violated while being engaged to him, and thus he still owes her the amount of Ketubah if she becomes divorced or widowed, and this is a case of "your (buyer's) field became inundated," so it is his loss. He says that perhaps it is not so, but instead, she was not a virgin when she got engaged to him, so his marriage to her was a "mistaken buy," and he does not owe the amount of Ketubah.

Rabban Gamliel says that she is believed. Why? Because her definite claim wins against his claim of "perhaps." Even though his argument is bolstered by the fact that the money is now in his possession - she has the right to the complete Ketubah.

Art: Difficult Bride by Pavel Andreevich Fedotov

Ketubot 11 – How much a husband owes to his wife

The marriage contract, called Ketubah, obligates the husband to pay his wife 200 zuz upon their divorce or his death. How much is that? The calculation is based on the silver contents of a zuz, subject to the discussion of whether by zuz we mean a pure silver coin or one mixed with seven parts of copper. This amount is estimated today at 100 pounds of silver, or about $25,000. This is roughly the amount one can live on for a year.

However, this amount applies only to a virgin who has never been married. If a woman has been engaged and not married but divorced or widowed, her Ketubah is still 200 zuz, and here too, the husband can raise a “claim of virginity.” If she is found not to be a virgin, his marriage is considered an acquisition made by mistake, and she loses all or some of the amount.

A woman who has been in marriage – her Ketubah is 100 zuz. In addition to this amount, the husband may, and often does, promise a much more significant sum. This is called the “additional amount of the Ketubah.”

Art: Head of a Dead Young Man by Theodore Gericault

Ketubot 10 – Claims of "not a virgin" and their results

A particular groom appeared before Rav Nachman, claiming an "open entrance." Rav Nachman told his attendants to give the man lashes with palm branches because "the prostitutes of the city of Mevarechta must be lying in front of him" for him to know whether his wife was a virgin with such certainty.

But it was Rav Nachman himself who said that the man is believed!? – Yes, he is believed, but he is flogged for his past promiscuous behavior. Others say there is no contradiction: a widower would be believed with such a claim, and a bachelor would not.

Another groom came to Rabban Gamliel, Rabbi Yehudah the Prince's son, claiming that he did not find blood. Rabban Gamliel examined the cloth he wiped himself with and, after washing, found blood there. Yet another groom came to Rabbi Yehudah and claimed that he did not find blood, while his wife claimed that she was a virgin at the time of marriage. Rabbi Yehudah saw that their faces were dark from malnutrition, so he commanded his servants to take them into a bathhouse to be bathed, make a feast for them, and bring them into a room. They now found blood, and Rabbi Yehudah congratulated them. He applied to them a phrase from Lamentations, "their skin cleaved to their bones and became dry as wood."

Art: Bath Houses by William Glackens

Ketubot 9 – Claims of "not a virgin"

If the husband claims "I found an open opening" - that is, he felt that his wife was not a virgin, then he may not be believed as far as the girl is concerned, but he is believed to impose a restriction on himself, and he now cannot live with her. This is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar. Others say he would not be believed even for himself since his feelings are subjective.

But according to Rabbi Elazar, even if we believe the husband's feelings, what evidence is there that she was unfaithful to him while being engaged? Perhaps this happened before engagement, and even if not, maybe she is from a family where women do not have significant hymen? – Rabbi Elazar's rules apply only in the case where one betrothed a girl when she was younger than three and married her when she grew up.

Shmuel says that the husband is believed to the point that her Ketubah (marriage obligation paid in case of divorce) is void, and he does not have to pay it. But why would he be believed? Perhaps he is just trying to get out of his obligation? – Shmuel will reply that one would not trouble himself to make a wedding feast, only to lose her the next day.

Art: The Hesitant Betrothed by Auguste Toulmouche

Ketubot 8 – The seven blessings

Every day of the seven days of the marriage celebration, they recite seven blessings for the bride and groom. First is the blessing on the wine. Then, "Blessed is the One who created everything for His glory." Just as God acted as the best friend at Adam and Eve's wedding, those assembled at the wedding also emulate God.

Then, "Who created man" (at first alone), and "Who made a man in His image, and built – hint to a woman -- a building for eternity" – since with a woman there is a continuous cycle of births and weddings.

Then, "the barren one should rejoice" – This is Jerusalem, whose needs are to be remembered, especially in the happy moments. Then "Please gladden the hearts of the bride and groom just as You gladdened Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden."

And then, "Blessed are You, God, our Lord, King of the universe, who created joy and gladness, groom and bride, mirth, song, pleasure, delight, love, brotherhood, peace, and companionship. May there be heard in the cities of Judah and in the city of Jerusalem sounds of joy and gladness, voices of groom and bride. Blessed are You Who gladdens a groom with the bride" – referring to the man's joy with his wife.

Art: Artist and His Bride by Marc Chagall

Ketubot 7 – Blessing at the wedding

A marriage is a mitzvah that requires the following blessing to be said: Blessed are You, God our Lord, King of the universe, who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us regarding not violating forbidden unions; Who forbade us to even stay alone with our bride before we are married, and Who permitted us those women who are married to us – but through proper chuppah, which is preceded by engagement.

And then it concludes, just like a Kiddush – Blessed are You, God, Who sanctified Israel with chuppah and engagement.

Art: The Engagement Ring by John Shirley Fox

Ketubot 6 – Virgin on Shabbat

Shmuel holds that one may not cohabit with his virgin bride on Shabbat. How does this agree with other rules in the Talmud?

For example, the well-known first rules at the beginning of the Talmud talk about reading the Shema prayer at night. There we mentioned that a bridegroom is exempt from saying Shema – because he is worried about upcoming cohabitation with his bride, being unsure if he will succeed in rupturing her hymen and complete the act of cohabitation – and this exemption lasts until the end of Shabbat. This must prove that cohabitation with his bride is permitted on Shabbat, contrary to what Shmuel has said!?

Abaye answered that the groom is worried that he did not complete the cohabitation the previous night, which upsets him to the point that he can't say the Shema. However, if so, even if his ship is drowning in the sea, he should likewise not say the Shema – and this is not true. We know that even if one is a mourner and thus is aggravated, he only skips the tefillin but still says the Shema.

Rava defended differently: there are two versions of the earlier Shema ruling, and in one of them, he says the Shema on Friday night, while in another, he does not. Thus, Shmuel has at least one source to rely upon – one which permits the reading of Shema – because cohabitation on Shabbat is prohibited, and he has nothing to worry about. The Talmud then discusses methods of penetration that leave the hymen intact and how this relates to the guarding of the bridal sheets.

Art: The Bridegroom's Health by Otto Erdmann

Ketubot 5 – First cohabitation with a virgin

As mentioned before, virgins used to marry on a Wednesday – among other reasons, so that the first cohabitation with her would take place on Wednesday night, when the fish were created, who were blessed to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters of the sea.”

If the husband did not get a chance to do it before Shabbat, can the first cohabitation take place then? Is the blood produced by rupturing the hymen – is it considered as previously collected (which would be allowed) and is now simply released, or is it considered a wound (and thus prohibited on Shabbat)? And even if you say that the blood is considered just released – is he interested in the blood to establish her virginity, or is he preparing an opening for future cohabitations (thus making something into a vessel, which would be prohibited)? And finally, if you again take the lenient approach that he needs the blood, and the opening just happens by itself, is the law like Rabbi Shimon, that unintentional consequences are permitted, or like Rabbi Yehudah, who prohibits it?

In the academy of Rav, it was taught that Rav permits it, while Shmuel prohibits it; it came out that they followed the ruling of Rav with a benefit to themselves and allowed it. In the academy of Shmuel, they taught the opposite: that Shmuel permits it, while Rav prohibits it. Again, since they follow Shmuel, it turned out to be a lenient opinion for them.

Art: Marriage Contract by Jan Steen

Ketubot 4 – Death in the family of newlyweds

As we mentioned before, if a parent of either the groom or the bride dies, they can still go ahead with the wedding. This is in the case that postponing the marriage will lead to the loss of the prepared feast. They put the dead aside for a while, make a wedding, and afterward bury him and observe the seven days of mourning.

However, this applies only if the groom's father or the bride's mother died, but not in the case of any other relative. Why? – In those times, it was customary for the groom's father to prepare the wedding feast and for the bride's mother to provide her with adornments. So there would be no one to assist them otherwise.

After he consummates the marriage, the husband separates from his wife for the seven days of the wedding and for the following seven days of mourning and sleeps among men. This is because, after all, the groom is a mourner right after burial. A mourner is forbidden to be intimate with his wife. Thus, although he observes the seven days of celebration externally, he refrains from intimacy as a mourner in private. And even sleeping in separate quarters applies only if he was prevented from consummating the marriage – because then he may be overcome by desire and violate the rules. If he has already been intimate with his wife once, he can be trusted to control himself.

Art: A Wedding Feast by Pieter The Younger Brueghel

Ketubot 3 – A parent dies before the wedding

Earlier, we mentioned that if the groom delays the wedding, the obligation to support his wife already devolves on him – unless it is delayed due to an unforeseen circumstance. By contrast, with divorces (Get), we do not pay attention to any unforeseen circumstances. For example, there was a case where the husband gave his wife a Get on the condition that he did not come back within a year. On the last day, he was coming but was delayed by the river. Even though he cried from the other side of it, “See, I came back!” – the divorce had already taken place. Why did the Sages establish this rule? – To help modest women, who would be still waiting for their husbands, saying that perhaps he did not fulfill the condition of the divorce due to an unforeseen circumstance; and also to stop the immodest ones who would get married by saying that the husband gave her a valid divorce, when in fact we were prevented from returning.

A law about marrying only on Wednesdays does not apply today. Even back when it did, people might be prevented by an unavoidable circumstance and get married earlier, such as Monday. What unavoidable circumstance could that be? Imagine that the mother of the bride or the father of the groom dies just before the wedding – and the feast is already prepared. In that case, they do not delay the wedding but rather delay the burial. All the time the parent is not buried, his children are not considered mourners. Thus, they can proceed with the wedding, consummate the marriage, and then the groom (if it was his father who died) observes the seven days of mourning.

Art: River Landscape At Dusk, With A Huntsman Resting by Johann Christian Reinhardt

Ketubot 2 – Marriages are for Wednesdays

The custom was for people to get engaged and then take a year to prepare for a wedding. This engagement had more legal power than today: they were husband and wife, except not living together. When the time came to marry, girls for whom it was the first marriage would get married on Wednesdays. Why specifically on this day? Courts used to convene on Thursdays so that if he had any questions about his wife, he could come to court on the morrow. For example, if he had suspicions that she was unfaithful to him, judging by the fact that she was not a virgin, he could come to court and expect that the publicity caused by his actions could bring in witnesses of her unfaithfulness if such there were.

But why make a wedding on a Sunday, since the courts convened on Mondays (and Thursdays)? – Because then he would only have one day after Shabbat to prepare a wedding feast, and the Sages wanted the daughters of Israel to be respected with a celebration.

The bride lives in her father's house all the year of engagement. Once the year passes, the husband starts to supply for her needs even if the marriage is delayed. The Talmud discusses this obligation of his under various unforeseen circumstances.

Art: Wedding Procession by Gustav Brion

Yevamot 122 – Hearsay about death

If one heard women discussing that so-and-so died, he can later testify about it in court so that the wife of so-and-so can re-marry. Even the talk of minors, who are not considered legally competent, suffices for this.

But perhaps those minor children were just playing funerals and eulogies, as they are wont to do? – We mean a case when they return from a funeral and mention people who were present there.

An idolater's statement is also sufficient to testify – provided he was just relating the events without any self-interest.

Rabbi Akiva told a story: once, he had to go to Nahardea in Babylon to establish a leap year. While there, he encountered Nechemyah from Beit Deli. Nehemiah told him that, contrary to the prevailing opinion at that time, he had a tradition from Rabban Gamliel that one witness of the husband's death was enough to allow the wife to re-marry. Since the country was full of ravaging troops, he appointed Rabbi Akiva as his messenger to relate this back to Israel. When Rabban Gamliel the grandson heard it, he rejoiced because they now found corroboration for this opinion, already espoused by Rabbi Yehudah ben Bava, and the law was established – thus allowing many widows to re-marry.

Art: Children Playing with Hoops in a Street by Milly Childers

Yevamot 121 – A man fell into water

If one fell into a water reservoir, whether a small one, such that all of it can be observed, or one larger than that – he might still be saved, and his wife cannot re-marry based on this testimony alone. Rabbi Meir quotes an incident to support this ruling: a man fell into a large water cistern and emerged after three days. This proves that even in such situations, there is a possibility that the construction of a cistern or a pond will allow him to survive. Certainly, in a large body of water, he could have been saved by waves, for example, and emerged far away, out of the sight of observers.

However, Rabbi Yose and other Sages disagree. Rabbi Yose quotes a different incident and even a ruling: one blind person went into a cave to immerse himself for ritual purity but fell in. His assistant descended after him and also fell in. After the period of time that it would take for them to surely die, the court allowed their wives to re-marry, even though the bodies were never recovered.

What do the Sages answer to Rabbi Meir's incident? – They say it was a miracle anyway and cannot serve as a basis for legal rulings. Why do they call it a miracle? If it is because he did not eat for three days - Esther and the whole Jewish people fasted for three days and survived. Instead, it is because he did not sleep for three days, which is impossible. And Rabbi Meir? – He leaned upon the arches that were inside the cistern and slept. And the Sages? – The arches were of marble, and he would have slipped and fallen. And Rabbi Meir? – He would wake up before falling. Thus, each can defend his point of view.

Art: Found Drowned by George Frederick Watts

Yevamot 120 – When to testify about the husband's death

If witnesses saw a man die, and they knew and recognized him, they can testify that he died for the benefit of his wife, to permit her to re-marry. They must, however, be confident that it is indeed the right man. Therefore, they only do it if they see the dead man's head with the nose, although the eyes and the mouth need not be intact. They cannot make an identification based on the man's body or his garments.

Furthermore, they must be sure that he indeed died. For example, if they saw him suffer from a deadly wound, hanging from the gallows, or being devoured by a wild beast, they may not testify. He might have received medical help and recovered, the rope might have been cut, or the beast might stop before reaching a vital organ.

As a rule, they may also not testify if the man died more than three days ago – although there are exceptions where he can be recognized long afterward.

A story to illustrate that the face and the nose are crucial for recognition. Abba bar Marta owed money to the family of the Exilarch. He took wax, attached it to a rag, and put the rag on his forehead. He then passed in front of his creditors, who did not recognize him.

Art: Landscapes with Wild Beasts by Roelandt Jacobsz Savery