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