Ketoubot 12a — Talmud de Babylone

▶ 📖 Mishna Rabba said: That is to say, if one married a woman with the presumptive status of a virgin, as there were witnesses that…

Rabba said: That is to say, if one married a woman with the presumptive status of a virgin, as there were witnesses that she did not engage in intercourse, and she was found to be a non-virgin, she is entitled to a marriage contract of one hundred dinars. The Gemara rejects the proof. Rav Ashi said: In general, actually, I would say to you that in that case she does not receive a marriage contract at all, as it is a mistaken transaction. But here it is different, and she does not totally lose her marriage contract, because the first husband brought her into his house. Therefore, the second husband should have considered that a woman who entered her husband’s home is no longer a virgin. The Gemara asks: And since there are witnesses that she did not engage in intercourse with the first husband, let us be concerned that perhaps she committed adultery after betrothal, while under the jurisdiction of the second husband, and rule that she is forbidden to him due to suspicion of adultery and is not entitled to a marriage contract at all. Rav Sherevya said: The baraita is referring to a case where he betrothed her and engaged in intercourse immediately. Therefore, there was no opportunity to engage in adultery between her betrothal and her marriage to the second husband. Others taught this statement of Rabba with regard to the mishna: Concerning a virgin who is a widow, a divorcée, or a ḥalutza who achieved that status from a state of marriage, for all these women their marriage contract is one hundred dinars, and they are not subject to a claim concerning their virginity. The Gemara asks: How can you find a virgin from a state of marriage? It is in a case where she entered the wedding canopy and did not engage in intercourse. Rabba said: That is to say, if one married a woman with the presumptive status of a virgin and she was found to be a non-virgin, her marriage contract is one hundred dinars. The Gemara rejects the proof. Rav Ashi said: In general, actually, I would say to you that in general, she does not receive a marriage contract at all, as it is a mistaken transaction. But here it is different, and she does not totally lose her marriage contract, because she entered the wedding canopy. Therefore, the second husband should have considered that a woman who entered her husband’s home is no longer a virgin. The Gemara asks: And let us be concerned that perhaps she committed adultery after betrothal, while under the jurisdiction of the second husband. Rav Sherevya said: The baraita is referring to a case where he betrothed her and engaged in intercourse immediately. Therefore, there was no opportunity to engage in adultery between her betrothal and her marriage to the second husband. The Gemara notes: The one who taught the exchange between Rabba and Rav Ashi with regard to the baraita, where there is explicit testimony that she did not engage in intercourse with the first husband and nevertheless no proof can be brought that if he discovers that she is not a virgin she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars, all the more so would he say that the same is true with regard to the mishna. And the one who taught the exchange with regard to the mishna, however, would not say the same with regard to the baraita, due to the fact that the husband could say to her: I relied on witnesses. Therefore, proof can be brought from the baraita that if he discovered that she is not a virgin, she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars. A man who eats at the house of his father-in-law in Judea after betrothal and without witnesses to attest to the fact that he was not alone with his betrothed is unable to make a claim concerning virginity after marriage because in accordance with the custom in Judea, the assumption is that he secluded himself with her, and the concern is that it was he who engaged in intercourse with her.

▶ 💬 Guemara The Gemara infers: From the fact that the mishna teaches the halakha employing the phrase: A man who eats, by inference …

The Gemara infers: From the fact that the mishna teaches the halakha employing the phrase: A man who eats, by inference one may conclude that there is also a place in Judea where the groom does not eat at the house of his father-in-law, and does not enter into seclusion with his betrothed. Abaye said: Conclude from it that in Judea too there are different places with different customs, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda said: In Judea, at first they would seclude the groom and bride together for a brief period before their entry into the wedding canopy, so that he would grow accustomed to her companionship in order to ease the awkwardness when they would consummate the marriage. And in the Galilee they did not do so. The baraita continues. In Judea, at first they would appoint for them two groomsmen [shushvinin], one for him and one for her, in order to examine the groom and the bride at the time of their entry into the wedding canopy and thereafter, to ensure that neither would engage in deception with regard to the presence or absence of blood from the rupture of the hymen. And in the Galilee they would not do so. As the custom of appointing groomsmen would be relevant only in a case where the groom and the bride had not been together in seclusion prior to marriage, this is apparently a custom in Judea different from the first custom cited in the mishna, where they would enter into seclusion prior to marriage. The baraita continues. In Judea, at first the groomsmen would sleep in the house in which the groom and bride sleep, in order to examine the sheet on which the marriage was consummated immediately following intercourse. This was in order to ensure that the groom would not attempt to obscure the blood of the rupture of the hymen and claim that the bride was not a virgin. And in the Galilee they would not do so. The baraita concludes: And anyone who did not conduct himself in accordance with this custom cannot make a claim concerning virginity against the bride. The Gemara asks: Concerning which case in the baraita was this principle stated? If we say it is concerning the first clause of the baraita, regarding the custom to seclude the couple prior to marriage, in that case, the phrase: Anyone who conducted himself in accordance with this custom cannot make a claim concerning virginity, is what it needed to say, due to the concern that perhaps they had sexual relations before the marriage. Rather, it is concerning the latter clause of the baraita: They would appoint for them two groomsmen to examine them, that the principle was stated. In that case, the phrase: Anyone who was not examined by the groomsmen, is what it needed to say, as it is dependent on the family of the bride, and not the phrase: Anyone who did not conduct himself in accordance with this custom, which indicates that it depends on him. Abaye said: Actually, the principle is stated concerning the first clause; and emend the baraita and teach: Anyone who conducted himself in accordance with this custom. Rava said to him: But isn’t it teaching explicitly: Anyone who did not conduct himself in accordance with this custom? One should not corrupt a baraita due to a difficulty that arose in understanding it. Rather, Rava said that this is what the baraita is saying: Anyone who did not practice the custom of the Galilee in the Galilee, but instead observed the custom of Judea in the Galilee, cannot make a claim concerning virginity against the bride. Rav Ashi said: Actually, this principle could be applied concerning the latter clause, and teach: Anyone who was not examined. When it said in the baraita: Anyone who did not conduct himself in accordance with this custom, it is referring to the custom of being examined. MISHNA: For both a widow who is an Israelite woman and a widow who is the daughter of priests, her marriage contract is one hundred dinars. A court of priests would collect a marriage contract of four hundred dinars for a virgin daughter of a priest, twice the sum of the standard marriage contract for a virgin, and the Sages did not reprimand them. GEMARA: A Sage taught in a baraita: And for a widow who is the daughter of priests, her marriage contract is two hundred dinars. The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: For both a widow who is an Israelite woman and a widow who is the daughter of priests, their marriage contract is one hundred dinars? Rav Ashi said: There were two ordinances instituted: Initially, the court of priests instituted for a virgin daughter of a priest a marriage contract of four hundred dinars, and for a widow, a marriage contract of one hundred dinars.

▶ 🇫🇷 Résumé en français La Guemara en déduit : Du fait que la mishna enseigne la halakha en employant l’expression : Un homme qui mange, par déd…

La Guemara en déduit : Du fait que la mishna enseigne la halakha en employant l’expression : Un homme qui mange, par déduction on peut conclure qu’il existe aussi un endroit en Judée où le marié ne mange pas chez son beau-père, et n’entre pas en isolement avec sa fiancée. Abaye dit : Conclus-en qu’en Judée aussi il y a différents lieux avec des coutumes différentes, comme il est enseigné dans une baraita que Rabbi Yehuda dit : En Judée, au début, ils isoleraient le marié et la mariée ensemble pour un bref moment avant leur entrée sous le dais nuptial, afin qu’il s’habitue à elle pour faciliter la gêne lors de la consommation du mariage. Et en Galilée, ils ne faisaient pas ainsi. La baraita continue. En Judée, au début, ils désignaient pour eux deux garçons d’honneur [shushvinin], un pour lui et un pour elle, afin d’examiner le marié et la mariée au moment de leur entrée sous le dais nuptial et ensuite, pour s’assurer que ni l’un ni l’autre ne tenterait de tromper quant à la présence ou l’absence de sang de la rupture de l’hymen. Et en Galilée, ils ne faisaient pas ainsi. Comme la coutume de désigner des garçons d’honneur ne serait pertinente que dans un cas où le marié et la mariée n’avaient pas été ensemble en isolement avant le mariage, cela semble être une coutume en Judée différente de la première coutume citée dans la mishna, où ils entraient en isolement avant le mariage. La baraita continue. En Judée, au début, les garçons d’honneur dormaient dans la maison où le marié et la mariée dormaient, afin d’examiner le drap sur lequel le mariage avait été consommé immédiatement après les rapports. Cela afin de s’assurer que le marié ne tenterait pas de dissimuler le sang de la rupture de l’hymen et de prétendre que la mariée n’était pas vierge. Et en Galilée, ils ne faisaient pas ainsi. La baraita conclut : Et quiconque n’agissait pas conformément à cette coutume ne peut pas formuler de réclamation concernant la virginité contre la mariée. La Guemara demande : Concernant quel cas dans la baraita ce principe a-t-il été énoncé ? Si nous disons que c’est concernant la première clause de la baraita, à propos de la coutume d’isoler le couple avant le mariage, dans ce cas, l’expression : Quiconque agissait conformément à cette coutume ne peut pas formuler de réclamation concernant la virginité, est ce qu’il aurait fallu dire, en raison de la préoccupation qu’ils aient peut-être eu des relations sexuelles avant le mariage. Plutôt, c’est concernant la dernière clause de la baraita : Ils désignaient pour eux deux garçons d’honneur pour les examiner, que le principe a été énoncé. Dans ce cas, l’expression : Quiconque n’était pas examiné par les garçons d’honneur, est ce qu’il aurait fallu dire, car cela dépend de la famille de la mariée, et non l’expression : Quiconque n’agissait pas conformément à cette coutume, qui indique que cela dépend de lui. Abaye dit : En réalité, le principe est énoncé concernant la première clause ; et corrige la baraita et enseigne : Quiconque agissait conformément à cette coutume. Rava lui dit : Mais n’est-ce pas enseigné explicitement : Quiconque n’agissait pas conformément à cette coutume ? On ne doit pas corrompre une baraita en raison d’une difficulté survenue dans sa compréhension. Plutôt, Rava dit que voici ce que la baraita dit : Quiconque ne pratiquait pas la coutume de la Galilée en Galilée, mais observait plutôt la coutume de la Judée en Galilée, ne peut pas formuler de réclamation concernant la virginité contre la mariée. Rav Ashi dit : En réalité, ce principe pourrait s’appliquer concernant la dernière clause, et enseigne : Quiconque n’était pas examiné. Quand la baraita dit : Quiconque n’agissait pas conformément à cette coutume, elle fait référence à la coutume d’être examiné. MISHNA : Pour aussi bien une veuve qui est une femme israélite qu’une veuve qui est la fille de prêtres, son contrat de mariage est de cent dinars. Un tribunal de prêtres percevait un contrat de mariage de quatre cents dinars pour une vierge fille de prêtre, le double de la somme du contrat de mariage standard pour une vierge, et les Sages ne les ont pas réprimandés. GUEMARA : Un Sage a enseigné dans une baraita : Et pour une veuve qui est la fille de prêtres, son contrat de mariage est de deux cents dinars. La Guemara demande : Mais n’avons-nous pas appris dans la mishna : Pour aussi bien une veuve qui est une femme israélite qu’une veuve qui est la fille de prêtres, leur contrat de mariage est de cent dinars ? Rav Ashi dit : Il y avait deux ordonnances instituées : Initialement, le tribunal de prêtres institua pour une vierge fille de prêtre un contrat de mariage de quatre cents dinars, et pour une veuve, un contrat de mariage de cent dinars.

📜 Ketoubot — 12a

📋 Références bibliques — Ketoubot 12a

✜️ Votre éternité se joue maintenant