The words we speak#devartorah#Matot-Masai#parashathashavuah

The story is told about a man who was invited to give what was supposed to be a brief talk at a Yale University alumni gathering.  Basing his comments on the four letters that spell YALE, he began by saying that the letter Y stands for Youth-the young people who come to the university with such promise.  The A, he continued stands for Achievement-the success of the school’s graduates.  After lengthy remarks on the Y and the A, he came to the L, pointing out that it stands for Loyalty-the devotion of Yale alumni to their alma mater.  Finally he came to the E, saying that it stands for Enthusiasm-the feeling Yale graduates have about their school.  An hour and a half later the speaker sat down.  During the pause that followed, a bored guest whispered to his neighbor, “I’m sure glad he didn’t graduate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology!”

This week’s portion Mattot-Massai begins with the importance of choosing our words wisely, especially when it comes to making vows.  According to the Midrash Tanchuma “God said to Israel, ‘Be careful what you vow, and do not become addicted to making vows, for whoever is so addicted will, in the end, sin by breaking his oath…”  The rabbis taught that it is better to not vow than to vow and not fulfill the oath.

Somebody once said, “The missing ingredient in most of our talking is a little shortening.”  Let’s be careful about both the quality and the quantity of our words.  And if we make a pledge, vow, or promise, let us strive to keep it.

The words we speak#Matot-Masai#parashathashavuah#devartorah

The story is told about a man who was invited to give what was supposed to be a brief talk at a Yale University alumni gathering.  Basing his comments on the four letters that spell YALE, he began by saying that the letter Y stands for Youth-the young people who come to the university with such promise.  The A, he continued stands for Achievement-the success of the school’s graduates.  After lengthy remarks on the Y and the A, he came to the L, pointing out that it stands for Loyalty-the devotion of Yale alumni to their alma mater.  Finally he came to the E, saying that it stands for Enthusiasm-the feeling Yale graduates have about their school.  An hour and a half later the speaker sat down.  During the pause that followed, a bored guest whispered to his neighbor, “I’m sure glad he didn’t graduate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology!”

This week’s portion Mattot-Massai begins with the importance of choosing our words wisely, especially when it comes to making vows.  According to the Midrash Tanchuma “God said to Israel, ‘Be careful what you vow, and do not become addicted to making vows, for whoever is so addicted will, in the end, sin by breaking his oath…”  The rabbis taught that it is better to not vow than to vow and not fulfill the oath.

Somebody once said, “The missing ingredient in most of our talking is a little shortening.”  Let’s be careful about both the quality and the quantity of our words.  And if we make a pledge, vow, or promise, let us strive to keep it.

What exactly is the court notarizing? TB Ketubot 21

What is good analogy for kiyum shtarot (קיום שטרות) certifying the authenticity of the document? The court is notarizing the document. But what is the court actually notarizing? Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi and the Sages disagree what the court is notarizing. The discussion begins at the very bottom of TB Ketubot 20b and continues on today’s daf TB Ketubot 21.

“MISHNA: If this witness whose name is signed on a document says: This is my handwriting and this is the handwriting of my fellow witness, and that witness says: This is my handwriting and that is the handwriting of my fellow witness, these witnesses are deemed credible and the document is ratified, as together they provide testimony authenticating both signatures. If this witness says: This is my handwriting, and that witness says: This is my handwriting, and neither testifies with regard to the signature of the other, they must add another witness with them who will authenticate the signatures of the two witnesses, as otherwise, each of the witnesses would be testifying with regard to half the sum in the document; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: They need not add another witness with them. Rather, a person is deemed credible to say: This is my handwriting. The testimony of the two signatories about their own signatures is sufficient.”

“GEMARA: The Gemara says: When you analyze the reasoning for the opinions of the tanna’im, say that according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the witnesses are testifying about their handwriting and authenticating their own signatures. Therefore, if each witness testifies only with regard to his own handwriting, there is only one witness authenticating each signature. According to the Rabbis, the witnesses are testifying about the sum of one hundred dinars that is in the document and are not authenticating the signatures at all. Therefore, the testimony of the two witnesses who signed the document is sufficient to ratify the document.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s says the court is notarizing the signatures and not the content of the document. In other words, the court is acting like our modern public notary. The person notarizing the document doesn’t need to know what’s contained therein. A person signs his signature in front of public notary and he notarizes it. Since the court is certifying the signatures two witnesses are required. In the first case in the Mishna there are two witnesses testifying to the validity of each signature. In the second case only one witness is testifying on a signature. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds though one witness can double dip and authenticate his own signature and the other signature on the document as long as a third witness authenticates as well.

The Sages holds the position that the court is notarizing the content of the document. The document has already been signed by two witnesses. As long as those two witnesses come before the court and testify the signatures are theirs that is sufficient to notarize the document. However, if the court is using other means of certifying the document, then the Sages would agree with Rabbi Yehuda Hanasi that two witnesses are required to authenticate the document.

Other ways of authenticating the signatures on a document TB Ketubot 20

Up to now the Gemara has been focusing on one form of authenticating the witnesses’ signature. Sometimes the witnesses themselves will testify that this is their signature and sometimes other witnesses who recognize the first set of witnesses’ signature will testify to that fact. Today’s daf TB Ketubot 20 provides details about other means of validating a document.

“§ The Master said in the baraita cited previously: If there are other witnesses who testify that it is their handwriting, or if their handwriting emerges from another place, from a document that one challenged and that was deemed valid in court, these witnesses are not deemed credible. The Gemara infers: From a document that one challenged, yes, the signatures are authenticated and the testimony of the other witnesses is not accepted; however, if one did not challenge the document, no, the document cannot be used to authenticate their signatures. This supports the statement of Rabbi Asi, as Rabbi Asi said: One ratifies a document by authenticating the witnesses’ signatures only from a document that someone challenged and that was deemed valid in court.

“The Sages of Neharde’a say: One ratifies a document by authenticating the witnesses’ signatures only from two marriage contracts or from the bills of sale for two fields that those witnesses signed. And those bills of sale are effective only in a case where their owner ate their produce for three years, the requisite period to establish presumptive ownership of the field, and in peace, undisturbed by protest. In that case we can rely on the signatures, and the documents are considered valid.

“Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: Authentication of signatures by comparison to other documents can be accomplished specifically when the documents emerge from the possession of another. However, when the documents emerge from the possession of the litigant himself, no, they may not be used to authenticate the signatures. The Gemara asks: What is different in a case where the documents emerge from the possession of the litigant himself that they may not be used to authenticate the signatures? It is that perhaps while the documents were in his possession he learned how to copy the signatures and forged them. If so, also in a case where the documents emerge from the possession of another, perhaps he went and saw the signatures, and came back and forged them. The Gemara answers: In that case, he would not be able to accurately reproduce the signatures to that extent based on memory alone.” (Sefaria.org translation)

When comparing the signatures of two documents these qualifications must be met. First of all, the second documents signatures had to be challenged in court and verified to be accepted as authentic. Secondly, the two documents being compared must be the same as before the custom in Neharde’a. For example, the two documents must be two different ketubot or two different bills of sale. Last of all, the two documents cannot emerge from the litigant for fear of forgery. (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Sefer Shoftim (Judges), the Laws of Testimony, chapter 6, Halakha 3; Shulkhan Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat, 46:7)

Only the crooked use these types of documents TB Ketubot 19

“Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: It is prohibited for a person to keep a repaid document within his house, due to the fact that the verse states: “And let not injustice dwell in your tents” (Job 11:14). Even if he does not use the document to collect payment, the concern is that it might fall into the hands of one who will use it illegally to collect payment. In the West, in Eretz Yisrael, they say in the name of Rav: With regard to the first half of the verse: “If iniquity be in your hand, put it far away” (Job 11:14), this is referring to a document of trust and a document of security [passim]. With regard to the second half of the verse: “And let not injustice dwell in your tents,” this is referring to a repaid document.

“They note: With regard to the one who said that a repaid document is the injustice referred to in the verse, all the more so a document of trust is an injustice and may not be kept, as a document of trust is fundamentally false. And with regard to the one who said that a document of trust is the injustice referred to in the verse, however, with regard to a repaid document, perhaps it is permitted to keep it, as, at times people keep it and do not return it to the borrower. This is because in those cases it serves as security for the coins of the scribe, whose fee has not yet been paid by the borrower, who is legally responsible to pay the scribe for writing the document.” (Sefaria.org translation)

What is a document of trust (shtar amanah- שְׁטַר אֲמָנָה)? There is no one definition of a shtar amanah. Rashi describes it as a pre-approved loan with all the paperwork done even though the money hasn’t been transferred from the lender to the borrower. Tosefot says the borrower uses the shtar amanah for the purposes of looking wealthier than he is. This document of trust gives the impression that he has the money already. The Meiri says the purpose of the shtar amanah from the very outset is to deceive the lender. The borrower does want to pay him back. He writes this document of trust for another person stating that he owes him money. Consequently, he does not have the funds to pay back the real lender.

What is a document of security (shtar passim- שְׁטַר פַּסִּים)? There are two possible definitions of a shtar passim. In this case the lender wants to look wealthier than he actually is. The document of security gives the appearance that he has plenty of money “in the bank.” The second definition involves outright deceit. The borrower doesn’t want his property or assets seized for payment of an outstanding loan; consequently, he writes a shtar passim stating that another person already has a lien on the property or assets. Thus he stymies the real lender.

We can appreciate why the rabbis forbade to keep these types of documents. We’ve seen how the rich and superrich use these types of approaches to avoid paying taxes and getting loans based on inflated wealth or property.

The Gemara continues and teaches something in a practical level for all synagogues. “On a similar note it is stated, with regard to keeping items with potential to lead to transgression: With regard to a Torah scroll that is not proofread and therefore contains errors, Rabbi Ami says: It is permitted to keep it without emending the mistakes for up to thirty days, and from that time onward it is prohibited to keep it, as it is stated: “And let not injustice dwell in your tents” (Job 11:14).” (Sefaria.org translation)

I wonder how many synagogues keep invalid Torahs.  I suspect more than fewer synagogues have invalid Torahs in their arks. I also suspect the reason why is the cost to repair these Torahs.

 

]

Self-incrimination-the difference between Jewish and American law TB Ketubot 18

Today’s daf TB Ketubot 18 discusses establishing the validity of a document- Kiyum shtarot-קיום שטרות. When are witnesses able to invalidate a document they signed? According to Rami bar Ḥama understanding of the first half of Mishnah, there’s only one reason when the witnesses can invalidate the document.

“MISHNA: With regard to the witnesses who said in their testimony to ratify their signatures in a document: We signed the document and this is our handwriting; however, we were compelled to sign, or we were minors when we signed, or we were disqualified witnesses, e.g., we are relatives of one of the parties, they are deemed credible. Since the document is ratified on the basis of their testimony, it is likewise invalidated on the basis of their testimony (The mouth that prohibited it, i.e., ratified the document, is the mouth that permitted it, i.e., invalidated the promissory note-הַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר.)…

"GEMARA:…Rather, when the statement of Rami bar Ḥama is stated, it is stated with regard to the first clause of the mishna, that if there is no independent corroboration of their signatures they are deemed credible. Rami bar Ḥama said: The Sages taught this halakha only in a case where the witnesses said: We were compelled to sign the document due to a threat to our lives, as in that case they do not incriminate themselves. However, if the witnesses said: We were compelled to sign the document due to a monetary threat, they are not deemed credible. What is the reason that they are not deemed credible? It is based on the principle: One does not render himself wicked, and self-incriminating testimony is not accepted.” (Sefaria.org translation)

I am fascinated by the difference between Jewish law and American law. In American law a person does not have to incriminate himself. He may invoke the Fifth Amendment (see: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/kGjoJinSWnQ). I’m sure you either saw or read how witness after witness, who are Trump’s allies spreading the lie that the election was stolen, invoked the Fifth Amendment when testifying in front of the Jan 6 Select Committee investigating insurrection. Although pleading the fifth doesn’t look good, one may not draw any guilty conclusions concerning these witnesses. However, we know from all the police TV shows and movies we’ve seen, “anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.” In other words, a person can incriminate himself. Sometimes the police will use methods to trick or induce a person to incriminate himself (see: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/4p44xf3cPrs).

In Jewish law a person cannot incriminate himself period or in the words of the Gemara “One does not render himself wicked- אֵין אָדָם מֵשִׂים עַצְמוֹ רָשָׁע”. Any self-incriminating testimony is rejected as if it was never said.

Which system of law you think is better?

 

 

Sometimes empathy trumps the truth TB Ketubot 17

Daf TB Ketubot 17 is one of the most famous dappim in massekhet Ketubot. I never watch those reality bride shows on the television. I have to admit though while passing through the living room I have seen snippets because somebody else was. I couldn’t help but notice that the brides came in all shapes and sizes. Some brides in my eyes were much more beautiful than others. Our daf teaches us an important value how we should speak about one another. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed on the kind of truth we tell the bride.

“The Sages taught: How does one dance before the bride (Katzad merakdim-כֵּיצַד מְרַקְּדִין לִפְנֵי הַכַּלָּה), i.e., what does one recite while dancing at her wedding? Beit Shammai say: One recites praise of the bride as she is, emphasizing her good qualities. And Beit Hillel say: One recites: A fair and attractive bride. Beit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: In a case where the bride was lame or blind, does one say with regard to her: A fair and attractive bride? But the Torah states: “Keep you from a false matter” (Exodus 23:7). Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: According to your statement, with regard to one who acquired an inferior acquisition from the market, should another praise it and enhance its value in his eyes or condemn it and diminish its value in his eyes? You must say that he should praise it and enhance its value in his eyes and refrain from causing him anguish. From here the Sages said: A person’s disposition should always be empathetic with mankind, and treat everyone courteously. In this case too, once the groom has married his bride, one praises her as being fair and attractive.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Beit Shammai might say something like “She’s no bathing beauty, but she is a good cook.” For Beit Shammai truth is the most important value. Beit Hillel disagrees. We should always be courteous and not to hurt another person’s feelings. Sometimes being empathetic trumps the truth. On her wedding day every bride is beautiful in the groom’s eyes and we should say nothing that would diminish his estimation of his beloved.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we could treat everybody with empathy every day and not only on their wedding day!

This daf also could be the origin of the shtick the guests at a wedding do to entertain the bride and groom. “With regard to the mitzva of bringing joy to the bride and groom, the Gemara relates: The Sages said about Rabbi Yehuda bar Elai that he would take a myrtle branch and dance before the bride, and say: A fair and attractive bride. Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak would base his dance on three myrtle branches that he would juggle” (Sefaria.org translation) I still smile as I remember some of the shtick my friends did at my wedding. For example, I remember as one of our friends was flamenco dancing in front of us, she magically started pulling out of her mouth color paper streamers which seemed to be never ending. We have a photograph where 20 plus cloth napkins were tied together, and friends started using them as a jump rope to entertain us.

Katzad merakdim-כֵּיצַד מְרַקְּדִין לִפְנֵי הַכַּלָּה is a standard song sung on all traditional Jewish wedding dance floors. Here is a link of the song so that the next time you’re at a Jewish wedding and people start singing ktzad merakdim, you can join in the festivities.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoT1XEzrDEE

 

Fraud prevention TB Ketubot 16

The first Mishna of chapter two of our massekhet began on yesterday’s daf TB Ketubot 15b and concludes on today’s daf TB Ketubot 16. What happens in a case where the ketubah is lost or the couple had a “virtual” ketubah and the couple is divorcing? The ex-husband claims that his ex-wife at the time of marriage was not a virgin either because she was a widow or a divorcee. The ex-wife counterclaims that she was a virgin. The ex-wife has to bring witnesses to testify that at the time of the wedding certain customs were observed when the bride is a virgin to be believed.

These customs listed in the Mishna are: “if there are witnesses that she went out of her father’s house to her wedding with a hinnuma or with her hair uncovered, in a manner typical of virgins, payment of her marriage contract is two hundred dinars. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Beroka says: Even testimony that there was distribution of roasted grain, which was customary at weddings of virgins, constitutes proof that she is a virgin.” (Sefaria.org translation) Scholars provide different interpretations what does hinnuma mean? The majority believe that comes from the Greek meaning singing special songs at a wedding. There those who think that is related to a different Greek word meaning a thin scarf or the thin hymen membrane. Based on the Gemara we shall soon encounter, the Jastrow dictionary defines the word “a curtained litter on which a virgin bride was carried in procession”

A baraita list other customs. “And there are some who teach the dispute between Rabbi Abbahu and Rav Pappa with regard to the baraita that says: In a case where a woman lost her marriage contract or concealed her marriage contract and she claims that she is unable to find it; or her marriage contract was burned, and there is no proof with regard to the sum to which she is entitled; or practices performed exclusively at the weddings of virgins were performed at her wedding, e.g., people danced before her, or played before her, or passed before her a cup of good tidings or a cloth of virginity; if she has witnesses with regard to any one of these practices, her marriage contract is two hundred dinars.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara clarifies exactly what is a cup of good tidings. “It is taught in that baraita: Or passed before her a cup of good tidings. The Gemara asks: What is a cup of good tidings? Rav Adda bar Ahava says: A cup of teruma wine is passed before the virgin bride, meaning that this woman would have been eligible to eat teruma had she married a priest. Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: Is that to say that a widow does not eat teruma if she marries a priest? Clearly she does. Therefore, what is the proof from teruma that she is a virgin? Rather, Rav Pappa says: The cup of teruma is passed before her to indicate that this bride is first, as she has not yet engaged in intercourse, like teruma that is the first gift separated from the produce.

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The custom is that one passes a barrel of wine before her. Rav Adda bar Ahava said: One passes a sealed barrel of wine before a virgin, and one passes an open barrel of wine before a non-virgin. The Gemara asks: Why is that necessary? Let us pass the sealed barrel before the virgin, and before the non-virgin let us not pass a barrel at all. Why is it necessary to publicize the fact that she is a non-virgin? The Gemara explains: It is necessary, as, at times there could be a case where a non-virgin unilaterally seized two hundred dinars as payment for her marriage contract and said: I was a virgin, and the fact that they did not pass a sealed barrel before me was due to circumstances beyond their control. (Always blame the caterer!-gg) In order to prevent deceit of that kind, an open barrel is passed before the non-virgin, so that people will remember that she is not a virgin.” (Sefaria.org translation) I am unclear whether this barrel is different custom or the definition of a “cup of good tidings.”

Gemara worries about a case of fraud. “With regard to that same passage in the mishna: If there are witnesses that she went out of her father’s house to her wedding with a hinnuma, or with her hair uncovered, in a manner typical of virgins, payment of her marriage contract is two hundred dinars, the Gemara asks: But let us be concerned lest she first produce witnesses that she went out with a hinnuma, in this court, and collect payment, and then produce witnesses that she went out with a hinnuma, in that court, and collect payment a second time. The Gemara answers: In a place where it is not possible to guarantee that she will not collect her marriage contract more than once in any other way, certainly we write a receipt (שׁוֹבָר), even according to the opinion that as a rule, one does not write a receipt.” (Sefaria.org translation)

What’s the big deal about writing a receipt? Especially today with virtual receipts or the ability to scan a receipt on a computer, preserving receipts has never been easier. Back in Talmudic times when they did not even have a shoebox to keep the records in, holding on and preserving receipts was a great burden. That is why receipts were written only when that was the last resort to guarantee the transaction and prevent fraud.

What are the odds? TB Ketubot 15

 I have previously written that massekhet Ketubot is the key to the rest of the Talmud because many issues found throughout the Talmud are also found in massekhet Ketubot. Daf TB Ketubot provides us with a classic example. What are the odds whether this piece of meat is kosher or not?

It is taught “in a baraita: With regard to nine stores in a city, all of which sell kosher meat from a slaughtered animal, and one other store that sells meat from unslaughtered animal carcasses, and a person bought meat from one of the stores and he does not know from which store he bought the meat, in this case of uncertainty, the meat is prohibited. The legal status of uncertainty with regard to any item fixed in its place is that of an uncertainty that is equally balanced, and one does not follow the majority. This baraita continues: And in the case of meat found in the street, outside the stores, follow the majority of stores that sell kosher meat. In other words, the meat is kosher.” (Sefaria.org translation)

We determined the odds whether the item under discussion is fixed in its place or separated from the group. The legal status of any item that is separated from the group is that of one separated from the majority (כֹּל דְּפָרֵישׁ מֵרוּבָּא פָּרֵישׁ). On the other hand. The legal status of uncertainty with regard to any item fixed in its place is that of an uncertainty that is equally balanced, and one does not follow the majority (כׇּל קָבוּעַ כְּמֶחֱצָה עַל מֶחֱצָה דָּמֵי). The Gemara gives example after example of these principles.

To our ears hearing that the law always favors the Jew over the pagan is wrong and undemocratic. I wish I knew more about the relationship between Jews and non-Jews back then. I suspect when the Jews were in the minority, the law favored the majority. I know this to be true in medieval Christian and Muslim countries. Since Jews were discriminated against in pagan cities, they discriminated against the minorities in their cities.

Nevertheless, the Gemara cites one important exception, saving a life. The question arises when a building collapses in a city where the majority are non-Jews whether one may desecrate the Sabbath by removing the debris. One might mistakenly think that one should not desecrate the Sabbath to save the life of a potential non-Jew. “Shmuel said: And with regard to creating an opening in a heap of debris on his behalf [lefake’aḥ alav et hagal] on Shabbat, that is not so. Even if there is a gentile majority in the city, one does not follow the majority in cases involving the saving of a life.”  (Sefaria.org translation)

I like to conclude that the letter of the law is harsh compared to our modern expectations, but we are expected to go above and beyond the letter of the law. Moses Maimonides provides some examples. “And that that our Sages have commanded us to visit their sick and bury their dead along with Jewish dead, and sustain their poor along¹²²But not alongside. with the poor of Israel is for the “sake of peace”, since it says, “God is good to all, and His mercies extend upon all his works” (Psalms 145:9) and it says, “her ways are ways of pleasantness, and all her paths are peace" (Proverbs 3:17).” (Mishneh Torah, laws of Kings and wars, chapter 10 halakha 12, Sefaria.org translation)

Don’t dough there. It’s complicated. TB Ketubot 14

In the previous mishnayot Rabbi Yehoshua held the more stringent opinion that women’s testimony about her status was not acceptable or in his words “It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives;” (Sefaria.org translation while Rabban Gamliel deemed her testimony reliable. Today’s daf TB Ketubot 14 cites a Mishna from Eduyot where Rabbi Yehoshua was lenient and Rabban Gamliel was strict. “Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira testified concerning the widow (almanat ’issa-אַלְמְנַת עִיסָּה) whose late husband was a member of a priestly family of questionable lineage [issa], that she is fit to marry into the priesthood. Since the matter is uncertain, the woman retains her presumptive status of fitness.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The literal translation of ’issa (עִיסָּה) is dough. Dough is a mixture of different ingredients like flour, water, and eggs. When dough is mixed, the ingredients become undistinguishable. In our case the widow is part of a mixed family, a family suspected of containing an alien admixture. The Gemara never gives a clear definition of an almanat ’issa. The only thing the commentators agree upon is this alien admixture, a ḥalal-חָלָל, deals with the priesthood. 

Rashi explains that the case here deals with the widow whose husband was a son of a priest that married a woman who was a doubtful widow or a doubtful divorcee. For instance the priest threw a bill of divorce to his wife and people couldn’t determine whether it landed closer to the husband or closer to the wife. Then the husband died. That is why we don’t know whether she is a widow or divorcee. Remember a priest may not marry a divorcee. If they do, she and her offsprings become ḥalallim. Rebbeinu Hannaniel also explains our text like Rashi. He also provides a second interpretation. This widow was the child of a doubtful priest. In the “hospital nursery” the children, one a son of a priest and other the son of an Israelite (just a regular Jew) were mixed and nobody knew which child belong to which couple.

The Gaonim, Tosefot, and Rambam explain that were talking about a family or a whole city that is known for having doubtful cases of ḥalallim, but nobody knows who they are. Here we have a double doubt. The essential fear springs forth from a doubt. Secondly, we also don’t know whether the person she married was a ḥalal at all. This best fits the definition of a almanat ’issa. Everybody is all mixed up and indistinguishable.

Who will guard the guardians? TB Ketubot 13

The second Mishna on our daf TB Ketubot 13 isn’t a case of he said/she said. Nevertheless it is similar to the previous mishnayot because she makes a claim that can’t be proved conclusively. Back in Talmudic days, women especially single women didn’t fraternize at all with men. Our case in the Mishna deals with a woman “speaking” to an unknown man. Rabban Gamliel holds that she is believed when she says that he is a kosher Jew and Rabbi Yehoshua holds that she isn’t.

“If people saw a woman speaking to one man, but they did not recognize him, and they said to her: What is the nature [tivo] of this man? And she said to them: He is a man called so-and-so and he is a priest (although the text uses the word kohein/priest, she means that he is a kosher Jew and still eligible to marry a kohein-gg); Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives. Rather, she assumes the presumptive status of one who engaged in intercourse with a Gibeonite or with a mamzer, men of flawed lineage who disqualify her from marrying a priest, until she brings proof supporting her statement.” (Sefaria.org translation)

What does exactly does “speaking” mean? “Ze’eiri said: It means that she secluded herself with a man and it is unknown whether she engaged in intercourse. Rav Asi said: It means that she engaged in intercourse.” (Sefaria.org translation)

“The Gemara raises an objection from the Tosefta (1:6): This, i.e., that she engaged in intercourse with a man of impeccable lineage, is testimony that a woman is fit to testify. And Rabbi Yehoshua says: She is not deemed credible. Rabbi Yehoshua said to the Sages: Do you not agree in the case of a woman who was taken captive, and she has witnesses testifying that she was taken captive, and she says: I am pure, i.e., I was not violated by my captors, that she is not deemed credible? The assumption in that case is that most captive women are violated by their captors.

“The Sages said to him: But there is a difference between the cases. And what difference is there between this case of a captive, where the woman is not accorded credibility, and that case of a woman who secluded herself with a man? For this captive, there are witnesses that she was taken captive, and due to the prevalent immorality in that situation, she loses the presumptive status of virtue and is considered to have certainly engaged in intercourse. But for this woman who secluded herself with a man, she does not have witnesses that she engaged in intercourse. Since she could have claimed that she did not engage in intercourse and instead admitted that she engaged in intercourse and claimed that it was with a man of impeccable lineage, she should be accorded credibility.

“Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: Even for that woman, the one who secluded herself, there are witnesses, because her belly is between her teeth, i.e., her pregnancy is conspicuous and therefore she does not have the option of claiming that she did not engage in intercourse. The Sages said to him: There remains a difference between the cases, as most pagans are steeped in sexual immorality. Therefore, presumably, they engaged in pagans with the captive woman. However, in the case of the woman in seclusion there is no presumption that she engaged in intercourse specifically with a man with flawed lineage. Rabbi Yehoshua said to them: There is no steward for restraining sexual immorality (אֵין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לַעֲרָיוֹת), and therefore, everyone is suspect in that regard. Therefore, this woman, since she engaged in intercourse, lost her presumptive status of virtue, and there is no basis to trust her that it was with a person of impeccable lineage.” (Sefaria.org translation)

 What is the meaning of the phrase “There is no steward for restraining sexual immorality (אֵין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לַעֲרָיוֹת)”? Rashi explains the meaning that you cannot be her stewards or guardians and say that she did not have sexual relations.” Dr. Shaul Lieberman in his Tosefta Kifshuta[1] writes that Rashi only makes sense if you understand the meaning of “speaking” to be “engaging in sexual intercourse.” The Talmud Yerushalmi understands “There is no steward for restraining sexual immorality (אֵין אַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס לַעֲרָיוֹת)”differently. “Rebbi Ze‘ira said, a baraita stated that even qualified people whore, as it was stated: Even the most pious man cannot be appointed guardian for illicit sex²⁴¹The formulation in the Babli (13b) and the Tosephta (1:6) is: “There does not exist a guardian against illicit sex.” In Babli and Tosephta this belongs to R. Joshua’s argument. For Greek ἐπίτροπος “guardian, administrator”, cf. Bikkurim 1:5, N. 82..- אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. מַתְנִיתָא אָֽמְרָה. אֲפִילוּ כְשֵׁירִין מְזַנִּין. דְּתַנֵּי. אֲפִילוּ חָסִיד שֶׁבַּחֲסִידִים אֵין מְמַנִּין אוֹתוֹ אֶפִּיטְרוֹפּוֹס עַל עֲרָיוֹת. ” (Sefaria.org translation)

 In footnote 40 Dr. Lieberman cites TB Nidah 30b. There the meaning of our phrase to be “The guardian himself will have sexual relations with a woman.” Dr. Lieberman writes that Decimus Iunius Iuvenalis[2] (Sat, chapter 6, 347) mocks the advice that one should lock the door with a bolt for who is going to guard the guardians? (quis custodiet ipso custodies)

 

---

[1] Tosefta Kifshuta, Yevamot-Ketubot, page 197

[2]  c. 60 - 130 AD) was a Roman satirical poet . He composed the collection of satirical songs known as " Satires " ( Ann )- https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%99%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%A1 )

The first case of he said /she said TB Ketubot 12

From today’s daf TB Ketubot 12 until the end of the chapter, we shall be discussing the countering claims of a bride and groom. Without evidence, we are left with the situation of he said/she said. Who has the better claim and is believed? The Mishnah on daf TB Ketubot 12b presents us with the first case.

“MISHNA: There is a case of one who marries a woman and did not find her hymen intact, and she says: After you betrothed me I was raped, and his, i.e., her husband’s, field was inundated, meaning that it is his misfortune that she is not a virgin, as she was raped after betrothal. And he says: No; rather, you were raped before I betrothed you, and my transaction was a mistaken transaction. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible. Rabbi Yehoshua says: It is not based on the statement emerging from her mouth that we conduct our lives; rather, this woman assumes the presumptive status of one who engaged in intercourse when she was not yet betrothed and she misled him, until she brings proof supporting her statement.” (Sefaria.org translation)

We know that the halakha follows Rav Naḥman in monetary cases of he says “I know you owe me money”/he says “I don’t know.” His position is “Establish the money in the possession of its owner, and the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. Since the claimant does not support his claim with proof, the money remains in the possession of the respondent.” (Sefaria.org translation) We also know that the halakha follows Rabban Gamliel in our Mishna. “And Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda said to Rav Yehuda: Big-toothed one [shinnana], you said to us in the name of Shmuel that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel even in the first dispute, the dispute cited in the mishna, which is the first in a series of disputes with regard to conflicting claims” (sefaria.org translation)

You might think that Rav Naḥman position aligns with Rabbi Yehoshua ‘s position since the money remains in the hands of the groom. The Gemara shows that Rabban Gamliel and Rav Naḥman are alignment because there are two other conditions that tip in favor of the bride. The first condition is a miggo, meaning she could have used a better defense which suggests she is telling the truth. The second is the presumption (חזקה) that she was a virgin when the couple became betrothed to each other.

“The Gemara rejects that suggestion. Rav Naḥman could have said to you: That which I said, is even in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel. Rabban Gamliel says his ruling only there, with regard to claims of a groom and a bride, where there is a miggo, a halakhic argument that the ability to make a more advantageous claim grants credibility to the claim one actually makes, that bolsters the bride’s claim. She could have claimed that she wasn’t raped at all, but rather that her hymen was ruptured by wood. That is a more advantageous claim because she is not disgraced in the eyes of the groom. Therefore, her claim that she was raped is accorded credibility. However here, where one claims that another owes him money, what miggo is there bolstering his claim and according it credibility?

“Alternatively, Rav Naḥman could have said to you: Rabban Gamliel says his ruling only there, where we say: Establish her legal status according to her presumptive status as a virgin, and the husband’s claim seeks to undermine that presumptive status. However here, what presumptive status does this claimant have supporting the claim that another owes him money? Therefore, even Rabban Gamliel would concede that his certain claim does not prevail.” (Sefaria.org translation)

How do you know she is not a virgin! TB Ketubot 10

Daf TB Ketubot 10 brings many scenarios when the groom claims in court Thursday morning that his bride wasn’t a virgin. He says “I encountered an unobstructed orifice (פֶּתַח פָּתוּחַ מָצָאתִי) when I consummated the marriage.” (Sefaria.org translation) I especially appreciate Rav Naḥman’s response when a man came to him with this claim. “A certain man who had never been married came before Rav Naḥman and said to him: I encountered an unobstructed orifice when I consummated the marriage. Rav Naḥman said in his regard: Flog him with palm branches [kufrei]; prostitutes [mevarakhta] are common around him” (Sefaria.org translation)

 Rashi and Tosefot disagree how the last sentence should be punctuated. Rashi believes that the sentence should be punctuated with a question mark. This man is flogged because his slandering the good name of a Jewish woman for how is he an expert knowing whether she is a virgin are not? Tosefot punctuates the sentence with a period. As he was never previously married, how was he able to determine whether or not the orifice was unobstructed, if he did not gain experience with prostitutes. In other words he is licentious and should be flogged for his bad behavior.

I want to introduce you to the webpage Talmudology. Each day, together with thousands of peopleacross the world, Dr. Jeremy Brown studies a new page of Talmud. Talmudology combines his interests in science, medicine,history, and the study of Talmud. On this website he reviews classic Jewishteachings on science, and evaluates them in the light of we knowtoday. You will find a new post when he encounters anything of scientific interest in the one-page-a-day Talmud cycle. He studies everything from algebra to zoology and anything else that takes his fancy. Below is an excerpt from his commentary on TB Ketubot 10.

 

THE HYMEN

Hymen was the Roman-Greek godof marriage.  Anatomically, the hymen is a fleshy membrane that is part of the female external genitalia. The evolutionary explanation for the hymen is not certain, and several theories have been proposed - none of them very satisfying.  In the Talmud the assumption is that this membrane is intact until torn during a woman's first intercourse. This causes bleeding, and hence the reference in the Torah of a father "spreading the bedsheets" to show proof that his daughter had been avirgin when she wed.

 

THE DOCTOR CAN'T ALWAYS TELL (AND NEITHER CAN THE HUSBAND)

In a 1978 paper, two gynecologists described a small study of women who were virgins, and concluded that the hymen is intact in only a proportion of cases. In a more recent study, 52% of women who had past intercourse were found on examination to have an intact hymen.  The doctor just can't tell. And neither can the husband. 

DON'T BLAME THE VICTIM

The Talmud elsewhere describes a family in Jerusalem whose women were allowed to carry chains around their legs on Shabbat. Why were they given this permission? Rabbi Yochanan picks up the story:

There was one family in Jerusalem who took large strides when they walked and consequently the hymenal membranes of the young girls in this family would fall out. (ArtScroll note: "This was unfortunate, since an intact hymenal membrane serves as proof of a bride's virginity".) The elders made garters for them and put a chain between the garters, so that their strides would not be large, and as a result their hymens did not fall out. (ArtScroll note: "According to one interpretation cited by Meiri, the chain makes a sound when the steps are too rapid and forceful; thus, the sound itself reminded the girls to take delicate steps.") 

This is, to say the least, a difficult story to understand. But modern medicine is fairly clear on the subject.  All girls born with a vagina have a hymen.  "If hymenal tissue cannot be identified" wrote three experts from the Department of Pediatrics and the Sexual Assault Center at the University of Washington, "traumatic disruption should be considered as a possible cause." And an Israeli study  from the Bellinson Medical Center in Tel Aviv of over 25,000 newborn girls came to the same conclusions.  I know other cultures have their own taboos around virginity, but their taboos are not my concern right now.  The taboos of my culture are.  And for every girl and woman who was a victim of them, I am sorry. So very sorry.

RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN ON WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT

In 1973 Rav Moshe Feinstein (d. 1986), was asked by a newly observant woman if she needed to reveal her sexual history to a man she was dating.  Rav Moshe's remarkable sensitivity to this question can be felt through the words of his legal response. Yes, here and there are some remarkably sexist words, but put them aside and look at the big picture. Look where Rav Moshe went with this.  

Regarding whether you must tell the man who may want to marry you [about your sexual past, and not being a virgin] you must indeed tell him, but you don't have to do so the first time that you meet- because at that stage it is not clear that he wants you. In fact at that stage it would be forbidden to tell him. Only after you are certain that he wants to marry you - when he has already told you and spoken about the marriage arrangements - then you must tell him. [Explain it to him this way:] It once happened when you were not thinking clearly and you were not able to withstand the man seducing you, and you immediately regretted your actions and were sorry that you had done this. [When he sees your sincerity] he will understand from your words that he does not have to worry that this would happen again if you were married to him.  For he will see your qualities and will not regret his decision [to marry] because of what happened in your past. He will recognize that you are a woman who observes the Torah and its mitzvot, and he will believe that you will not countenance repeating this behavior, and you will be a woman who is in the service of her husband as the Torah mandates. 

But what about the Ketuvah - the marriage contract that is read aloud at (orthodox) Jewish weddings? The text is clear "that so-and-so is marrying this virgin"! How, asked this woman of Rav Moshe, how can we put this in the document when it is not true? 

Regarding the writing of the Ketuvah, you need not tell the rabbi who is officiating.  Since the groom is signing the Ketuvah he is agreeing to the use of the term "virgin" - and there is nothing else to be worried about. He will be bound to the legal terms as if you were a virgin, even if in truth you are not, so long as you did not mislead him....And I bless you that God will accept your repentance and that you will  not stumble again with any transgression; that you will follow the path of the Torah and build a fit and proper house in Israel. [signed] Moshe Feintsein

This letter from Rav Moshe reminds us what it is that is of real importance in a marriage: Honesty, fidelity, compassion and forgiveness.  It's a wonderful lesson to carry with us as we study the rest of Ketuvot.  (https://www.talmudology.com/)