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)