The Mishna on daf TB Ketubot 75a describes who has the burden of proof when the groom took a vow not to marry a woman with blemishes and he discovers that she has blemishes. After betrothal, kidushin, the bride still lives in her father's house for a full year before marriage, nesuin. The Mishnah differentiates when the blemishes are discovered. "MISHNA: If she has blemishes and she is still in her father’s house, as she has not yet gotten married, the father must bring proof that these blemishes appeared on her after she became betrothed, and therefore his field was flooded, i.e., it is the husband’s misfortune, since she developed the problem after the betrothal. (She does not lose her ketubah money-gg) But if she has already gotten married and entered the husband’s domain when her blemishes are discovered, the husband must bring proof that she had these blemishes before she was betrothed, and consequently the transaction of betrothal was a mistaken transaction. (She loses her ketubah money-gg)" (Sefaria.org translation)
What difference does it make where the blemishes are found? There seems to be an internal contradiction. The Gemara tries to resolve this contradiction. Yesterday we learned Rabbi Elazer's solution. The Mishna is disjointed. Rabbi Yehoshu is the author of the second case because he follows the presumptive status of a monetary claim, חֲזָקָה דְמָמוֹנָא. Rabban Gamliel is the author of the first case because he follows the presumptive status of the body,חֲזָקָה דְגוּפָא.
This is an inelegant solution that the Gemara usually doesn't like. Consequently, two other solutions to resolve this internal contradiction are brought. Rava interprets the entire Mishna according to Rabban Gamliel. "Rava said a different answer to the contradiction in the mishna: In the first clause of the mishna, where the blemishes were discovered while she was still in her father’s house, the assumption is that since they were discovered here, they were also created here. In other words, since the blemishes were found while she was still in her father’s house, there is a presumption that they were also present at the earlier stage, prior to the betrothal. Consequently, the burden of proof is on the father who claims the blemishes developed at a later stage. In the latter clause of the mishna as well, since the blemishes were discovered when she was in the husband’s house, it is assumed that since they were discovered here, in the husband’s domain, they were also created here, after the marriage." (Sefaria.org translation)
On today's daf TB Ketubot 76 Rav Ashi provides a third solution. He too attributes the entire Mishna to Rabban Gamliel. "Rav Ashi said that the contradiction between the first and last clauses of the mishna can be resolved in the following manner: The first clause is similar to a claim made by one who says: My father has one hundred dinars in your possession. When the blemishes were discovered he had not yet married her, and therefore the payment for the marriage contract would go to the woman’s father, and not to her. And the latter clause is referring to a married woman who claims the marriage contract for herself, and it is therefore as though she says: I have one hundred dinars in your possession. The presumptive status of her body enables her to claim money only for herself, not on behalf of someone else, including her father." (Sefaria.org translation)
When the bride is still in her father's house, the father is making the claim that the groom has to return the betrothal money that he gave him. Rav Ashi teaches that the father's claim that the bride develop those blemishes after kiddushin is not strong because the body in question is not his. Consequently, he has to bring proof that the blemishes appeared after kiddushin. When the bride is making the claim that she developed these blemishes appeared before kiddushin, she is making a strong claim because it is her body. Consequently, the groom has to prove that these blemishes appeared before kiddushin.
Which solution makes the most sense to you?
No comments:
Post a Comment