Kesubos - Daf 16
- אם יש עדים שיצאת בהינומא וראשה פרוע כתובתה מאתים
The opening Mishnah of the second perek on the bottom of Daf 15b stated: האשה שנתארמלה או שנתגרשה – A woman who was widowed or divorced is claiming her kesubah. She says, “You married me as a besulah, and you owe me a kesubah of two hundred zuz, and he says, “No. I married you as an almanah and I only owe you one hundred zuz.” אם יש עדים שיצאת בהינומא וראשה פרוע כתובתה מאתים – If there are witnesses that she went out with a hinuma and her hair down, her kesubah is two hundred zuz. Rebbe Yochanan ben Berokah says: אף חילוק קליות ראיה – The distribution of parched grain is also a proof. The Gemara says that the reason she is believed is because there were witnesses, but if there are no witnesses, the husband is believed. This implies that the Mishnah is not in accordance with Rabban Gamliel, who believes a woman who claims she was violated after her erusin and entitles her to a full kesubah. The Gemara answers that it can even be Rabban Gamliel. In the earlier Mishnah, Rabban Gamliel believed her because it was a case of bari v’shemah, but here it is a case of bari v’bari. Given the obvious answer, the Gemara wonders what the questioner’s הוא אמינא was, and answers, כיון דרוב נשים בתולות נישאות כי ברי ושמא דמי – since rov women marry as besulos, it is similar to a case of bari v’shema. Rashi explains that her claim is more likely to be emes.
- Why Rebbe Yehoshua was modeh in the case of “The field was your father’s and I bought it from him”
The Mishnah continues: ומודה רבי יהושע – And Rebbe Yehoshua admits, concerning a case where someone says to his friend, “This field was your father’s, but I bought it from him,” שהוא נאמן שהפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר – he is believed, for the same mouth that has forbidden is the mouth that has permitted. Rashi explains that since the other person is unaware that his father owned the field except through this person’s admission, his claim that he purchased it is also believed. The Gemara clarifies that Rebbe Yehoshua is saying that even though he disagrees with Rabban Gamliel regarding an earlier migo case in the first perek, he accepts the migo argument here, and seeks to identify the earlier case. After rejecting three suggestions, the Gemara says it is the case when the chosson did not find besulim and the kallah said, "משארסתני נאנסתי ונסחתפה שדהו" – After you were mekadesh me I was violated, and this is a case of a buyer’s field getting flooded. Since she could have used the migo that she was a mukas eitz which does not forbid her to the Kehunah, Rabban Gamliel believes her. When the Gemara asks why Rebbe Yehoshua is modeh in the field case, it answers, הרי אין שור שחוט לפניך – here there is no slaughtered ox before you, meaning there was no grounds for a claim. If the person had kept quiet about the field, no one would have ever investigated it. But in the case of the woman, it was the chosson not finding the besulim that initiated the claim.
- העבירו לפניה כוס של בשורה
A Baraisa listed various signs that a kallah was a besulah, one of them being, העבירו לפניה כוס של בשורה – they passed before her an announcement cup. Rav Addah bar Ahavah explained that they passed before her a cup of terumah wine, as if to say, that if she married a Kohen, ראויה היתה זו לאכול בתרומה – she is fitting to eat terumah. When Rav Pappa objected and said that an almanah who marries a Kohen can also eat terumah, the Gemara answers, זו ראשית כתרומה רשאית – This kallah’s having relations with her chosson is a first for her, like terumah is the first that is separated from one’s produce.
