Ketubot 19: Signatures כתב ידם

For the source text click/tap here: Ketubot 19

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we learned in the Mishna (18b), when a signed document needs to be authenticated, under certain circumstances the original witnesses who are brought in are believed if they say: “anusim hayinu – we were coerced,” “ketanim hayinu – at the time we were minors” or “pesulim hayinu – we were disqualified witnesses.” 

Our daf presents a baraita in which Rabbi Meir disagrees with this ruling, and argues that even with these explanations, we can never allow witnesses to deny their original testimony.

When arguing over the validity of a legal document, two witnesses must agree that a handwritten signature was not forged, coerced, or in any way invalidating the document.  Those signatures were often signatures of witnesses - the rabbis use the example of a contract describing money lent from the lender to the borrower.    

We review the illustrious history of Volozhyn and the reign of the Netziv.

The Netziv used to sign his name connecting the words Zvi and Yehuda using the letter Yud for both names. 

This custom once saved his life. People who were opposed to his yeshiva informed on him to the secret police and presented forged letters as evidence that he received counterfeit coins from England and distributed them in the local market. They brought a letter all in the Netziv's handwriting. The forgery was so superior that even the Netziv admitted that it was his handwriting but that he did not write the content. 

The Netziv used to sign his name connecting the words Zvi and Yehuda using the letter Yud for both names. This custom once saved his life. People who were opposed to his yeshiva informed on him to the secret police and presented forged letters as evidence that he received counterfeit coins from England and distributed them in the local market. They brought a letter all in the Netziv's handwriting. The forgery was so superior that even the Netziv admitted that it was his handwriting but that he did not write the content. 

After an investigation, it became clear that the signature of the Netziv in the forgery had the letter Yud written twice and the Netziv always signed Zvi Yehuda with one Yud connecting both words, and this was how the falsehood came to light.   

We describe the interaction between Reb Itsele Volyzhiner and the maskil  Max Lillianthal in attempts to bringing secular studies into the yeshivah world and specifically Volzhyn, leading eventually to its closing.

Ketubot 18: Coercion, Consent, and Power

For the source text click/tap here: Ketubot 18

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf teaches that when a signed document that needs to be authenticated, under certain circumstances the original witnesses who are brought in can say “yes, they are our signatures, but…

we were forced, [or] we were minors, [or] we were disqualified witnesses” they are believed.

In this scenario, a person comes to court with a document signed by witnesses. When his opponent claims that the document is a forgery, the witnesses are summoned to the court to testify to their signatures. The witnesses state that the signatures are indeed their signatures, but that nevertheless the document should not be upheld. This is for one of three reasons: they were forced to sign, they were minors when they signed, or they were disqualified witnesses (see Sanhedrin 3:4). In this case they are believed, and the document is invalid. This is because of the principle of “the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permits”.

We continue our exploration of consent, coercion, power and sexuality, including Jeffrie Murphy’s critique of Locke and Hume regarding will, freedom and binding agreements.

Ketubot 17: Joy and Grief

For the source text click/tap here: Ketubot 17

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Sages taught: One reroutes the funeral procession for burial of a corpse to yield before the wedding procession of a bride.

And both this, the funeral procession, and that, the wedding procession, yield before a king of Israel.

Why can't a king waive the honor to which he is entitled? The Rishonim suggest several approaches to the issue, which touch upon the foundations of kingdom in Israel.

How is the king's waiver of his honor for the sake of a mitzva understood?

Is there a difference between the king's waiver in favor of a bride and his waiver in favor of ordinary people?

We explore the nature of joy and grief that occur simultaneously as well as the scandal of modern funeral practices.

Ketubot 16: Flattering The Bride כיצד מרקדין לפני הכלה

For the source text click/tap here: Ketubot 16

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf records a dispute between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel about how we are to praise the Kalah when we dance before her ("Keitzad Merakdim Lifnei ha'Kalah"). The simple understanding of the Gemara is that the Mitzvah is to make the Kalah happy.

What if she does not deserve praise? According to our interpretation, Beit Shammai favors truth, whereas Beit HiIlel prefers peace.

We explore the conflict between truth telling vs flattery, and rabbinic notions of truth and truthfulness.

Samuel Leiter examines the semantic and literary notions of acclamation and worthiness in the talmud and the notion of beauty in contrast to the Greeks.

Despite the arguments and academic discussions, the children of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel would nevertheless marry suggesting the mutual respect between scholars trumped local theory and praxis.

Ketubot 15: שהפה שאסר הוא הפה שהתיר

For the source text click/tap here: Ketubot 15

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A ketuba is effectively a contract – an agreement between husband and wife. What happens if this document is lost or misplaced? Our Gemara takes for granted that the obligation remains. In the event that death or divorce causes the ketuba to be enforced, then the only question is how much money was guaranteed at the time of the wedding. If the wife brings evidence that she was a betula – a virgin – she will receive the 200 dinar that is appropriate in such a case. Otherwise she will have to settle for 100 dinar, which a widow receives.

The new perek discusses situations as to who is to be believed.

We discuss further ethnographic cases of virginity tests inf VIRGIN RECORDS IN THE EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY ASHKENAZI PROTOCOLS OF AMSTERDAM by Tzila Radecker as well as more recent cases of white sheet testing in India.

Finally we look at Shakespeare’s attitude to virginity in Much ado About Nothing as a window into Elizabethan mores.

Ketubot 14: Maiden Raped By The Well

For the source text click/tap here: Ketubot 14

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf discusses a case where a couple who had had kiddushin but not nissuin came before Rav Yosef.

The woman – who was pregnant – stated that her betrothed was the father, a claim corroborated by the man.

This discussion in our Gemara is connected with a parallel discussion in a Gemara in Yevamot where we find the possibility raised that a betrothed, pregnant woman may be suspected of having committed adultery.

Two possibilities are offered by the Gemara there.

According to one, this suspicion is raised only if there were rumors that the woman had been sleeping with other men; according to the second, this is a matter of concern even if such rumors did not exist.

We review Prof Jeffrey Tigay’s examination of Qumran scroll’s demand for forensic examination of brides accused of premarital intercourse and Howard Zvi Edelman’s analysis of the anthropology of the cultural notion of virginity in the antique period.

Since our mishnah discusses the case of a "maiden raped by the well" we visit a Second Temple (apocrypha) story of how Daniel used his knowledge of Torah to save Susannah, a righteous woman from wicked judges who falsely accused her of adultery.

Ketubot 13: מה טיבו של איש זה

For the source text click/tap here: Ketubot 13

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf introduces two Mishnayot with describing three distinct cases. In each of these cases, the wife is being accused of something; she claims her innocence. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer agree that she is credible. However, Rabbi Yahoshua says that we do not conduct our lives based upon her mouth. Rather, she retains her presumptive status until she can provide proof of her claim.

According to Zeiri, the case of our Mishnah is where an unmarried woman was witnessed speaking to a man.

It is clear from the rishonim that even according to Rabban Gamiel, we do not fully accept her testimony, and we are not convinced that the specific person who she points to is the father. Thus, even though she claims that the father was a kohen, we will not allow her child to eat teruma (which is permitted only to kohanim), nor will we allow the child to perform the sacrificial service in the Temple.

The Talmud Yerushalmi explains that the argument between Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel is based on the particular concern that Rabbi Yehoshua has with people who engage in sexual relations outside the framework of marriage. (Steinsaltz).

We review Michael Rosenberg’s work:

Unlike the authors of earlier Rabbinic and Christian texts, who modified but fundamentally maintained and even extended the Deuteronomic ideal, the Babylonian Talmud and Augustine both construct alternative models of female virginity that, if taken seriously, would utterly reverse cultural ideals of masculinity, encouraging men to be gentle, rather that brutal, in their sexual behavior.

and Julia Lilli’s work on Configuring Female Virginity in Early Christianity and Gail Labowitz’s work on female labor, gender and family economy in rabbinic culture.

Ketubot 12: שׁוֹשְׁבִינִין

For the source text click/tap here: Ketubot 12

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Mishna states: One who eats. It can be inferred from there that there are places also in Judaea where one does not eat and seclude himself with his wife after betrothal. Abaye said: Conclude from this that in Judaea, too, the places differ in their custom, as it was taught in the following braisa: Rabbi Yehudah said: Originally, in Judaea they would leave the groom and the bride alone one hour before their entry into the bridal chamber, so that he may become intimate with her, but in Galilee, they did not do so. Originally, in Judaea they would put up two witnesses, one for him and one for her, in order to examine the groom and the bride when they enter the bridal chamber (so that they should not deceive one another regarding the signs of virginity), but in Galilee they did not do so.

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 aramaic for groomsman is “shushvinin” ..

We explore Karnafogel’s paper on

Opposing rabbinic conceptions of marriage and matchmaking in Ashkenaz and Sepharad

as well as Parkin’s review of matchmaking in different cultures.

Ketubot 11: Minor Conversion, הִגְדִּילוּ — יְכוֹלִין לְמַחוֹת

For the source text click/tap here: Ketubot 11

To download, click/tap here: PDF

One who wishes to convert to Judaism must undergo circumcision and immersion in water.

This conversion process requires intent.

A minor (under thirteen years of age) may be converted by his father.

Our daf discusses a case where a fatherless minor wishes to convert; what can be done is such a situation?]

Rav Huna said: A minor convert (he wishes to convert, and he has no father) is immersed by the direction of Beis Din (the court).

We discuss the conversion of minors and Rav Yosef ’s opinion that when they become of age, they can protest against their conversion (and return to their former religion).

Ketubot 10: דחזי ליכי מדאורייתא

For the source text click/tap here: Ketubot 10

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The ketubah of a virgin is for two hundred (zuz), and that of a widow for one hundred (zuz).

A virgin widow, divorcee, and woman who received chalitzah who were only formerly betrothed receive a kesuvah of two hundred, and her husband has the ability to claim that he did not find that she was a virgin.

The Gemora asks: Why does the Mishna call the opposite of a virgin an “Almanah” – “widow” (Chasam Sofer explains that the correct opposite would seemingly be “Be’ulah” – “one who has had marital relations)?

We explore whether ketubot is rabbinic in origin and Boaz Cohen’s comparison between Jewish and Roman law of betrothal.

Ketubot 9: Tokens of Virginity

For the source text click/tap here: Ketubot 9

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf begins with a case of a chatan who finds a petach patuach, an "unobstructed opening" when consummating marriage with his kalah.

Either he believes that the vaginal opening is too... open, or there is no blood. Is he believed?

The Gemara walks through the options. If his claim is that this happened since their betrothal, when she was supposed to be faithful to him, then he believes that she had consensual intercourse or that she was raped. If she was raped, she is still permitted to her husband. However, if this chatan is a Priest, she is forbidden to him whether it was consensual intercourse or rape.

Was she warned? The Gemara looks at similar cases that require warning.

We explore the rabbinic traditions regarding virginity including latter day poskim like Reb Moshe Feinstein.

We also review David Malkiel’s work on the cross cultural ethnography of defloration.

Ketubot 8: שבע ברכות

For the source text click/tap here: Ketubot 8

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf discusses the seven blessings that are made at a Jewish wedding, and also recited afterwards. For the entire week after the wedding, celebratory meals in honor of the bride and the groom are accompanied by sheva berakhot – a series of seven unique blessings that are added to birkat ha-mazon, the grace after meals.

These blessings include statements that welcome the wedding guests, recall the creation of Adam and Chava, mention the consolation of Jerusalem (based on the passage in Tehillim 137:6), and finally wish the new couple well at their wedding and their future endeavors.

We explore the custom surrounding these special blessings including the notion of “peace” (as noted in the the last of the berachot) in the Bible as well as a review of Agnon’s novel the Bridal Canopy.

Ketubot 7: Quorum For Sheva Berachot

For the source text click/tap here: Ketubot 7

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf introduces the groom's benediction in relation to a widow bride. He is to recite a slightly shorter benediction to his bride. It is to be recited at the wedding canopy. The way that the Gemara describes this practice suggests that the status quo was to ignore the special status of a bride if she is not a virgin. The rabbis are almost indignant about the necessity to treat widows with dignity as well.

This moves us into a larger conversation about the chatan's benediction.

We explore the halachot regarding the need for a quorum of 10 men as well as the innovations brought to weddings in our generation by Reb Shlomo carlebach.

Ketubot 6: Bridegroom’s Privilege

For the source text click/tap here: Ketubot 6

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rav Yosef cites the Mishnah in Berachos (16a) as part of the analysis whether a husband and wife can have marital relations the first time on Shabbos.

The halacha in the Mishnah in Berachos teaches that the husband is exempt from reading the Shema for up to four nights, beginning Wednesday and until Motzai Shabbos, if he has not consummated his marriage with his wife.

It seems, therefore, that the mitzvah of cohabiting with his wife may be completed on Friday night, although it is Shabbos.

This indicates that no violation of Shabbos is inherent in the act.

The Gemara deflects this proof by explaining that the exemption of the groom may be due to the act’s being prohibited, and the distraction he experiences by not being able to take his wife. Rambam (Hilchos Krias Shema 4:1) rules that anyone who is busy and overwhelmed in performing a mitzvah is exempt from all mitzvos and from reading Shema.

We explore the notion of The Exemption of “Osek beMitzvah”

As well as Joshua Kulp’s reexamination of Virginity Claims in Rabbinic literature.

Ketubot 5: "אל תקרי "אזנך" אלא "על אזנך Lobulus Auriculae

For the source text click/tap here: Ketubot 5

To download, click/tap here: PDF

On our daf we learn a midrashic pun (frowned upon by the RAMABAM)

Bar Kappara taught: What is the meaning of that which is written:

יד וְיָתֵד תִּהְיֶה לְךָ, עַל-אֲזֵנֶךָ; וְהָיָה, בְּשִׁבְתְּךָ חוּץ, וְחָפַרְתָּה בָהּ, וְשַׁבְתָּ וְכִסִּיתָ אֶת-צֵאָתֶךָ.

14 And thou shalt have a paddle among thy weapons; and it shall be, when thou sittest down abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee.

Deut 23:14

And you shall have a peg among your weapons [azenekha]” ?

Do not read it as: Your weapons [azenekha].

Rather, read it: On your ear [oznekha], meaning that if a person hears an inappropriate matter, he should place his finger, which is shaped like a peg, into his ears.

It is so that if a person hears an inappropriate matter, he will place his fingers in his ears.

The Gemora cites a braisa:"One should not hear unworthy things, because the ears are the most easily burned from all the other organs"

We explore the genetics and phylogeny of the earlobe, including the paleopathology of the ear in ancient papyri. How does modern science look upon the ancient Chinese auricular therapy for all sorts of diseases.

Ketubot 4: Love and Death

For the source text click/tap here: Ketubot 4

To download, click/tap here: PDF

On our daf we find if, just prior to the wedding, one of the parents of the bride or groom passes away,

does the wedding celebration take precedence over the funeral and mourning, or must the wedding be postponed?

We review the recently unpublished Sefer of Rav Elyashiv zatzal’s rulings on nissuin and other halachot regarding the intersection of aveilut and nisuin and Rabbi Maurice Lamm’s review.

This leads us to explore the relationship between love and death in the wedding rituals of Greek tragedy (Agamemnon) as well as Lindbeck’s review of the folklore motif of "the Sacrificial bride" with two stories in which a bride saves her bridegroom, the first by appeal to God, and the second by offering her own life, (in the first tale, the bride argues with the angel of death to save her bridegroom; from the Midrash Tanhuma.)

Ketubot 3: Droit du Seigneur

For the source text click/tap here: Ketubot 3

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz (OBM) writes:

We have learned that the Sages of the Mishna established Wednesday as the appropriate day of the week for the wedding of a virgin to take place. The Gemara on our daf brings a baraita that teaches that already in Mishnaic times, this practice ended. According to the baraita, from the time of sakana – danger – people began to make weddings on Tuesdays, with the tacit approval of the Sages.

What danger existed that changed the traditional day of marriage?

The Gemara rejects the possibility that there was a threat of death for those who married on Wednesdays and explains that there was a governmental decree that stated: “Betula ha-niset be-yom ha-revi’i, tiba’el la-hegmon tehilah – any virgin marrying on Wednesdays will first be deflowered by the prefect.”

Edicts like this one, whose purpose is to emphasize the total control that the local ruler has over his subjects, were commonplace in the ancient world. Even during medieval times, among the rights that the feudal lord had over his serfs was jus primae noctis, “right of the first night.” Several sources – whose reliability is subject to question – indicate that these types of edicts existed in the period prior to the Hasmonean revolution.

We explore the notion of Droit du seigneur with reference to Tal Ilan's examination of the Babatha Archive and how did the medieval myth develop…

Ketubot 2: שָׁקְדוּ

For the source text click/tap here: Ketubot 2

To download, click/tap here: PDF

According to the the first mishnah in Ketubot, a virgin is married on Wednesday so that if the husband wants to make a claim against her that she was not a virgin, he can come directly to the court which sits on Mondays and Thursdays and make a claim against her.

If his virginity claim against her is accepted by the court, he may divorce her without paying her the ketubah. The chapter will continue to discuss the issue of virginity claims and how the judge is to adjudicate them.

Rav Yosef quotes Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel who teaches that the reason one must get married on Wednesday and not on Sunday is the enactment of "Shakdu." The Rabanan were concerned for the honor of Jewish women, and they enacted that a man must get married on Wednesday so that he spends three days (Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday) preparing a respectable Se'udah for the wedding.

Since one is required to get married on Wednesday because of the enactment of "Shakdu," if an engaged couple's twelve-month period of Erusin ends on a Sunday, the man is not obligated to pay for his bride's support ("Mezonos"), since he can justifiably claim that he is not required to marry her until Wednesday due to the Takanah d'Rabanan.Rav Yosef quotes Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel who teaches that the reason one must get married on Wednesday and not on Sunday is the enactment of "Shakdu."

The Rabanan were concerned for the honor of Jewish women, and they enacted that a man must get married on Wednesday so that he spends three days (Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday) preparing a respectable Se'udah for the wedding.

We explore the THE "TAKANAH" OF “SHAKDU" and Solomon Zeitlin’s review article from 1933.

Yevamot 122: פּוּנְדָּקִית πανδοχεῖον THE INNKEEPER'S WIFE

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 122

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our last Mishna in the masechat relates a story where a group of people who were traveling left one of their party behind in a pundak – an inn – when he became ill. Upon their return they inquired as to their comrade’s health, and the pundika’it – the woman who was in charge of the inn – responded that he had died and that she buried him. Based on her word, the Sages allowed his widow to remarry.

The Gemara relates that in this last case, the pundika’it was a non-Jewish woman, who was believed based on the fact that she was mesihach lefi tumah – she was telling a story, and she did not realize that she was offering testimony. The believability of a mesi’ach lefi tumo is accepted by the Sages because we assume that the person telling the story has no vested or personal interest, and no reason to lie.

What is the nature of the innkeeper’s wife and how does she fare in antiquity? Was she innkeeper or zonah? (Rahab) and how in Women and domestic economies in antiquity, Innkeepers, Ship-owners, Prostitutes were the Three ‘Female’ Business Activities.

We end with the use of the typology of the innkeeper in chassidic tales.

Yevamot 121: מים שאין להם סוף

For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 121

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The penultimate Mishna in our masechta teaches us that if one falls into a body of water and he is not found, his wife is prohibited from marrying. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei share cases where a person (or a part of a person) emerges from water after three days.

The Mishna suggests that we need to distinguish between different types of bodies of water. When dealing with “מַיִם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם סוֹף” mayim she-en lahem sof – literally “water with no end,” i.e., a large body of water whose end cannot be seen – we must be concerned that he survived, while regarding mayim she-yesh lahem sof – when we can see the entire body of water – we can assume that he died.

Rabbi Meir does not distinguish between the two, arguing that even in “מַיִם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם סוֹף” mayim she-yesh lahem sof we must operate with the assumption that the person could survive.

The Gemara focuses on whether or not a body of water has an end or not. If we can see all possible exits from the water, a man missing in the water is considered dead after three days and his wife can remarry. However, if there is any escape from the water that cannot be seen - a distant shore, for example, the man is presumed missing, and his wife cannot remarry.

As we approach the end of our masechta we explore the cases of agunot during war as well as the controversial London Rabbi who freed agunot…using the gedolim of Europe fraudulently.