## Ketubot Daf 12b

###### Ketubot 12b:1
[Ketubot 12b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/12b:1)

כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזוֹ דִּמְזַלְזְלִי בְּהוּ, תַּקִּינוּ לְהוּ מָאתַן. כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזוֹ דְּקָא פָּרְשִׁין מִינַּיְיהוּ, דְּאָמְרִי: עַד דְּנָסְבִינַן אַלְמְנַת כֹּהֲנִים — נֵיזִיל נִיסֵּיב בְּתוּלָה בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל, אַהְדְּרִינְהוּ לְמִלְּתַיְיהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Once** the members of the court **saw that** the priests **were demeaning** the widows, **they instituted for them** a marriage contract of **two hundred** dinars, so that they would treat them with greater esteem. **Once they saw that** the grooms **were distancing** themselves **from them, as they said: Instead of marrying a widow** who is the daughter of **priests** and paying a marriage contract of two hundred, **let us go marry a virgin Israelite woman** for the same price. Since men would no longer marry widows from priestly families, **they restored** matters **to their** original **status.** This indicates that the mishna and the *baraita* are addressing different time periods and different ordinances.


###### Ketubot 12b:2
[Ketubot 12b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/12b:2)

בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים כּוּ׳. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לֹא בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים בִּלְבַד אָמְרוּ, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ מִשְׁפָּחוֹת הַמְיוּחָסוֹת בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, אִם רָצוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים עוֹשִׂין — עוֹשִׂין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is stated in the mishna that **a court of priests** would collect a marriage contract of four hundred dinars for a virgin daughter of a priest. **Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said: Not only with regard to a court of priests did** the Sages **say** that they could collect a greater sum for the marriage contract of their daughters, **but even families of distinguished lineage in Israel. If they wanted to act as the priests do, they may act** in that manner.


###### Ketubot 12b:3
[Ketubot 12b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/12b:3)

מֵיתִיבִי: הָרוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַכֹּהֲנִים עוֹשִׂין, כְּגוֹן בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן, וּבַת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל — עוֹשִׂין. בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן וּבַת כֹּהֵן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא דְּאִיכָּא צַד כְּהוּנָּה. אֲבָל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְיִשְׂרָאֵל — לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: **One who sought to act as the priests do,** as in cases **where an Israelite woman** is married **to a priest, or the daughter of a priest** is married **to an Israelite, may act** in that manner. The Gemara infers: This allowance is specifically in cases where **an Israelite woman** is married **to a priest, or the daughter of a priest** is married **to an Israelite, where there is an aspect of priesthood** involved. **However,** apparently, in a case where **the daughter of an Israelite** is married **to an Israelite, no,** it is not allowed.


###### Ketubot 12b:4
[Ketubot 12b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/12b:4)

לָא מִבַּעְיָא קָאָמַר: לָא מִבַּעְיָא בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, דְּלָא מָצֵי אָמַר לַהּ עַלּוֹיֵי קָא מְעַלֵּינָא לִיךְ, אֲבָל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן, דְּמָצֵי אָמַר לַהּ עַלּוֹיֵי קָא מְעַלֵּינָא לִיךְ — אֵימָא לָא, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that inference. The *baraita* **is stated** employing the style of: **It is not necessary. It is not necessary** to state a case where **the daughter of an Israelite** is married **to an Israelite, as** in that case the groom **cannot say to her:** By marrying you, **I am raising your** social status, and it is clear that women from distinguished families would demand a marriage contract with a greater sum. **However,** in a case where **an Israelite woman** is married **to a priest, where he can say to her: I am raising your** social status, as you are marrying into the priesthood, you might think to **say no,** the woman cannot demand a marriage contract with a greater sum. Therefore, the *baraita* **teaches us** that even in the case of a woman from a distinguished family of Israelites marrying a priest, she may demand a marriage contract with a greater sum.


###### Ketubot 12b:5
[Ketubot 12b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/12b:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** הַנּוֹשֵׂא אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְלֹא מָצָא לָהּ בְּתוּלִים. הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת: מִשֶּׁאֵרַסְתַּנִי נֶאֱנַסְתִּי, וְנִסְתַּחֲפָה שָׂדֵהוּ. וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: לֹא כִּי, אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁלֹּא אֵרַסְתִּיךָ, וְהָיָה מִקָּחִי מִקָּח טָעוּת — רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמֶנֶת. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִפִּיהָ אָנוּ חַיִּין, אֶלָּא הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּחֶזְקַת בְּעוּלָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא תִּתְאָרֵס, וְהִטְעַתּוּ, עַד שֶׁתָּבִיא רְאָיָה לִדְבָרֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Ketubot 12b:6
[Ketubot 12b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/12b:6)

**גְּמָ׳** אִתְּמַר: ״מָנֶה לִי בְּיָדְךָ״, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ — רַב יְהוּדָה וְרַב הוּנָא אָמְרִי: חַיָּיב, וְרַב נַחְמָן וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרִי: פָּטוּר. רַב הוּנָא וְרַב יְהוּדָה אָמְרִי חַיָּיב — בָּרִי וְשֶׁמָּא בָּרִי עָדִיף. רַב נַחְמָן וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמְרִי פָּטוּר — אוֹקִי מָמוֹנָא בְּחֶזְקַת מָרֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **It was stated:** With regard to one who approaches another and says: **I have one hundred dinars in your possession, and the other says: I don’t know, Rav Yehuda and Rav Huna say:** The respondent is **obligated** to pay, because he did not deny the claim, **and Rav Naḥman and Rabbi Yoḥanan say:** He is **exempt** from payment. The Gemara elaborates. **Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda say** that the respondent is **obligated** to pay based on the principle: When there is a **certain** claim, e.g., that of the claimant, **and an uncertain** claim, e.g., that of the respondent, the **certain** claim **prevails. Rav Naḥman and Rabbi Yoḥanan say:** The respondent is **exempt** based on the principle: **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.


###### Ketubot 12b:7
[Ketubot 12b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/12b:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי לְרַב יוֹסֵף: הָא דְּרַב הוּנָא וְרַב יְהוּדָה — דִּשְׁמוּאֵל הִיא. דִּתְנַן: הָיְתָה מְעוּבֶּרֶת, וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ: מָה טִיבוֹ שֶׁל עוּבָּר זֶה? מֵאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי, וְכֹהֵן הוּא — רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמֶנֶת. וְאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to Rav Yosef: This** ruling **of Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda is** essentially the statement **of Shmuel, as we learned** in a mishna (13a): In the case of an unmarried woman **who was pregnant, and** the Sages **said to her: What is the nature of this fetus,** i.e., who is the father. And she says: It is **from a man** called **so-and-so and he is a priest** and is certainly of valid lineage. **Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible,** and the fetus is deemed to be of valid lineage. **Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said: The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Gamliel.**


###### Ketubot 12b:8
[Ketubot 12b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/12b:8)

וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה לְרַב יְהוּדָה: שִׁינָּנָא, אֲמַרְתְּ לַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אַף בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה. מַאי אַף בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה? אַף עַל גַּב דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר אוֹקֵי מָמוֹנָא בְּחֶזְקַת מָרֵיהּ — אָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: בָּרִי עָדִיף.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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. The Gemara asks: **What** is the meaning of **even the first?** What is unique about that dispute relative to the others? The Gemara answers: The novel element in the first dispute is that the claim of the bride is accepted **despite the fact that** although **there is** room **to say: Establish the money in the possession of its owner,** and since the money is in the possession of the husband and the woman is the claimant, **Rabban Gamliel said** that the **certain** claim of the bride **prevails** over the uncertain claim of the groom, who can only speculate about when she was raped.


###### Ketubot 12b:9
[Ketubot 12b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/12b:9)

לֵימָא רַב יְהוּדָה וְרַב הוּנָא דְּאָמְרִי כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְרַב נַחְמָן וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמְרִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that it is **Rav Yehuda and Rav Huna who say** their ruling **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Gamliel,** who says that a certain claim prevails over an uncertain one even to collect money from the possession of the respondent. **And** it is **Rav Naḥman and Rabbi Yoḥanan who say** their ruling **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua,** that one does not collect money based merely on a claim.


###### Ketubot 12b:10
[Ketubot 12b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/12b:10)

אָמַר לְךָ רַב נַחְמָן: אֲנָא דַּאֲמַרִי, אֲפִילּוּ כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל — עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הָתָם, אֶלָּא דְּאִיכָּא מִגּוֹ. אֲבָל הָכָא, מַאי מִגּוֹ אִיכָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Ketubot 12b:11
[Ketubot 12b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/12b:11)

אִי נָמֵי: עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הָתָם אֶלָּא דְּאָמְרִינַן אוֹקְמַהּ אַחֲזָקָה, אֲבָל הָכָא, מַאי חֲזָקָה אִית לֵיהּ לְהַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Ketubot 12b:12
[Ketubot 12b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/12b:12)

הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא כִּדְקָא מְשַׁנֵּינַן, דְּרַב נַחְמָן הוּא דְּאָמַר כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara notes: **Indeed,** it is **also reasonable** to explain **as we are teaching, that it is Rav Naḥman who said** his ruling **in accordance** with the opinion of **Rabban Gamliel.**