## Ketubot Daf 16a

###### Ketubot 16a:1
[Ketubot 16a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/16a:1)

שֶׁהַפֶּה שֶׁאָסַר — הוּא הַפֶּה שֶׁהִתִּיר. וְאִם יֵשׁ עֵדִים שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל אָבִיו, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לְקַחְתִּיהָ הֵימֶנּוּ״ — אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
This is so, **as the mouth that prohibited,** i.e., claimed that the field had belonged to the other’s father, **is the mouth that permitted,** i.e., claimed that he purchased the field. Even if he had not admitted that it had belonged to the other’s father, the field would have remained in his possession. Therefore, his claim is accepted. **However, if there are witnesses that the field belonged to his father, and** the one who has the field in his possession **says: I purchased it from him, he is not deemed credible** and his claim is rejected.


###### Ketubot 16a:2
[Ketubot 16a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/16a:2)

**גְּמָ׳** טַעְמָא דְּאִיכָּא עֵדִים, הָא לֵיכָּא עֵדִים — בַּעַל מְהֵימַן, לֵימָא תְּנַן סְתָמָא דְּלָא כְּרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל? דְּאִי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הָא אָמַר אִיהִי מְהֵימְנָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara infers: **The reason** that the bride’s claim is accepted **is** specifically due to the fact **that there are witnesses** that she went out of her father’s house to the wedding with a *hinnuma*. **However, if there are no witnesses,** the **husband is deemed credible. Let us say that** the **unattributed** ruling that **we learned** in the mishna **is not in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Gamliel, as, if** the ruling was according to **Rabban Gamliel, didn’t he say** that **she is deemed credible?**


###### Ketubot 16a:3
[Ketubot 16a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/16a:3)

אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, עַד כָּאן לָא קָאָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הָתָם אֶלָּא בְּבָרִי וְשֶׁמָּא. אֲבָל הָכָא בְּבָרִי וּבָרִי — לָא אָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Even** if **you will say** that the ruling in the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabban Gamliel, Rabban Gamliel stated** his opinion **only there, in** a case where the claim of the bride is **certain and** the claim of the groom is **uncertain,** as the groom does not know what actually happened. **However, here, in** a case where the claim of the bride is **certain and** the claim of the groom is also **certain,** as he is certain that he married her as a widow, Rabban Gamliel **did not say** that her claim is deemed credible.


###### Ketubot 16a:4
[Ketubot 16a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/16a:4)

וּדְקָאָרֵי לַהּ, מַאי קָאָרֵי לַהּ? הָא בָּרִי וּבָרִי הוּא! כֵּיוָן דְּרוֹב נָשִׁים בְּתוּלוֹת נִישָּׂאוֹת, כִּי בָרִי וְשֶׁמָּא דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And he who asked** the question, **why did he ask it?** The cases are clearly different, as **this is** a case of **a certain** claim **and a certain** claim. The Gemara answers: **Since most women are married** as **virgins,** one might have thought that the legal status in this case **is like** that of a **case of a certain** claim **and an uncertain** claim, as her claim is supported by a majority of cases.


###### Ketubot 16a:5
[Ketubot 16a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/16a:5)

וְהָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא מִדְּקָתָנֵי, ״וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ״: אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא אַיְירִי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּמוֹדֶה — שַׁפִּיר. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ לָא אַיְירִי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּמוֹדֶה — רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְמַאן מוֹדֵה?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And it also stands to reason** that the first clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, who concedes that without witnesses the woman’s claim is not deemed credible, despite the fact that the case is comparable to one of a certain claim and an uncertain claim, **as** the mishna **teaches: And Rabbi Yehoshua concedes. Granted, if you say that Rabban Gamliel is speaking in** the first clause of the mishna and **he concedes** that even though it is similar to a case of certain and uncertain, her claim is not accepted, it works out **well.** Rabban Gamliel concedes to Rabbi Yehoshua in the first clause of the mishna and the mishna cites a case where Rabbi Yehoshua concedes to Rabban Gamliel. **However, if you say that Rabban Gamliel is not speaking in** the first clause of the mishna and **he** does not **concede, to whom does Rabbi Yehoshua concede** in the latter clause?


###### Ketubot 16a:6
[Ketubot 16a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/16a:6)

מִי סָבְרַתְּ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אַהַאי פִּירְקִין קָאֵי? אַמִּגּוֹ קָאֵי, וְאַפִּירְקִין קַמָּא קָאֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that proof: **Do you think that** the statement of **Rabbi Yehoshua is** in reference **to** a mishna in **this chapter?** Actually, **it is** in reference **to** the principle of ***miggo*, and it is** in reference **to the first chapter.** Rabbi Yehoshua is saying that although he does not accept the claim supported by a *miggo* in the first chapter, here he accepts the claim supported by the principle: The mouth that prohibited is the mouth that permitted, which is based on the same reasoning as *miggo*, i.e., the fact that he could have made a more advantageous claim lends credibility to the less advantageous claim. In this case, he could have remained silent and the field would have remained in his possession. If challenged, he could have claimed that the field was his. Therefore, his less advantageous claim, that the field was not originally his but he purchased it from the father of the claimant, is accepted.


###### Ketubot 16a:7
[Ketubot 16a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/16a:7)

אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַהָא: הָיְתָה מְעוּבֶּרֶת, וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ ״מָה טִיבוֹ שֶׁל עוּבָּר זֶה״. ״מֵאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וְכֹהֵן הוּא״, רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמֶנֶת, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִפִּיהָ אָנוּ חַיִּין — הָתָם מַאי מִגּוֹ אִיכָּא? הֲרֵי כְּרֵיסָהּ בֵּין שִׁינֶּיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara elaborates: In reference **to which** case in the first chapter did Rabbi Yehoshua make his statement? **If you say** that it is in reference **to this** case (13a): **If** a single woman **was pregnant, and** people **said to her: What is the nature of that fetus, and she says to them: It is from a man** called **so-and-so and he is a priest, Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible, and Rabbi Yehoshua says:** It is **not** based on the statement emerging **from her mouth** that **we conduct our lives. There, what *miggo* is there** lending credibility to her claim? In that case, **her belly is between her teeth,** i.e., her pregnancy is conspicuous, and consequently she does not have the option of making the more advantageous claim that she did not engage in intercourse.


###### Ketubot 16a:8
[Ketubot 16a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/16a:8)

אֶלָּא אַהָא: רָאוּהָ מְדַבֶּרֶת עִם אֶחָד, וְאָמְרוּ לָהּ: ״מָה טִיבוֹ שֶׁל אִישׁ זֶה״. ״אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וְכֹהֵן הוּא״, רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמֶנֶת, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִפִּיהָ אָנוּ חַיִּין. הָתָם מַאי מִגּוֹ אִיכָּא? הָנִיחָא לִזְעֵירִי דְּאָמַר: מַאי ״מְדַבֶּרֶת״ — נִסְתְּרָה, מִגּוֹ דְּאִי בָּעֲיָא אָמְרָה לֹא נִבְעַלְתִּי, וְקָאָמְרָה נִבְעַלְתִּי — מְהֵימְנָא. אֶלָּא לְרַב אַסִּי, דְּאָמַר מַאי ״מְדַבֶּרֶת״ — נִבְעֶלֶת, מַאי מִגּוֹ אִיכָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is in reference **to this** case (13a): **If** people **saw** a woman **speaking to one** man, **and they said to her: What is the nature of this man?** And she said to them: **He is a man** called **so-and-so and he is a priest, Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible, and Rabbi Yehoshua says:** It is **not** based on the statement emerging **from her mouth** that **we conduct our lives.** Again this is challenged: **There, what *miggo* is there? This** works out **well according to Ze’eiri, who said: What** is the meaning of **speaking** mentioned in the mishna? It means that **she secluded herself** with a man. In this case there is **a *miggo*. Since, if she wished** to lie, **she could have said: I did not engage in intercourse** at all, **and** instead **she said: I engaged in intercourse** with a man of unflawed lineage. Therefore, **she is deemed credible** according to Rabban Gamliel. **However, according to Rav Asi, who said: What is** the meaning of **speaking?** It means that **she engaged in intercourse, what *miggo* is there?** There was no better claim available to her.


###### Ketubot 16a:9
[Ketubot 16a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/16a:9)

וְאֶלָּא אַהָא: הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת מוּכַּת עֵץ אֲנִי, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא דְּרוּסַת אִישׁ אַתְּ. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמֶנֶת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִפִּיהָ אָנוּ חַיִּין — הָתָם מַאי מִגּוֹ אִיכָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is in reference **to this** case (13a), where **she says: I** am one whose hymen **was ruptured by wood, and** the groom **says: No; rather, you are** one who **was trampled by a man. Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible,** and **Rabbi Yehoshua says:** It is **not** on the basis of the statement emerging **from her mouth** that **we conduct our lives. There, what *miggo* is there?**


###### Ketubot 16a:10
[Ketubot 16a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/16a:10)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, דְּאָמַר: בְּמָנֶה וְלֹא כְּלוּם — מִגּוֹ דְּאִי בָּעֲיָא אָמְרָה: ״מוּכַּת עֵץ אֲנִי תַּחְתֶּיךָ״, וְאִית לַהּ מָאתַיִם, וְקָאָמְרָה: מֵעִיקָּרָא, דְּלֵית לַהּ אֶלָּא מָנֶה, מְהֵימְנָא. אֶלָּא לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר: בְּמָאתַיִם וּמָנֶה. מַאי מִגּוֹ אִיכָּא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Granted, according to Rabbi Elazar, who said** that the bride claims that she is entitled to a marriage contract of **one hundred dinars, and** the groom claims that she is entitled to **nothing at all,** as in that case, there is a ***miggo*. Since, if she wished** to lie, **she could have said: I** am one whose hymen **was ruptured by wood under your** authority after betrothal, **and she would have** been entitled to **two hundred** dinars, as she was a virgin at betrothal. **And** therefore, when **she says** that her hymen was already ruptured **initially,** prior to betrothal, **when she is** entitled to **only one hundred dinars, she is deemed credible. However, according to Rabbi Yoḥanan, who said:** The bride claims that she is entitled to a marriage contract of **two hundred** dinars; **and** the groom claims that that she is entitled to a marriage contract of **one hundred dinars, what *miggo* is there?** Her claim is the most advantageous claim available to her.


###### Ketubot 16a:11
[Ketubot 16a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/16a:11)

אֶלָּא אַהָא: הַנּוֹשֵׂא אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְלֹא מָצָא לָהּ בְּתוּלִים, הִיא אוֹמֶרֶת: ״מִשֶּׁאֵרַסְתַּנִי נֶאֱנַסְתִּי, וְנִסְתַּחֲפָה שָׂדֵהוּ״, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר: ״לֹא כִי, אֶלָּא עַד שֶׁלֹּא אֵירַסְתִּיךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** it is in reference **to this** case (12b): One **who marries a woman and did not find her hymen** intact, and **she says: After you betrothed me, I was raped and his field was inundated,** i.e., it is attributable to your own misfortune. **And he says: No; rather,** you were raped **before I betrothed you,** and my transaction was a mistaken transaction.


###### Ketubot 16a:12
[Ketubot 16a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/16a:12)

רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמְרִים: נֶאֱמֶנֶת, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִפִּיהָ אָנוּ חַיִּין. דְּמִגּוֹ דְּאִי בָּעֲיָא אָמְרָה ״מוּכַּת עֵץ אֲנִי תַּחְתֶּיךָ״, דְּלָא קָא פָסְלָה נַפְשָׁהּ מִכְּהוּנָּה. וְקָאָמְרָה: ״נֶאֱנַסְתִּי״, דְּקָא פָּסְלָה נַפְשָׁהּ מִכְּהוּנָּה, מִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָאָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל דִּמְהֵימְנָא. וְקָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: בְּהַאי מִגּוֹ דְּהָכָא — מוֹדֵינָא לָךְ, בְּהָהוּא מִגּוֹ דְּהָתָם — פְּלִיגְנָא עִילָּווֹךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible,** and **Rabbi Yehoshua says:** It is **not** based on the statement emerging **from her mouth** that **we conduct our lives, as,** in that case there is **a *miggo*. Since, if she wished** to lie, **she could have said: I** am one whose hymen **was ruptured by wood under your** jurisdiction after betrothal, which is a more advantageous claim, **because she does not** thereby **disqualify herself from** marrying into **the priesthood. But she said: I was raped** after betrothal, which is a less advantageous claim, **because she disqualified herself from the priesthood. Therefore, Rabban Gamliel says that she is deemed credible. And Rabbi Yehoshua says to Rabban Gamliel: With regard to this *miggo*** in the mishna **here, I concede to you** that the *miggo* is effective. **With regard to that *miggo* there** in the first chapter, **I disagree with you.**


###### Ketubot 16a:13
[Ketubot 16a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/16a:13)

מִכְּדִי הַאי מִגּוֹ וְהַאי מִגּוֹ, מַאי שְׁנָא הַאי מִגּוֹ מֵהַאי מִגּוֹ? הָכָא — אֵין שׁוֹר שָׁחוּט לְפָנֶיךָ. הָתָם — הֲרֵי שׁוֹר שָׁחוּט לְפָנֶיךָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: But **after all, this is** a case of ***miggo* and that is** a case of ***miggo*.** In **what** way, in the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, **is this *miggo* different from that *miggo*?** The Gemara answers: **Here,** in the case of contested ownership of the field, **there is no slaughtered ox before you,** i.e., there is no reason to question his claim of ownership, as the field is in his possession. However, **there,** in the case of the woman who was found not to be a virgin, **there is a slaughtered ox before you,** i.e., there is reason to question her virginity, and it is only in response to that question that she makes her claim. Therefore, although it is supported by a *miggo*, Rabbi Yehoshua does not accept her claim.


###### Ketubot 16a:14
[Ketubot 16a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/16a:14)

וְכֵיוָן דְּרוֹב נָשִׁים בְּתוּלוֹת נִישָּׂאוֹת, כִּי לָא אָתוּ עֵדִים מַאי הָוֵי! אָמַר רָבִינָא: מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיכָּא לְמֵימַר רוֹב נָשִׁים בְּתוּלוֹת נִישָּׂאוֹת, וּמִיעוּט אַלְמָנוֹת, וְכׇל הַנִּשֵּׂאת בְּתוּלָה — יֵשׁ לָהּ קוֹל,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara resumes discussion of the inference that it drew at the outset with regard to witnesses that the bride was a virgin. **And since** the Gemara established earlier that the woman’s claim is supported by the fact **that most women are married** as **virgins, if witnesses did not come, what of it?** That majority should be sufficient to establish that she married as a virgin. **Ravina said:** It is **because there is** room **to say** that although **most women are married** as **virgins and a minority** of women marry as **widows** or non-virgins, there is an additional presumption: The marriage of **anyone who is married** as **a virgin generates publicity,**