## Ketubot Daf 9a

###### Ketubot 9a:1
[Ketubot 9a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/9a:1)

הָאוֹמֵר ״פֶּתַח פָּתוּחַ מָצָאתִי״ — נֶאֱמָן לְאוֹסְרָהּ עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
A groom **who says: I encountered an unobstructed orifice,** claiming that when he consummated the marriage he discovered that his bride was not a virgin, **is credible to render her forbidden to himself.** Although it is not always possible to corroborate his claim with testimony that his wife committed adultery after betrothal, he is credible to render her forbidden to him as though she had in fact committed adultery.


###### Ketubot 9a:2
[Ketubot 9a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/9a:2)

וְאַמַּאי? סְפֵק סְפֵיקָא הוּא: סָפֵק תַּחְתָּיו, סָפֵק אֵין תַּחְתָּיו. וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר תַּחְתָּיו: סָפֵק בְּאוֹנֶס, סָפֵק בְּרָצוֹן!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But why** is she forbidden to him? It **is** a case of **compound uncertainty.** It is **uncertain** whether she engaged in intercourse while **under his** jurisdiction, after betrothal, in which case she would be forbidden to him, and it is **uncertain** whether she engaged in intercourse while **not under his** jurisdiction, in which case she would not be forbidden to him. **And if you say** that she engaged in intercourse while **under his** jurisdiction, it is **uncertain** whether she engaged in intercourse **by coercion,** in which case she would not be forbidden to him, and it is **uncertain** whether she engaged in intercourse **willingly,** in which case she would be forbidden to him. In cases of compound uncertainty, the ruling is lenient. Why, then, is his claim deemed credible?


###### Ketubot 9a:3
[Ketubot 9a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/9a:3)

לָא צְרִיכָא, בְּאֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בְּאֵשֶׁת יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּכְגוֹן דְּקַבֵּיל בַּהּ אֲבוּהּ קִידּוּשִׁין פְּחוּתָה מִבַּת שָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים וְיוֹם אֶחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**No, it is necessary** to teach this ruling only **in** the case of **the wife of a priest,** who is rendered forbidden to her husband even if she engaged in intercourse by coercion. In that case, there is a single uncertainty. **And if you wish, say** instead that this ruling is relevant **even to the wife of an Israelite, and** it is in a case **where her father accepted** her **betrothal** when she was **less than three years and one day old.** Intercourse with a girl less than three years old does not permanently rupture the hymen, and therefore there is no uncertainty whether she engaged in intercourse before or after betrothal. Clearly, it took place after betrothal, and there is only one uncertainty: Did she engage in intercourse by coercion or willingly?


###### Ketubot 9a:4
[Ketubot 9a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/9a:4)

מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשָּׁה ״קִדַּשְׁתִּיךְ״, וְהִיא אוֹמֶרֶת ״לֹא קִדַּשְׁתַּנִי״ — הִיא מוּתֶּרֶת בִּקְרוֹבָיו, וְהוּא אָסוּר בִּקְרוֹבוֹתֶיהָ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: If this is a case where there is only one uncertainty, **what is it teaching us? We** already **learned** this explicitly: With regard to **a man who says to a woman: I betrothed you, and she says: You did not betroth me,** and there are no witnesses to corroborate either claim, **she is permitted to** marry any of **his relatives,** e.g., his brother, because based on her claim they are not related. **And** it is **prohibited** for **him to** marry **her relatives,** as based on his claim she is his betrothed. Apparently, one is capable of creating a prohibition for himself without corroborating witnesses.


###### Ketubot 9a:5
[Ketubot 9a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/9a:5)

מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: הָתָם דְּוַדַּאי קִים לֵיהּ, אֲבָל הָכָא מֵיקָם הוּא דְּלָא קִים לֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara says that it was necessary to teach the case of the claim of virginity, **lest you say: There, where certainly** it is **clear to him** that he betrothed her, it is prohibited for him to marry her relatives. **However, here,** perhaps it is **not clear to him** that she was not a virgin, as he is not experienced in these matters and is mistaken. Therefore, Rabbi Elazar **teaches us** that his claim is nevertheless credible and she is forbidden to him.


###### Ketubot 9a:6
[Ketubot 9a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/9a:6)

וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הָכִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: אֵין הָאִשָּׁה נֶאֱסֶרֶת עַל בַּעְלָהּ אֶלָּא עַל עִסְקֵי קִינּוּי וּסְתִירָה, וּכְמַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And did Rabbi Elazar say that? But didn’t Rabbi Elazar say: A woman is forbidden to her husband** due to adultery, **only over matters of jealous warning and seclusion, and as** it was in **the incident that transpired** involving David and Bathsheba? A wife is forbidden to her husband only in a case where he warns her not to seclude herself with a certain man and witnesses testify that she subsequently entered into seclusion with him.


###### Ketubot 9a:7
[Ketubot 9a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/9a:7)

וְתִסְבְּרָא מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה, בְּקִינּוּי וּסְתִירָה הֲוָה? וְעוֹד, מִי אַסְרוּהָ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** how can **you understand** it in that manner? **Was the incident that transpired with jealous warning and seclusion? Furthermore, did** the Sages **render** Bathsheba **forbidden** to her husband? Had she been forbidden to her husband, she would have also been forbidden to David, based on the following principle: Just as an adulteress is forbidden to her husband, she is also forbidden to her paramour.


###### Ketubot 9a:8
[Ketubot 9a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/9a:8)

הָא לָא קַשְׁיָא, הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵין הָאִשָּׁה נֶאֱסֶרֶת עַל בַּעְלָהּ אֶלָּא עַל עִסְקֵי קִינּוּי וּסְתִירָה, מִמַּעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה, דְּלָא הֲוָה קִינּוּי וּסְתִירָה וְלָא אִיתַּסְרָא. מִכׇּל מָקוֹם קַשְׁיָא: קִינּוּי וּסְתִירָה — אִין, ״פֶּתַח פָּתוּחַ״ — לָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**That** is **not difficult,** as **this is** what Rabbi Elazar **is saying:** The fact that **a woman is forbidden to her husband** due to adultery **only over matters of jealous warning and seclusion** is derived **from the incident that transpired** involving David and Bathsheba, **as there was no jealous warning and seclusion,** and therefore **she was not forbidden** to her husband. **In any case,** it is **difficult,** as the statements of Rabbi Elazar are contradictory. It may be inferred: By means of **jealous warning and seclusion, yes,** a man renders his wife forbidden to him; by means of the claim that he encountered **an unobstructed orifice, no,** he does not render her forbidden.


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

וּלְטַעְמָיךְ: קִינּוּי וּסְתִירָה — אִין, עֵדִים — לָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that inference: **And** according **to your reasoning,** that the statement of Rabbi Elazar restricts to jealous warning and seclusion the manner in which a husband can render his wife forbidden, infer: By means of **jealous warning and seclusion, yes,** a man renders his wife forbidden to him; by means of the testimony of two **witnesses** that she engaged in adulterous relations, **no,** he does not render her forbidden. That cannot be so, as clearly two witnesses establish her as one who committed adultery and render her forbidden to her husband.


###### Ketubot 9a:10
[Ketubot 9a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/9a:10)

אֶלָּא הָכִי קָאָמַר: אֵין הָאִשָּׁה נֶאֱסֶרֶת עַל בַּעְלָהּ בְּעֵד אֶחָד, אֶלָּא בִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים. וְקִינּוּי וּסְתִירָה — אֲפִילּוּ בְּעֵד אֶחָד נָמֵי. וּפֶתַח פָּתוּחַ — כִּשְׁנֵי עֵדִים דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Rather, this is** what Rabbi Elazar **is saying: A woman is not rendered forbidden to her husband through** the testimony of **one witness. Rather,** she is rendered forbidden **only by means of** the testimony of **two witnesses** who testify that she engaged in adulterous relations. **And** if there was **jealous warning and seclusion,** she is rendered forbidden **even by means of** the testimony of **one witness as well,** if he comes after the husband warned his wife and testifies that she engaged in adulterous relations. **And** the legal status of the claim: I encountered **an unobstructed orifice,** is **like** that of **two witnesses,** and it renders her forbidden even without jealous warning and seclusion.


###### Ketubot 9a:11
[Ketubot 9a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/9a:11)

וְכִי תֵּימָא מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיָה, מִפְּנֵי מָה לֹא אֲסָרוּהָ? הָתָם אוֹנֶס הֲוָה. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: כִּי הָא דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** with regard to **the incident that transpired** involving David and Bathsheba: **For what** reason did the Sages **not deem her forbidden,** when clearly David committed adultery with a married woman? The Gemara answers: **There it was rape,** and she did not engage in intercourse willingly. **And if you wish, say** instead that the Sages did not deem her forbidden, **as that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said** that **Rabbi Yonatan said:**