## Ketubot Daf 9b

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

כׇּל הַיּוֹצֵא לְמִלְחֶמֶת בֵּית דָּוִד, גֵּט כְּרִיתוּת כּוֹתֵב לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. דִּכְתִיב: ״וְאֶת אַחֶיךָ תִּפְקֹד לְשָׁלוֹם וְאֶת עֲרֻבָּתָם תִּקָּח״, מַאי ״וְאֶת עֲרֻבָּתָם תִּקָּח״? תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: דְּבָרִים הַמְעוֹרָבִין בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Anyone who goes to a war** waged by the royal **house of David writes a** conditional **bill of divorce to his wife.** This was done to prevent a situation in which the wife of the soldier would be unable to remarry because her husband did not return from battle and there were no witnesses with regard to his fate. The conditional bill of divorce accorded the wife the status of a divorcée and freed her to remarry, **as it is written: “And to your brothers bring greetings and take their pledge [*arubatam*]”** (I Samuel 17:18). **What is** the meaning of: **And take *arubatam*? Rav Yosef taught:** It is referring to **matters that are shared [*hame’oravin*] between** the husband **and** his wife, i.e., marriage. Since apparently it was customary for men at war to send their wives a conditional divorce, and since Uriah later died, Bathsheba assumed divorced status retroactively from the time that he set out to war. Therefore, she was not forbidden to David.


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

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, אַף אֲנַן נָמֵי תְּנֵינָא: בְּתוּלָה נִשֵּׂאת לַיּוֹם הָרְבִיעִי. לְיוֹם רְבִיעִי — אִין, לְיוֹם חֲמִישִׁי — לָא. מַאי טַעְמָא — מִשּׁוּם אִיקָּרוֹרֵי דַעְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Apropos the credibility of the claim: I encountered an unobstructed orifice, **Abaye said: We, too, learn** in the mishna proof for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar: **A virgin is married on Wednesday.** Abaye infers: **On Wednesday, yes,** a virgin is married; **on Thursday, no,** she is not married. **What is the reason** for this ruling? It is **due to** the fact **that** if the marriage were to be held on Thursday, several days would elapse before the court would next convene, and in the interim **his resolve will cool** and his anger subside. The concern is that consequently he will fail to claim before the court that his bride was not a virgin.


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

וּלְמַאי? אִי לְמִיתַּב לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה, נִיתֵּיב לַהּ! אֶלָּא לְאוֹסְרָהּ עָלָיו, וּדְקָא טָעֵין טַעֲנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And for what** matter is that a source of concern? **If** the concern is with regard **to giving her** payment for her **marriage contract,** i.e., if he fails to go to court, her legal status at the time of marriage will remain that of a virgin, and when the time comes she will receive payment for her marriage contract to which she is not entitled; then **let him give** it **to her** if he wishes. Why is that a concern? **Rather, it is** with regard **to rendering her forbidden to him, and** that would result in a case **where he makes a claim.**


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

מַאי לָאו, דְּקָטָעֵין טַעֲנַת ״פֶּתַח פָּתוּחַ״! לָא, דְּקָטָעֵין טַעֲנַת דָּמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What, is it not** referring to a case **where he makes the claim:** I encountered **an unobstructed orifice,** after engaging in intercourse with his bride, and his claim is accorded credibility to render her forbidden to him in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar? The Gemara rejects that proof: **No,** it can be explained that it is a case **where he makes the claim** that there was no **blood,** which would have resulted from rupture of the hymen had she been a virgin. That is a claim based on objective, verifiable evidence and not merely dependent on his subjective sensation.


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

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הָאוֹמֵר ״פֶּתַח פָּתוּחַ מָצָאתִי״, נֶאֱמָן לְהַפְסִידָהּ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן? תְּנֵינָא: הָאוֹכֵל אֵצֶל חָמִיו בִּיהוּדָה שֶׁלֹּא בְּעֵדִים — אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעוֹן טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמִּתְיַיחֵד עִמָּהּ. בִּיהוּדָה הוּא דְּלָא מָצֵי טָעֵין, הָא בַּגָּלִיל מָצֵי טָעֵין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said** that a groom **who says: I encountered an unobstructed orifice, is deemed credible** with regard **to causing her to lose her marriage contract. Rav Yosef said: What is he teaching us? We** already **learned** explicitly in a mishna (12a): A man **who eats at** the house of **his father-in-law in Judea** after betrothal, **without witnesses** to attest to the fact that he was not alone with her, **cannot make a claim about** his bride’s **virginity** after marriage, **because** in accordance with the custom in Judea, the assumption is **that he secluded himself with her** and it was he who engaged in intercourse with her. The Gemara infers: It is **in Judea that he cannot claim** that she is not a virgin, **but in the Galilee, he can claim** that this is the case.


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

וּלְמַאי, אִי לְאוֹסְרָהּ עָלָיו, בִּיהוּדָה אַמַּאי לָא? אֶלָּא לָאו, לְהַפְסִידָהּ כְּתוּבָּתָהּ, וּדְקָא טָעֵין טַעֲנָה. מַאי לָאו, דְּקָא טָעֵין טַעֲנַת ״פֶּתַח פָּתוּחַ״! לָא, דְּקָא טָעֵין טַעֲנַת דָּמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And for what** matter is this claim directed? **If it is to render her forbidden to him,** then **in Judea why** is the claim **not** credible? If he is certain that he did not engage in intercourse with her, and finds that she is not a virgin, apparently she committed adultery and that claim should render her forbidden. **Rather, is it not** that he is seeking **to cause her to lose her marriage contract** in a case **where he makes a claim?** And **what, is it not** referring to a case **where he makes the claim:** I encountered **an unobstructed orifice,** and apparently he is accorded credibility? The Gemara rejects that proof: **No,** it can be explained that it is a case **where he makes the claim** that there was no **blood.**