Ketubot 9 - July 15, 16 Tamuz

Today's daf is sponsored by Dr. Robin Zeiger in loving memory of her mother Helen Zeiger's yahrzeit, and the first wedding anniversary of her son Akiva to Rivka. "Mom's love and support enabled me to become religious and begin my Jewish learning at ICJA."

Today's daf is sponsored by Vitti Rosenzweig Kones in loving memory of her mother, Sara bat David v'Vitti who passed away last Friday, 9 Tamuz. A righteous woman who survived the Holocaust and went on to build a beautiful family. Yehi Zichra Baruch. 

Rabbi Elazar holds that if a man claims his wife had a "petach patuach," meaning that when they had relations for the first time, he could tell that she wasn't a virgin, he is believed to forbid her to him as once can testify in order to forbid something on oneself (shavya nafsha chatichad'isura). Why would this be be the case if it is only a sefek safeka (2 doubts) as she could have had relations before they were betrothed and she could have been raped. The Gemara brings two answers which narrow the case of Rabbi Elazar's statement either to a woman married to a kohen or one who was betrothed by her father before age 3. Why couldn't this law of Rabbi Elazar have been derived from a Mishna in Kiddushin 65a which is based on the same principle? What is the difference between the cases? Rabbi Elazar also said that a woman is only forbidden to her husband if there was a warning issued by the husband and the woman then was secluded with the man in question (like a Sotah) and like the Batsheva/David situation. What exactly does this mean and how does this correspond to Rabbi Elazar's previous statement which seems to contradict this? Why was Batsheva not forbidden to return to her husband? There are two possible answers. Abaye attempts to bring support for Rabbi Elazar's statement from our Mishna (Ketubot 2) but it is rejected by differentiating between the claim of petach patuach and a claim that there was no blood. Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel that if a man claims his wife had a "petach patuach" he can divorce her without having to give her the ketuba money, meaning she would get 100 zuz like a non-virgin, instead of 200 zuz. Rav Yosef questions: We can derive that law from a Mishna Ketubot 12a! The Gemara resolves his question by differentiating between the claim of petach patuach and a claim that there was no blood.