Talmud - Ketubot 10a כתובות י׳ א׳

§ It was stated: Rav Naḥman said that Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar: The Sages instituted the marriage contract for Jewish women: For a virgin two hundred dinars and for a widow one hundred dinars. And they deemed the groom credible in that if he says with regard to his virgin bride: I encountered an unobstructed orifice and she is not a virgin, he is deemed credible, causing her to lose her marriage contract. The Gemara asks: If so, and the Sages deemed him credible, what did the Sages accomplish in their ordinance that the marriage contract of a virgin is two hundred dinars, if his claim that she is not a virgin is effective?

Rava said: The ordinance is effective due to the presumption that a person does not exert himself to prepare a wedding feast and then cause it to be lost. Investing in the wedding preparations clearly indicates that the groom’s intention is to marry the bride and rejoice with her. If, nevertheless, he claims that she is not a virgin, apparently he is telling the truth.

§ A Sage taught in a baraita: Since payment of the marriage contract is a penalty instituted by the Sages, she may collect only from the husband’s land of the most inferior quality. The Gemara asks: A penalty? What penalty is there in a marriage contract? Rather, emend the baraita and say: Since it is a rabbinic ordinance and not a Torah obligation, she may collect only from the husband’s land of the most inferior quality. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The marriage contract of a woman is an obligation by Torah law.

The Gemara asks: And did Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel say that? But isn’t it taught in a baraita that it is written with regard to a seducer: “He shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins” (Exodus 22:16)? The Torah establishes that this fine will be like the dowry of a virgin, and that the dowry of a virgin will be like this fine, i.e., fifty silver sela, or two hundred dinars. From here the Sages based their determination that a woman’s marriage contract is an obligation by Torah law. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The marriage contract of a woman is not an obligation by Torah law, but is by rabbinic law.

The Gemara resolves the contradiction between the statements of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: Reverse the attribution of opinions in this baraita. The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to reverse the attribution of opinions in the latter baraita? Reverse the attribution of opinions in the former, in the baraita, and say that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is the one who holds that the marriage contract is a rabbinic ordinance.

The Gemara answers: The reason is that we learned that it is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel who said elsewhere that the marriage contract of a woman is an obligation by Torah law, as we learned in a mishna (110b) that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says that if a man marries a woman in Cappadocia, where the currency is more valuable, and he divorces her in Eretz Yisrael, he gives her payment for the marriage contract from the money of Cappadocia. From the fact that he is obligated to pay the marriage contract in the currency of the place where he undertook the obligation, apparently the marriage contract of a woman is an obligation by Torah law.

And if you wish, say instead that the entire latter baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, but the baraita is incomplete and it is teaching the following: From here, the Sages based their determination that a woman’s marriage contract in the case of a virgin is an obligation by Torah law. However, the marriage contract of a widow is not an obligation by Torah law but is an ordinance by rabbinic law, as Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: The marriage contract of a widow is not an obligation by Torah law but is an ordinance by rabbinic law.

§ The Gemara relates: A certain man who had never been married came before Rav Naḥman and said to him: I encountered an unobstructed orifice when I consummated the marriage. Rav Naḥman said in his regard: Flog him with palm branches [kufrei]; prostitutes [mevarakhta] are common around him. As he was never previously married, how was he able to determine whether or not the orifice was unobstructed, if he did not gain experience with prostitutes?

The Gemara asks: But isn’t Rav Naḥman he who said that he is deemed credible when he claims that he encountered an unobstructed orifice? The Gemara answers: Yes, he is deemed credible, and nevertheless, we flog him with palm branches. Rav Aḥai answered: Here, in the case where he is flogged, it is with regard to a bachelor, who is not accorded credibility, because he lacks experience. There, in the case where he is accorded credibility, it is with regard to one who has been married.

The Gemara relates a similar incident from an earlier era: A certain man who came before Rabban Gamliel said to him: I encountered an unobstructed orifice. Rabban Gamliel said to him: Perhaps you diverted your approach and therefore, you encountered no obstruction? I will tell you a parable to which this is similar. It is similar to a man who was walking in the blackness of night and darkness and he arrived at the entrance to the house; if he diverts the object preventing the door from opening, he finds it open; if he does not divert it, he finds it locked. Perhaps you too diverted your approach and entered from a different angle and that is why you did not encounter an obstruction.

Some say this is what Rabban Gamliel said to him: Maybe you diverted your approach intentionally and you displaced the door and the bolt. I will tell you a parable to which this is similar. It is similar to a man who is walking in the blackness of night and darkness and he arrives at his entrance. If he diverts intentionally, he finds it open; if he does not divert intentionally, he finds it locked.

The Gemara relates: A certain man who came before Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to him: My teacher, I engaged in intercourse and did not find blood. The bride said to him: My teacher, I was a virgin. Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to them: Bring me that cloth [sudar] on which you consummated the marriage. They brought him the cloth, and he soaked it in water and laundered it and found upon it several drops of blood from the rupture of the hymen. Rabban Gamliel bar Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to the groom: Go take possession of your acquisition, as she was a virgin and there is no need for concern.

Huna Mar, son of Rava, from Parzakya, said to Rav Ashi: Let us do so as well in similar cases and examine whether there is blood that is obscured by semen or another substance. Rav Ashi said to him:

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Ketuvot 10a examines the standard marriage contract sums, a groom's credibility regarding virginity claims, and whether this obligation is rabbinic or Torah-based.