Study Ketubot folio 9A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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
The Talmud asks: But why is she forbidden to him? It is a case of compound uncertainty. It is uncertain whether she had sex while under his jurisdiction, after betrothal, in which case she would be forbidden to him, and it is uncertain whether she had sex while not under his jurisdiction, in which
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 had sex 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 i
The Talmud 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 permitt
The Talmud 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 ex