and they are not subject to a claim concerning their virginity. Since they were married, even if they did not engage in intercourse with their husband, their presumptive status is that of non-virgins, and the second husband cannot claim that he was misled with regard to their status as virgins.

And similarly, with regard to a female convert, or a captive woman, or a maidservant, who were ransomed with regard to the captive, or who converted with regard to the convert, or who were freed with regard to the maidservant, when she was more than three years and one day old, for all of these, their marriage contract is one hundred dinars and they are not subject to a claim concerning their virginity. When they married, their presumptive status was that of a non-virgin.

GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: A minor boy who engaged in intercourse with an adult woman renders her as one whose hymen was ruptured by wood, as the act is not considered full-fledged intercourse. Rav Yehuda continues: When I said this statement before Shmuel, he said to me: A woman does not achieve the status of one whose hymen was ruptured by wood by means of flesh, i.e., intercourse.

Some teach this halakha independent of Rav Yehuda: With regard to a minor boy who engaged in intercourse with an adult woman, Rav said: He renders her as one whose hymen was ruptured by wood. And Shmuel said: A woman does not achieve the status of one whose hymen was ruptured by wood by means of flesh.

Rav Oshaya raised an objection to the opinion of Rav from the mishna: With regard to an adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl less than three years old, or a minor boy less than nine years old who engaged in intercourse with an adult woman, or a woman who had her hymen ruptured by wood or any other foreign object, the marriage contract for each of these women is two hundred dinars. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: The marriage contract of a woman whose hymen was ruptured by wood is one hundred dinars. Contrary to Rav’s opinion, the Rabbis distinguish between the halakha in the case of the intercourse of a minor boy and the halakha in the case of a woman whose hymen was ruptured by wood.

Rava said that this is what the mishna is saying: An adult man who engaged in intercourse with a minor girl less than three years old has done nothing, as intercourse with a girl less than three years old is tantamount to poking a finger into the eye. In the case of an eye, after a tear falls from it another tear forms to replace it. Similarly, the ruptured hymen of the girl younger than three is restored. And a young boy who engaged in intercourse with an adult woman renders her as one whose hymen was ruptured by wood. And with regard to the case of a woman whose hymen was ruptured by wood itself, there is a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis. Rabbi Meir maintains that her marriage contract is two hundred dinars, and the Rabbis maintain that it is one hundred dinars.

Rami bar Ḥama said: This dispute is specifically in a case where the husband was aware that her hymen was ruptured by wood, as in that case Rabbi Meir likens her to a grown woman, whose hymen does not completely obstruct the orifice as a result of the maturation process. Nevertheless, her marriage contract is that of a virgin, two hundred dinars. And the Rabbis liken her to a non-virgin who engaged in intercourse in the past. Her marriage contract is one hundred dinars. However, if he was not aware that her hymen was ruptured by wood and was under the impression that she was a full-fledged virgin, everyone agrees that she receives no marriage contract at all when he becomes aware of her condition, as the marriage was a mistaken transaction.

The Gemara asks: And why does Rabbi Meir liken her to a grown woman? Let him liken her to a non-virgin, who engaged in intercourse in the past. The Gemara answers: In the case of a non-virgin, an action was performed on her by a person; but with regard to this woman, whose hymen was ruptured by wood, an action was not performed on her by a person. The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis, rather than likening her to a non-virgin, let them liken her to a grown woman. The Gemara answers: In the case of a grown woman, no action was performed on her; but with regard to this woman, whose hymen was ruptured by wood, an action was performed on her.

Rami bar Ḥama concluded his statement: However, if he was not aware that her hymen was ruptured by wood, everyone agrees that she receives no marriage contract at all. Rav Naḥman raised an objection from a mishna (13a): In a case where she says: I am one whose hymen was ruptured by wood, i.e., she admits that her hymen is not intact but claims that it was not ruptured through intercourse, and the groom says: No; rather, you are one who was violated by a man and you are no longer a virgin, Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer say: She is deemed credible and her claim is accepted. In that case, she is claiming that she is entitled to a marriage contract. Despite the fact that the groom had no prior awareness of her condition, Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Eliezer maintain that she is deemed credible and receives a marriage contract of at least one hundred dinars. Apparently, not everyone agrees that in that case she receives nothing at all.

Rather, Rava said: This is what the mishna is saying: Whether the husband was aware that her hymen was ruptured by wood and whether he was not aware of her condition, according to Rabbi Meir she receives a marriage contract of two hundred dinars and it is not a mistaken transaction. According to the Rabbis, if he was aware of her condition she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars like a non-virgin; if he was not aware of her condition she receives no marriage contract at all, since it is a mistaken transaction, as when he married her he believed that her hymen was intact. According to this explanation, the mishna cited by Rav Naḥman is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

And Rava retracted his opinion, as it is taught in a baraita: How does the slander described in the Torah come about? If the groom comes to court and says: So-and-so, father of the bride, I did not find in your daughter an intact hymen. If there are witnesses that she committed adultery while under the husband’s jurisdiction after betrothal, she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars. The Gemara asks: If there are witnesses that she committed adultery while under his jurisdiction after betrothal, she is subject to execution by stoning. Obviously, she is in no position to receive a marriage contract. The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: If there are witnesses that she committed adultery while under his jurisdiction after betrothal, she is subject to execution by stoning. However, if she engaged in intercourse initially, prior to betrothal, she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars, like any non-virgin.

And Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said that Rav Sheshet said: That is to say, if the groom married a woman with the presumptive status of a virgin and she is found to be a non-virgin, she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars. And Rav Naḥman raised an objection to the statement of Rav Sheshet from a mishna (12b): There is a case of one who marries a woman and did not find her hymen intact, and she says: After you betrothed me I was raped, and his, i.e., her husband’s, field was inundated, meaning that it is his misfortune that she is not a virgin, as she was raped after betrothal. And he says: No; rather, you were raped before I betrothed you, and my transaction was a mistaken transaction. The betrothal was predicated on your presumptive status as a virgin and in fact, you were not a virgin then. In that case, she does not receive any marriage contract at all.

And Rav Ḥiyya bar Avin said to those present: Is it possible that Rav Amram and all the prominent Sages of the generation were sitting when Rav Sheshet said this halakha, and Rav Naḥman’s question was difficult for them, and they answered: What is the meaning of mistaken transaction in this context? It too means that he is absolved from his commitment to pay the marriage contract of a virgin, two hundred dinars, because she is not entitled to that sum. However, she is entitled to one hundred dinars. And, contrary to that consensus, you say that she does not receive any marriage contract at all?

And Rava said: The one who raised the objection, Rav Naḥman, raises the objection well, as the term: Mistaken transaction, indicates that the betrothal is dissolved totally. The Gemara asks: But that baraita with regard to slander remains difficult, as in that case, if he discovered that she was not a virgin, she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars. The Gemara answers: Resolve the apparent contradiction and say this in the text of the baraita: If there are witnesses that she committed adultery while under his jurisdiction after betrothal, she is subject to execution by stoning. If she engaged in intercourse initially, prior to betrothal, she receives nothing at all. If she was discovered to be one whose hymen was ruptured by wood, she is entitled to a marriage contract of one hundred dinars.

But isn’t it Rava himself who said that according to the Rabbis, in the case of a woman whose hymen was ruptured by wood, if he was not aware of her condition she receives no marriage contract at all? Rather, conclude from it that Rava retracted that statement, and he holds that even according to the Rabbis, even if he was unaware of her condition she receives a marriage contract of one hundred dinars.

§ The Sages taught: If her first husband brought her into his home for the purpose of marriage, and she has witnesses who testified that she did not seclude herself with him, or alternatively, they testified that she secluded herself with him and did not stay in seclusion with him for a period equivalent to the time required to engage in intercourse, if the first husband dies or divorces her and she remarries, despite the testimony of the witnesses, the second husband cannot make a claim concerning virginity, and say the betrothal was predicated on the assumption that she was a virgin and she should lose her marriage contract. Since the first husband brought her into his home, the second husband should have considered that a woman who entered her husband’s home is no longer a virgin.