תלמוד על כתובות 7:1

“And Rebbi Joshua [follows] the House of Hillel.” For the House of Hillel say, even if she burned his food¹⁰Mishnah Giṭṭin 9:11; Sifry Deut. #269.. Therefore, he says it is optional. If he wants to declare his jealousy, he declares his jealousy; if he wants to divorce her, he divorces her¹⁵Mishnah Ketubot 7:6 spells out that the husband can divorce his wife for cause (without payment) if he can prove indecent conduct. If he divorces her because she is a bad cook, he has to pay..

²⁰This text is an outline of the detailed argument in Qiddušin 1:6, Notes 532–542. Rebbi Ze‘ira²¹In Qiddušin, R. Abba. Since R. Ze‘ira objects to the statement in both texts, and the Qiddušin text is reproduced in the next paragraph, the attribution here is incorrect., Rav Jehudah in the name of Samuel: One had a cow and one a donkey. They exchanged one for the other. The donkey’s owner took the cow. When the cow’s owner came to take the donkey and found that it had a fracture, the donkey’s owner had to bring proof that his donkey was well at the moment he took the cow. Anybody who does not agree to this does not know anything about civil law. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, I do not agree, I do not know anything about civil law. There, we have stated²²Mishnah Ketubot 7:9. After the definitive wedding, the husband discovers that his bride has a bodily defect and divorces her for that. He does not want to pay her ketubah. A prima facie argument is that the defect happened where it was discovered. Therefore, if the bride was still in her father’s house, the father has to prove that at the time of the preliminary wedding his daughter was without blemish. If the bride now is in her husband’s house, the husband has to prove that she was already blemished at the preliminary wedding when he agreed to be financially responsible for her. Similarly, the rule is that if the donkey was in his first owner’s stable when the buyer found it with a broken leg that the stable’s owner has to prove that it was healthy at the time he took possession of the cow.: “If she had bodily defects, as long as she was in her father’s house,” etc. Rebbi Ḥuna, Rebbi Phineas, and Rebbi Ḥizqiah went to visit Rebbi Yose to sharpen wits. They quoted the statement²²Mishnah Ketubot 7:9. After the definitive wedding, the husband discovers that his bride has a bodily defect and divorces her for that. He does not want to pay her ketubah. A prima facie argument is that the defect happened where it was discovered. Therefore, if the bride was still in her father’s house, the father has to prove that at the time of the preliminary wedding his daughter was without blemish. If the bride now is in her husband’s house, the husband has to prove that she was already blemished at the preliminary wedding when he agreed to be financially responsible for her. Similarly, the rule is that if the donkey was in his first owner’s stable when the buyer found it with a broken leg that the stable’s owner has to prove that it was healthy at the time he took possession of the cow. and he told them, look at the next statement: “Once she entered the husband’s domain, the husband has to prove.” Would not the father have to prove? But you are saying that the husband has to prove; here also, the owner has to prove.

There, we have stated²¹⁹Mishnah 7:8. The groom says that he never would have agreed to the marriage had he known that the bride had a bodily defect; his preliminary marriage was arranged under false pretenses; he wants to withdraw without paying. The father asserts that at the time of the preliminary marriage the bride was without defects, and that “the groom’s field was flooded”. If the disagreement surfaces before the final marriage, the burden of proof is on the father; after that, the burden of proof is on the husband.: “If she had bodily defects while still in her father’s house, the father has to bring proof.” Rebbi Eleazar asked Rebbi Joḥanan: Is this Mishnah from Rabban Gamliel and Rebbi Eliezer? Not from Rebbi Joshua²²⁰Since R. Joshua puts the burden of proof on the wife in the Mishnah here; why is there no disagreement recorded there?? He said to him, those are everybody’s words. There is a difference because bodily defects have a way to appear²²¹For problems that have to be expected, the person in control of the place where they happened is responsible. In Halakhah 7:8, it is stated that in the matter of very frequent defects, the husband can complain if at the start he had stipulated that the bride be free from even the most minute impairment.. Rebbi Yose said, formerly we saw rabbis who compared bodily defects to [defects of] virginity. These can be inferred from those and those can be inferred from these²²²Claims for annulment of the marriage because of bodily defects of the bride and because of missing virginity follow identical rules.. Bodily defects from claims of missing virginity: For if he slept with her in her father’s house, the father has to provide proof²²³It really is the other way around; in this case the rule about a complaint about virginity is derived from that about defects. If the final marriage ceremony is held at the father’s house, then in case of a blemish the burden of proof would have to be on the father; therefore, for the claim of missing virginity the father has to bring proof that his daughter either was a virgin at the moment of final marriage or lost her virginity in a manner which did not impair the validity of the marriage.. Claims of missing virginity from bodily defects²²⁴Again, this should be inverted: Rules for claims about blemishes derived from rules of complaints about virginity.: For if she developed bodily defects and there is a doubt whether it happened after she entered his domain or before she entered his domain, the husband has to provide proof, from claims of missing virginity. But if she lost her virginity, was it not in her father’s house? Nevertheless, you say, the husband has to provide proof²²⁵This follows only Rabban Gamliel and R. Eliezer; it is the only indication that practice should follow Rabban Gamliel (and not R. Joshua against R. Eliezer); this is stated explicitly in the Babli (12b). In the Mishnah here it is agreed that the loss of virginity occured in her father’s house. But since the argument developed after the final marriage in the husband’s house, the burden of proof is on the husband.; so here also, the husband has to provide proof.