Ketubot 9: Petach Patuach... What to do, what to do

And the unpalatable reality of Ketubot begins to take hold as we move into daf 9.

We begin with the chatan who finds a petach patuach, an "unobstructed opening" when consummating marriage with his kalah.  Either he believes that the vaginal opening is too... open, or there is no blood.   Is he believed?

The Gemara walks through the options.  If his claim is that this happened since their betrothal, when she was supposed to be faithful to him, then he believes that she had consensual intercourse or that she was raped.  If she was raped, she is still permitted to her husband.  However, if this chatan is a Priest, she is forbidden to him whether it was consensual intercourse or rape.  

Was she warned?  The Gemara looks at similar cases that require warning.  For example, if a man accuses his wife of having an affair with another man, she is only forbidden to him if there was jealous warning and seclusion.  This means that a man would specifically forbid his wife from secluding herself with a particular man and she did so regardless.  Only one witness is required to verify such a case.  

The rabbis speak of King David and Batsheva - they had intercourse when she was married to another man.  Why was she not forbidden to both her husband and King David?  The rabbis decide that King David must have raped her, for she is allowed to him if she did not give her consent.  Yes, that's right, she is allowed to him if she is raped, but if she consents, she is forbidden to him.  

To cope with the potential less-than-ideal behaviour of King David, the rabbis suggest that all men who went to war in the time of King David presented their wives with a conditional get, divorce contract.  Thus Batsheva was in fact divorced from her husband Uriah when she was with King David.  But even the rabbis note that King David should have waited for confirmation of Uriah's death before betrothing Batsheva.  

A reminder - there are no witnesses to the act that was discussed initially; usually two witnesses of a certain status (ie. male, able bodied, over age 12, etc.) are required to verify a claim like this one.  But the rabbis seem to think that one witness, the chatan himself, is similar to other situations where only one witness is required.  Yet this chatan might not be the best judge of whether or not there is a 'petach patuach'; whether a lack of blood signifies previous intercourse.

There is also mention made of a girl who was originally betrothed under the age of three years and one day.  Certainly, accusing her of having a 'petach patuach' would be misguided.  Why, the rabbis claim that intercourse with a baby under the age of three years does not affect the hymen; it grows back.  Thus this early intercourse is not affecting her current state.

How disturbing this is to learn and to think about.  We are speaking about the rape of children; in modern times, such a concept is met with revulsion rather than cool logic.  Ketubot is a painful masechet so far.

Amud (b) delves into the absence of blood and 'petach petuach' as very different claims.  Although their tenuous understanding of women's physiology cannot be understated, they do recognize that the hymen is not a one-size-fits-all.  Women might have a large opening in their hymens.  Kallot might not bleed during their first acts of intercourse.  However, while the chatan could easily see whether or not blood was present, he might not have any understanding of a 'petach petuach'.   How can he compare? In the halacha, the rabbis agree that a chatan is not believed if he claims petach petuach.  If the kallah is under the age of twelve and a half, however, he is believed.  Further, he is believed if he claims that there was no blood and malnutrition, illness, or a genetic anomoly are absent.  

Our daf ends with a comparison of families in Judea and in Galilee.  In Judea, seclusion of the couple is allowed following betrothal and before the wedding.  Thus if the chatan claims a lack of blood or 'petach patuach' on the wedding night, it is assumed that he was the cause.  In fact, the kallah would inform family members about blood or a ruptured hymen at the time to ensure that there were no claims of infidelity on the wedding night.   In the Galilee, however, there is no opportunity for seclusion and thus it is easier to claim that the young woman has had intercourse with a man other than the groom.

All of this to understand why a the couple marries on Wednesday and not Thursday... let's keep the chatan angry so that he can take his new wife to court on Thursday morning!