Yerushalmi Ketubot 2:1 ירושלמי כתובות ב׳:א׳

MISHNAH: If a woman became widowed or divorced and she claims¹Either her ketubah is lost or, if she married at a place of illiterates, it never was written. to have been married as a virgin, but he says not so, I married you as a widow, if there are witnesses that she went out in hinuma²Cf. Chapter 1, Note 65; Chapter 2, Note 22. or with uncovered hair³A virgin will start covering her hair only at the wedding., her ketubah is 200 [zuz]. Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, the distribution of roasted kernels also is proof⁴At his place, this was a sign of the wedding of a virgin..

HALAKHAH: “If a woman became widowed,” etc. We understand if she was divorced. If she became widowed, who opposes? The heirs⁵Only the husband’s descendants, and in their absence the husband’s family, do inherit; Num. 27:6–11. The widow can claim only her ketubah (in the absence of a will)..

Should one follow the majority, and most women are married as virgins. Say then that she was married as a virgin⁶Why does the Mishnah put the burden of proof on the woman when there should be a presumption in her favor to require the husband or the heirs to prove their case.! This implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not apply a majority argument⁷Since the woman claims money, the burden of proof is on her; cf. Chapter 1, Note 215. The Babli agrees, Baba Batra 93a.. There⁸Mishnah Baba Qama 5:1, we have stated: “If an ox gored a cow and one finds her fetus beside her.⁹If it cannot be ascertained whether the miscarriage was induced by the goring or preceded the goring, the ox’s owner pays (by biblical decree, Ex. 21:35) half of the damage done to the cow but only a quarter of the value of the fetus. It is clear that the proven fact of the goring creates a presumption that the miscarriage was induced by it. This presumption is not sufficient to force the owner of the ox to pay; the value of the fetus, had it grown to be a calf, is “money in dispute”. Money in dispute for which there are no proofs either way is split evenly between the parties (Babli Baba Meṣi‘a 2b). A similar text is in Baba Qama 5:1. The Babli, Baba Qama 46a, denies the designation as “money in dispute” and puts the burden of proof on the claimant, the injured party.” Do most cows have miscarriages? Say therefore that the goring induced the miscarriage. Rebbi Abbahu said, this implies that in criminal cases and in money matters one does not apply a majority argument. Rebbi Abun¹⁰In Baba Qama, R. Yose. said, in one case they applied a majority argument, as Rebbi Aḥa stated: If a camel was in heat among camels and one finds one of them dead, I am saying that the one in heat bit it¹¹In the Babli, Baba Batra 93a: It is known that the one in heat killed it. The Babli holds that this is not a case of majority but one of prima facie evidence: Proof that the camel was in heat implies proof that it did attack other males. Therefore, the owner of the camel in heat would have to prove that the attack by the male in heat on the male not in heat was not lethal..

If somebody claimed a mina, the [defendant] denied it, and the [claimant] produced witnesses that the [defendant] owes him 50 [zuz]. The older Rebbi Ḥiyya said, [the defendant] has to swear about the remainder. Rebbi Joḥanan says, he does not have to swear¹²Following the principle that the defendant in a suit for money can by biblical law only be forced to swear if he admits that part of the claim is justified; based on Ex. 22:8, where the expression אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי הוּא זֶה “if he agrees that this is so.” In Baba Meṣi‘a(1:1, 7d 1. 24; Babli 3a) the reason of the older R. Ḥiyya is “that what he admits himself should not have greater force than the testimony of witnesses.”. The older Rebbi Ḥiyya learned it from two who are grabbing a toga, as we have stated there¹³Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a 1:1. If two people come to court, each grabs half of a toga and asserts ownership of the entire piece because he found it, each of them has to swear that he owns no less than half of it (so the court should not force obvious perjury) and takes half of the piece since “it is money in dispute”.: “Two are grabbing a toga, one says, I found it, and the other says, I found it.” The one who grabs half of it is as if he brought witnesses that that half belongs to him. The other says, “it belongs to me entirely”, and the fact that he grabs half of it is as if he brought witnesses that this half belongs to him. The one who says, “it belongs to me entirely”, swears that not the entire [toga] is the other’s. But he did not hear that Rebbi Hila said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan¹⁴The student of the older R. Ḥiyya’s son Ḥizqiah. that this oath is a rabbinic institution, that a man should not see another in the market and tell him, the toga which you are wearing is mine, come and split your toga with me!¹⁵Baba Meṣ‘ia 1:1, 7d 1. 33; Babli 3a; both in the name of R. Joḥanan. Rabbinic institutions do not imply anything for biblical law. Rebbi Abin in the name of Rav: My uncle¹⁶The older R. Ḥiyya, half-brother to both of Rav’s parents. agrees in the case of a document. How is that? He claimed a mina, the [defendant] denied it, and the [claimant] produced a document that the [defendant] owed him 50 [zuz]. He has only fifty. And Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, we can understand it from the following¹⁷Mishnah Baba Batra 10:2. If the amount of indebtedness is illegible, the use of the plural proves that the amount was at least two.: “‘The amount of … tetradrachmas’ and it was illegible, he owes no less than two. “If it is more, if the lender says five but the borrower says three, Ben Azzay says since he partially agreed to the claim, he has to swear, but the Sages say, what he agreed to is not of the kind which was claimed¹⁸In Baba Batra 10:2 (by the editorial team of Neziqin, different from the editors of the rest of the Yerushalmi) and the Babli, Baba Meṣi‘a4b, the “Sages” are identified as R. Aqiba. In the Babli, Ben Azzai is replaced by R. Simeon ben Eleazar, 2 generations younger than Ben Azzai and R. Aqiba. In both sources, the reason of R. Aqiba is given that the borrower, in agreeing to pay more than he could be forced to by the existing document, is like a person returning what the other had lost, not directly answering the lender’s claim.. Because it was not of the kind which was claimed! Therefore, if it were of the kind which was claimed, he would be obligated. And is it not here that the agreed sum was part of the claim¹⁹In our Mishnah, why should the divorcing husband not be forced to swear that he does not have to pay 200 zuz even if there are no witnesses, since he agrees that he owes 100? {The heirs, not being able to swear, would have to pay.}? Everybody agrees that he owes her a mina²⁰Since this amount is not in dispute, the husband cannot be considered as agreeing to part of the claim; no oath is due.. But she claimsanother mina from him, to which he does not agree. The burden of proof is on the claimant²¹This is the standard formulation, Babli Baba Qama 46b..

“In hinuma”. There, a veil. The rabbis here say, a phorema²²As explained in Chapter 1, Note 65, originally a virgin was led to her husband’s house with ὑμέναιοι “wedding songs”. After the war of Bar Kokhba, when these songs were forbidden (Soṭah 9:13, Note 189), the word hinuma changed its meaning. In Babylonia it became “a veil” (Babli 17b), literally “a slumber cloth” from נום “to sleep”, in Galilee φόρημα “that which is carried”, i. e., “a litter”..

“She went out with uncovered head.” Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan, like those who went out on the Day of Atonement²³The virgins of Jerusalem who went out to dance in the vineyards on the 15th of Ab and the Day of Atonement to find husbands (Mishnah Ta‘anit 4:8).. If she went out with uncovered head, the witnesses testify²⁴To the fact that she had her head uncovered before the wedding. that she had not been cohabitated with. Should one not worry that she was a virgin after final marriage? That means, a virgin after final marriage does not go out with uncovered head²⁵As in German one says “under die Haube kommen” (“to get under the bonnet”) for “to be married”, the widow who is a virgin is a lady, always wearing a hat, no longer a girl.. Should one not worry that she had been injured by wood? That must follow Rebbi Meïr, since Rebbi Meïr says²⁶Mishnah 1:3. the ketubah of one injured by wood is 200 [zuz]. Rebbi Joḥanan said, they did not worry about infrequent occurrences²⁷Mishnah 2:1 does not contradict the position of the Sages in Mishnah 1:3. The Babli agrees in a different context, 16a..

“Rebbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa says, the distribution of roasted kernels also is proof.” Should one not worry that she was a virgin after final marriage? That means, for a virgin after final marriage one does not distribute roasted kernels. It was stated²⁸In the Babli, 16b, in an anonymous baraita it is stated that it was a sign of a virgin’s wedding if one brought before her a cup of good news or danced at her wedding.: Abba Shaul says, also if one brought before her an amphora of good news²⁹In the Babli, the “cup of good news” is explained as a cup of heave wine, since heave is called “beginning” (Num. 18:12), the bride also represents a beginning. It probably is difficult to have a full amphora of heave wine; so one might think of the “good news amphora” as one of new wine which is opened for the first time at the wedding, just as the bride will be “opened” after the wedding.. Should one not worry that she was a virgin after final marriage? That means, in front of a virgin after final marriage one does not bring an amphora of good news.