Gemara teaches us that when a husband claims that his wife was not a בתולה, was not a virgin at the time of the first time that they have ביאה at the נישואין, and he comes the next morning with the claim of פתח פתוח, he found the opening to be open, פתח פתוח מצאתי, he is believed to be מפסד her her כתובה. Which means that the settlement which he's required to pay her if he dies or divorces her Now it's nullified. now it will be it will be right, it will be nullified. Based on his claim of the fact that she is not the בתולה that he thought she was. Right, so now The Gemara tells us that the the way the Rishonim understand, the עיקר basis for why we believe him is because of what we call in Hebrew a חזקה שאין אדם, a person does not טורח, invest effort and and/or money, b'seudah in a party, and feel ומפסידה and then let it go to the waste. And therefore, if he was coming up with some kind of fabricated claim because he decided he doesn't really like her, then he could have got rid of her in a much more affordable way. Could have divorced her before he threw the big party. Right. And it's very uh be considered not very wise to to put in all this effort if you didn't really like her, and then the next morning start coming up with these claims. Right. And then having the all everything just go to waste because now he has to divorce her. Right. So, and therefore it must be that he's really telling the truth, and we can take this claim and assume that it's it's true, therefore, he's believed to make her lose the כתובה. That is the simple understanding of the Gemara. Now,

what Tosafot here brings up is that this is really like The logic we're using to to to be able to give validity to this claim is based on this like deterrent that he has, that that why would he want to lose out this big party that he just threw if he could have just divorced her a few days earlier? Just because he didn't like her. So, because of that, we give him credibility and say it must be that he's telling the truth and you really you know, you everything was really fine. You really liked her. She was a wonderful woman and you found her not to be a בתולה. So, so Tosafot asks what the the deterring factor is only because that when he comes with this claim, he will now have to divorce her, and everything will kind of be going to waste. All the effort that he put in goes to Why is he believed? not only because is he believed with regard to his claim with regard to the money of the of the settlement for the כתובה, but also there is נאמנות with his claim with regard to the fact that it now questions whether this woman may have been מזנה while they were married. And he's not allowed to be married to her anymore. Right. So now that he has to get rid of her, he has to divorce her. And if he's going to have to divorce her, so why do you invest all this time and effort into the party? Must be that uh he really didn't like her and he really had a true claim. He sees that she is not a בתולה. So asks Tosafot that this logic really holds true, but only with two very specific kind of women. One is uh a wife of a כהן, and two is that woman who got married under the age of three, that the Gemara that we spoke about earlier, both of which woman, each for their own reason, would be considered forbidden to their husband based on the claim of פתח פתוח. The claim of פתח פתוח doesn't say with certainty that she was disloyal to her husband, it just raises a question. And only with two specific women does it raise the question that is what we call one safek, there's only one possibility that we have to lead toward stringency and have him divorce her. Maybe it was ones, maybe it was ratzon, maybe it was before the marriage, maybe it was after the marriage, this woman, accordingly, that was the Gemara that we learned earlier. But

most normal women, if someone got married and he's not a כהן, got married to a regular woman, and at the time of נישואין, he sees that she's not a בתולה, based on his claim of פתח פתוח, we won't say that they're forbidden to stay married. We'll say, \"Yeah, you're right. Maybe you're right. Maybe there's no בתולה here. But it could be that she he had something with someone else before they were ever married to begin with. And even if it was after, it could be ones. So, because of so many possibilities, we lean lean towards leniency, and they're allowed to stay married. It's only two very specific cases where there aren't so many variables that we lean towards chumra, or stringency, and we say that they have to get divorced. But under normal circumstances, they're allowed to stay married. So, what deterrent does the husband have to lie if he just wants to benefit the settlement that he'll eventually have to give his wife when he dies or divorces her? Maybe he is lying, he doesn't really hate her, he just wants to, it wasn't about, you know, he didn't have an issue with her, he just doesn't want to have to pay her her כתובה, and he sees that she's, or he thinks he sees or he just makes this up that she's not a בתולה, and he comes to beit din, listen, I'm allowed to stay married, so the party is not in the garbage, no problem with the party, I'm not losing anything, what do I have to lose? What does the husband have to lose? What's the point of coming with the טענה? The point is that he saves himself a few bucks when he dies or divorces her, whenever that will be. He's allowed to stay married, going to be מועיל, but he voids the כתובה. And it comes to, you know, eventually, meaning Yeah, whatever, I don't know, 10 years, decides to divorce her, he won't have to pay כתובה now. Oh, I see, so you're thinking he voids the ketubah by coming with this טענה, claim, at this 10 years early later. Yeah, so that's what, that's what he's asking, this this logic of the Gemara does not really hold true, she's still מותרת. Yeah, so she's still מותרת, so the logic doesn't really hold true, because if he won't have a deterrent, he's not losing any he's not losing out by claiming that she she she was not a בתולה. There's really no investigation that could be done here, because you can't investigate her, and you can only know that he's a בקי or not בקי, so at the end of the night There's an answer. I can't think of it. So so there's one more point I want to get to. In Tosafos? In the Tosafos, yeah. That is that what we just mentioned was with regards to the question if maybe her being disloyal to her husband the time at of the קידושין and onwards. It's time that she's already הלכתית an אשת איש. But

there's also another factor which gets taken into account, which is that maybe something happened before they ever met. She lost her בתולים for whatever reason. But he thinks, and now the halacha is, Really, first of all, a different price for a בתולה and a בעולה. As we mentioned yesterday, למשל, Lexus or maybe a Camry, Chevy. When you you think you're buying a Lexus, and you get a a a Camry delivered to your door Toyota makes both of them. Well, that's right, but there's a better quality and less quality. A better name, lesser So, so what happens if really He was really not a בתולה to begin with. Before they ever met, she had a relationship with someone else, or whatever it was, she's not a בתולה. And he thinks she's a בתולה, and a בתולה is the one who's entitled to full ketubah. And at the time of נישואין, he sees she's not a בתולה. That's also a variable that we take into consideration that maybe there was a mistake, he didn't really mean to buy a Camry, he didn't really mean to buy a lower quality woman. He's trying to buy, get a בתולה. Married a בתולה, not a בעולה. Damaged. Damaged goods. Well, Tosafos Tosafos says So, first of all, what's the halacha in such a situation? Leaving our Gemara out of it for a second, what happens when a husband marries a woman and there for whatever reason there's no question about her being disloyal to her husband, it's a question that something maybe happened earlier? Like she didn't tell him. She didn't tell him. What what's the story? Are they still הלכתית married, and he just does not have to be obligated to the full compensation for the full settlement of the ketubah, he just has to go give a downgraded version? Meaning, you you thought you bought a Lexus, and you get a Camry, so you just have to pay for the Camry, you don't have to pay for the Lexus, but you still keep you still keep what you got. Bad business deal. Or, or yeah, or the whole deal's over, so we call it like a מקח טעות, the whole deal is a mistake. Mistaken deal. Never should've gotten married in the first place. Should be null. Marriage null, right, and therefore annulled. right, right? Right. Is that what it is? Well, it's a machloket. The Gemara later talks about it and we'll we'll probably get there sometime in the near future. But it's a machloket. And Tosafos once again points out that applying this to our situation where the husband finds his wife not to be the בתולה. So we said like this. If she's one of those two women that he has to divorce because of the possibility that she was disloyal the חזקה holds true because the whole party would go in the garbage based on his claim of פתח פתוח. He also has to get rid of her because there might be halacha's problems with the marriage. Now, Tosafos says, \"Well, another way to help out this חזקה is to take into consideration even if something happened before they were ever married, so could be that they're halacha like a מקח טעות, the whole deal is out.\" So

under those circumstances, they're also not really halacha married to pass this. And he's not entitled he's not obligated to give her any part of the ketubah. So under those circumstances, we also have we also have the we also have the the understanding of the Gemara that he has this chazakah that he won't throw the party in the garbage, because based on his claim that she's a that she was a בעולה, he really didn't ever assuming that happened beforehand, he didn't really ever marry her, it was a mistake. Really a Camry, lower quality. So then again, whole the party that he invested in is out the window, because they're not really married. Either way you have There's There's no way to prove the claims, whether it happened before or after. Right. There might There might There might be Witnessing witnesses can come forth and uh They'll testify that they saw her. Yeah, we're assuming that there aren't any witnesses to come forth, okay. What else did you know? But witnesses wouldn't cover the ketubah, because that's all d'rabbanan and you only have witnesses to prove the the the ישוע דאורייתא, on the kiddushin. אה, I don't know, but uh So he'd be out there. With d'rabbanan you don't need to double-line witnesses? Right? Yeah, is the idea of witnesses is d'oraita? When is the הלכה דאורייתא? The witnesses have נאמנות. The Torah recognizes the testimony as well as well as other things. But when there is a a claim that related to a הלכה דרבנן, That the Rabbis, the חכמים, Witnesses are valid to to uh to help that claim as well, but they're not, I mean, they're Well here Here the marriage the marriage is is recognized in the Torah. The marriage is the question. The marriage is question. That's d'oraita. Okay. Okay, so now Tosafos concludes really by saying uh this last line here that our Gemara is actually going to be limited. Specific cases. נראה דלא מהימן. It goes like this, here, the last line of Tosafos says that that when our Gemara says the husband will will allow to will will be believed based on his claim of פתח פתוח to have his wife lose this ketubah settlement. It's only Gives us one of two choices. Only if we're working with the examples that the Gemara mentioned where he will be obligated to divorce her based on the halacha concern now that they maybe asur to each other. Those kind of women will be believed also to make her lose her ketubah. Additionally, Tosafos says if you go with the opinion that says the kiddushin will be voided if he thought he got a better quality woman and he realizes he got lower quality, the whole kiddushin is out the window, which thereby will throw the whole party that he made out the window. Then also with his claim will be נאמן to make her lose that settlement of the ketubah because we'll assume he's telling the truth, he wouldn't want to throw the party to the garbage. However, according to the opinion that says that the marriage will still be in effect, even if he thought he was getting the Lexus, he thought he was getting a בתולה and he really got a בעולה, the marriage is still in effect and it's a normal woman, it's not a wife of a Kohen and all those other things, the regular woman that there are no halacha concerns with them staying together as a husband and wife based on his claim, Tosafos says, אין הכי נמי, נראה דלא מהימן that the husband will actually not be believed with his claim of פתח פתוח to have his wife lose the ketubah. Why wouldn't he Yeah, why Why would he not be believed? We just said because he does not have a deterrent that he's he's staying happily married and he's permitted to stay with his wife. There's no הלכתי issues with staying married. Perfect, he knows. Yeah, he's a חכם, you know. He wakes up He wakes up the next morning, exactly, and she loses her ketubah, they stay married. So, I get Yeah, I have full rights already. Right, so we said that maybe he's lying, and maybe he just wants to make her lose the ketubah. What What What's general Okay, but the point is that he's lying. Meaning he has no reason Meaning he has no, like, deterrent to lie. He's not losing anything. There's nothing to lose. He's going to stay married, so all the investment that he put into the the the the seudah is not being thrown to the wind. And if it's true anyway, good for him. Well, that Yeah, if it's true well he's going to have to prove it. We can't take his word. We don't have we don't have something to give credibility to his claim. But even though he still retains the safek sfeika, but it bails him out whether or not we It bails him out of what? Out of Out of the ketubah? Yeah. It'll bail him out. Again, no? What do we what If you If you believe him, or if you don't believe him. It's still a safek sfeika. Right? In other words, if safek sfeika is with regard to the halachah of whether they're allowed to stay married together. So if they'll let if he wakes up after the nisuin and he comes to beit din, and beit din tells him you're allowed to stay married, then what does he have to lose? What does he have to lose by claiming that he shouldn't have to pay the settlement? Halavai she's a בתולה, she's a בעולה and they're still allowed to be married happily. There's no halachah problems. That means the kiddushin, according to one opinion, is still in effect. So they will stay married, he has nothing to lose. He'll save himself the settlement whenever he'll he divorces her in 10 years from now. He'll save himself the money. So So being that so, Tosafot says, ein hachi nami. There is no weight that we can add to his claim, there's no deterrent that we can say that because of the deterrence, the deterrent that he has of of losing out of his party that he invested in, that is not here to give him that ne'emanut, to give him that that credibility, and he does he actually does not have it. Indeed, he's not believed to make her lose the ketubah. 9:00. Phone's going to cut off in a minute. Right. How would you say maybe it's not that he's not believed, it's that we can't act, it's not not believed His His His claim is not accepted. We don't take action based on his claim. Right, so you can't take action based on it just because there's nothing that would It's almost It's not a migo, is it? Not a migo, no. Like an opposite of a migo, in a way. A little different, a chazakah. So is she So he he should he he has to be with her then, right? So he is allowed to Yeah, he should stay married. If he wants to divorce her, that's of his own choice, but he didn't put himself in a situation where he either is obligated to divorce her, or where he is הלכתית considered not married. If he wants to divorce her, that's his own And then he would have to claim, and then he would have to Then he would have to shell out the ketubah. It's only if, based on