Anyone who goes to a war waged by the royal house of David writes a conditional bill of divorce to his wife. This was done to prevent a situation in which the wife of the soldier would be unable to remarry because her husband did not return from battle and there were no witnesses with regard to his fate. The conditional bill of divorce accorded the wife the status of a divorcée and freed her to remarry, as it is written: “And to your brothers bring greetings and take their pledge [arubatam]” (I Samuel 17:18). What is the meaning of: And take arubatam? Rav Yosef taught: It is referring to matters that are shared [hame’oravin] between the husband and his wife, i.e., marriage. Since apparently it was customary for men at war to send their wives a conditional divorce, and since Uriah later died, Bathsheba assumed divorced status retroactively from the time that he set out to war. Therefore, she was not forbidden to David.

§ Apropos the credibility of the claim: I encountered an unobstructed orifice, Abaye said: We, too, learn in the mishna proof for the opinion of Rabbi Elazar: A virgin is married on Wednesday. Abaye infers: On Wednesday, yes, a virgin is married; on Thursday, no, she is not married. What is the reason for this ruling? It is due to the fact that if the marriage were to be held on Thursday, several days would elapse before the court would next convene, and in the interim his resolve will cool and his anger subside. The concern is that consequently he will fail to claim before the court that his bride was not a virgin.

The Gemara asks: And for what matter is that a source of concern? If the concern is with regard to giving her payment for her marriage contract, i.e., if he fails to go to court, her legal status at the time of marriage will remain that of a virgin, and when the time comes she will receive payment for her marriage contract to which she is not entitled; then let him give it to her if he wishes. Why is that a concern? Rather, it is with regard to rendering her forbidden to him, and that would result in a case where he makes a claim.

What, is it not referring to a case where he makes the claim: I encountered an unobstructed orifice, after engaging in intercourse with his bride, and his claim is accorded credibility to render her forbidden to him in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar? The Gemara rejects that proof: No, it can be explained that it is a case where he makes the claim that there was no blood, which would have resulted from rupture of the hymen had she been a virgin. That is a claim based on objective, verifiable evidence and not merely dependent on his subjective sensation.

§ Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said that a groom who says: I encountered an unobstructed orifice, is deemed credible with regard to causing her to lose her marriage contract. Rav Yosef said: What is he teaching us? We already learned explicitly in a mishna (12a): A man who eats at the house of his father-in-law in Judea after betrothal, without witnesses to attest to the fact that he was not alone with her, cannot make a claim about his bride’s virginity after marriage, because in accordance with the custom in Judea, the assumption is that he secluded himself with her and it was he who engaged in intercourse with her. The Gemara infers: It is in Judea that he cannot claim that she is not a virgin, but in the Galilee, he can claim that this is the case.

The Gemara asks: And for what matter is this claim directed? If it is to render her forbidden to him, then in Judea why is the claim not credible? If he is certain that he did not engage in intercourse with her, and finds that she is not a virgin, apparently she committed adultery and that claim should render her forbidden. Rather, is it not that he is seeking to cause her to lose her marriage contract in a case where he makes a claim? And what, is it not referring to a case where he makes the claim: I encountered an unobstructed orifice, and apparently he is accorded credibility? The Gemara rejects that proof: No, it can be explained that it is a case where he makes the claim that there was no blood.