‘s following excellent explanation of the passage in the Talmud that sparked this controversy. It is from Suzanne Fortin’s Catholic Communion Website. Many of you also probably know Suzanne as the feminine voice of Catholic Legate, which is an exciting new venture for Catholic apologists from Canada founded by noted apologist, John Pacheco. Anyway, I wasn’t able to directly link to the post in question, so I hope Suzanne and Russ don’t mind if I reproduce here in its entirety:
Tractate Kesubos begins with the Mishna which tells us that the kesuba of a virgin is greater than that of a widow. That is to say, if a man divorces his wife, he is obligated to pay her a set sum of money (as well as numerous other obligations). The amount depends on whether she was a virgin when he married her, a virgin being entitled to a greater sum than a non-virgin.
So the legal mind has to ask, “what is a virgin?” Jewish law is evidentiary. It is not sufficient to say that nobody ever saw a woman having sex, so she is presumably a virgin. In fact, the Torah cites the case of someone questioning the virginity of his new bride, and the response of her parents to refute this charge (Deut. 22:15) – they are to bring forth the “tokens of the damsel’s virginity” – which is to say, the blood-stain sheets that resulted from the breaking of her hymen. So the definition of virginity in Torah law is an intact hymen, not a question of whether she was actually intimate with a man and to what degree.
The discussion in the Talmud then ranges over the conditions under which a woman would lose her virginity, and thus the right to the virgin’s kesuba. I don’t have my copy handy, but I seem to recall that there is mention of a sharp stick as one possibility. Then the discussion turns to actual intercourse. Two cases of sex with minors are mentioned. The sages aver that a woman who manages to have sex with a boy under the age of nine does not lose her virginity, since the boy is unable to break her hymen. They also state that if a man somehow has sex with a three-year-old girl, her hymen will grow back, and she will therefore still be considered a virgin. That is, for the purpose of the law in question, he has done nothing – not changed her status. BTW, “he has done nothing” is a common phrase in the Talmud. It always is used in the sense of the law under discussion, not a general comment that the action has no consequences at all.
That does not mean that such acts are permitted – certainly not! Only that they do not cause a loss of virginity.
All of this is evident from any honest reading of the Talmud.