וְאִם־אֱמֶ֣ת הָיָ֔ה הַדָּבָ֖ר הַזֶּ֑ה לֹא־נִמְצְא֥וּ בְתוּלִ֖ים לַֽנַּעֲרָֽה׃
But if this thing is true — the signs of virginity were not found in the young woman —
Chazal source (beyond the TT-numbered units of the main ring): Sifrei Devarim 239 / Ketubot 44b.
Lemma: וְאִם אֱמֶת הָיָה הַדָּבָר.
Sefaria — Sifrei Devarim 239 · Ketubot 44b
וְאִם אֱמֶת הָיָה הַדָּבָר – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ; שֶׁלֹּא כְּדַרְכָּהּ מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר הָיָה. יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה בִּיאָה בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר הַזֶּה.
לֹא נִמְצְאוּ בְּתוּלִים לַנַּעֲרָה – אֵין עֵדִים לְהַזִּים עֵדָיו שֶׁל זֶה.
English: “And if the matter were true” — this tells me only of natural coitus. Whence do I derive the same for unnatural coitus? From the word “were.” Might I include relations in another place? Scripture says “this.” “If virginity were not found in the maiden” — i.e., there are no witnesses to refute the husband’s witnesses.
On the daf / in context: Sifrei expands the scope of the true accusation beyond ordinary relations while limiting it to the specific case. Parallel Bavli (Ketubot 44b) and Rashi require witnesses and formal warning that the act occurred after betrothal.
Derash / Ribbui-Miut on the wording of the true accusation (Sifrei) — the verse is read to include unnatural relations while excluding other locations, and to require that the husband’s witnesses stand unrefuted.
When the husband’s charge is found true, the law applies to both natural and unnatural relations after betrothal (provided witnesses and warning), and the absence of virginity tokens means the husband’s witnesses have not been successfully refuted.