Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

February 4, 2015 | ื˜ืดื• ื‘ืฉื‘ื˜ ืชืฉืขืดื”

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua vโ€™ Elana Malka. "ื” ื ืชืŸ ื•ื” ืœืงื—. ื™ื”ื™ ืฉื ื” ืžื‘ื•ืจืš"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Ketubot 2

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื ืฉืืช ืœื™ื•ื ื”ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ ื•ืืœืžื ื” ืœื™ื•ื ื”ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ ืฉืคืขืžื™ื ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื‘ืชื™ ื“ื™ื ื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืขื™ื™ืจื•ืช ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ืฉื ื™ ื•ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ ืฉืื ื”ื™ื” ืœื• ื˜ืขื ืช ื‘ืชื•ืœื™ื ื”ื™ื” ืžืฉื›ื™ื ืœื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ

MISHNA: A virgin is married on Wednesday and a widow on Thursday. The reason for the former is that twice a week courts convene in the towns, on Monday and Thursday, so that if the husband had a claim concerning the brideโ€™s virginity when consummating the marriage on Wednesday night, he would go early the next day to court and make his claim.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืืžืจื• ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื ืฉืืช ืœื™ื•ื ื”ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ ืœืคื™ ืฉืฉื ื™ื ื• ื”ื’ื™ืข ื–ืžืŸ ื•ืœื ื ื™ืฉืื• ืื•ื›ืœื•ืช ืžืฉืœื• ื•ืื•ื›ืœื•ืช ื‘ืชืจื•ืžื”

GEMARA: Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Due to what reason did they say that a virgin is married on Wednesday? It is because we learned in a mishna elsewhere (57a): If the time that the groom designated for the wedding arrived, and the wedding was postponed, and they were not married, the brides are entitled to eat from his food and, if he is a priest, eat teruma.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื”ื’ื™ืข ื–ืžืŸ ื‘ืื—ื“ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื™ื”ื ืžืขืœื” ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืœื›ืš ืฉื ื™ื ื• ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื ืฉืืช ืœื™ื•ื ื”ืจื‘ื™ืขื™

One might think that if the designated time arrived on Sunday, and the wedding was postponed, he would provide her sustenance beginning on Sunday. Therefore, we learned: A virgin is married on Wednesday. Until Wednesday, the designated time is not considered to have arrived, even if the original date was earlier in the week.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžืจื™ื” ื“ืื‘ืจื”ื ืชืœื™ ืชื ื™ื ื‘ื“ืœื ืชื ื™ื ื”ื™ ืชื ื™ื ื•ื”ื™ ืœื ืชื ื™ื ื”ื ืชื ื™ื ื•ื”ื ืชื ื™ื ืืœื ืชืœื™ ืชื ื™ื ื“ืžืคืจืฉ ื˜ืขืžื ื‘ื“ืชื ื™ื ื“ืœื ืžืคืจืฉ ื˜ืขืžื

After citing the statements above, Rav Yosef said in astonishment: Lord of Abraham, Shmuel makes that which is taught dependent on that which is not taught, using the latter to explain the former. The Gemara asks: Which is taught and which is not taught? Both this mishna is taught and that mishna is taught. The Gemara answers: Rather, Shmuel makes the halakha that is taught in the mishna here, whose reason is explicit, dependent on a halakha that is taught in the later mishna, whose reason is not explicit. Citation of the later mishna contributed nothing to the understanding of the mishna here.

ืืœื ืื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืืžืจื• ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื ืฉืืช ืœื™ื•ื ื”ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ ืฉืื ื”ื™ื” ืœื• ื˜ืขื ืช ื‘ืชื•ืœื™ื ื”ื™ื” ืžืฉื›ื™ื ืœื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ืชื™ื ืฉื ื‘ืื—ื“ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืฉืื ื”ื™ื” ืœื• ื˜ืขื ืช ื‘ืชื•ืœื™ื ื”ื™ื” ืžืฉื›ื™ื ืœื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืงื“ื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืขืœ ืชืงื ืช ื‘ื ื•ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉื™ื”ื ื˜ื•ืจื— ื‘ืกืขื•ื“ื” ืฉืœืฉื” ื™ืžื™ื ืื—ื“ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืฉื ื™ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื•ื‘ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ ื›ื•ื ืกื”

Rather, if it was stated, this is how it was stated: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Due to what reason did the Sages in the mishna say that a virgin is married on Wednesday? It is so that if the husband had a claim concerning the brideโ€™s virginity, he would go early the next day to court and make his claim. The Gemara asks: But if that is the reason, let her marry on Sunday, as then too, if the husband had a claim concerning the brideโ€™s virginity, he would go early the next day to court and make his claim. The Gemara answers: The Sages were assiduous in seeing to the well-being of Jewish women and instituted that the wedding take place on Wednesday, so that the groom would exert himself in arranging the wedding feast for three days: Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, and on Wednesday, he marries her.

ื•ืขื›ืฉื• ืฉืฉื ื™ื ื• ืฉืงื“ื• ืื•ืชื” ืฉืฉื ื™ื ื• ื”ื’ื™ืข ื–ืžืŸ ื•ืœื ื ื™ืฉืื• ืื•ื›ืœื•ืช ืžืฉืœื• ื•ืื•ื›ืœื•ืช ื‘ืชืจื•ืžื” ื”ื’ื™ืข ื–ืžืŸ ื‘ืื—ื“ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืžืชื•ืš ืฉืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื›ื ื•ืก ืื™ื ื• ืžืขืœื” ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช

The Gemara continues: And now that we learned that the reason for the ruling in the mishna that a woman is married on Wednesday is that the Sages were assiduous in this matter, then with regard to that halakha, which we learned in the later mishna: If the time arrived and they were not married, the brides are entitled to eat from his food and eat teruma, one may conclude: If the time arrived on Sunday, since he is unable to marry her because he is busy preparing the wedding feast, he is not obligated to provide her sustenance until Wednesday.

ืœืคื™ื›ืš ื—ืœื” ื”ื•ื ืื• ืฉื—ืœืชื” ื”ื™ื ืื• ืฉืคื™ืจืกื” ื ื“ื” ืื™ื ื• ืžืขืœื” ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช

Therefore, according to the same line of reasoning, if the husband fell ill, or if the bride fell ill, or in a case where she began to menstruate [peirsa nidda] and the wedding had to be postponed, he similarly need not provide her sustenance from the designated time, as he did not initiate the delay.

ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืœื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ื—ืœื” ื”ื•ื ืžื”ื• ื”ืชื ื˜ืขืžื ืžืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื ื™ืก ื•ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื ืื ื™ืก ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื”ืชื ืื ื™ืก ื‘ืชืงื ืชื ื“ืชืงื™ื ื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื›ื ืœื

And there are those who raised it as a dilemma: If the groom fell ill, what is the ruling with regard to his obligation to provide her sustenance? There, in the case where the designated time arrived on Sunday, what is the reason that he is exempt? It is due to the fact that he was forced to postpone the wedding by circumstances beyond his control. And here too, isnโ€™t he forced by circumstances beyond his control, and he should therefore be exempt? Or, perhaps there is a distinction between the cases. There, he was forced by an ordinance that was instituted by the Sages that a virgin marries on Wednesday, and they exempted him from providing for her until then. However, here, that is not the case. Therefore, despite the existence of circumstances beyond his control, he is not exempt from providing her sustenance due to his illness.

ื•ืื ืชืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ื—ืœื” ื”ื•ื ืžืขืœื” ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ื—ืœืชื” ื”ื™ื ืžื”ื• ืžืฆื™ ืืžืจ ืœื” ืื ื ื”ื ืงืื™ืžื ื ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืžืฆื™ื ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ื ืกืชื—ืคื” ืฉื“ื”ื•

And if you say that if he fell ill, he provides her sustenance at the time designated for the wedding, then if she fell ill, what is the ruling? Can he say to her: I am standing here prepared to wed you, and if you are not prepared, it is not my fault? Or perhaps she can say to him that his field was inundated, i.e., her illness is tantamount to a natural disaster that befell him, and he must nevertheless provide for her.

ื•ืื ืชืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ื ืกืชื—ืคื” ืฉื“ื”ื• ืคื™ืจืกื” ื ื“ื” ืžื”ื•

And if you say that if she fell ill she can say to him that his field was inundated, if she became a menstruating woman and the wedding was postponed, what is the ruling? Is this too considered an unavoidable circumstance, like illness, and he must provide for her, or was this predictable?

ื‘ืฉืขืช ื•ื•ืกืชื” ืœื ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืš

If she began menstruating at the time of her set period [vista], do not raise the dilemma,

ื“ืœื ืžืฆื™ื ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ื ืกืชื—ืคื” ืฉื“ื”ื• ื›ื™ ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืš ืฉืœื ื‘ืฉืขืช ื•ื•ืกืชื” ืžืื™ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ื‘ืฉืขืช ื•ื•ืกืชื” ื”ื•ื™ื ืžืฆื™ื ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ื ืกืชื—ืคื” ืฉื“ื”ื• ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื ืฉื™ ื“ืงื ืžืฉื ื™ื™ื ื•ื•ืกืชื™ื™ื”ื• ื›ืฉืขืช ื•ื•ืกืชื” ื“ืžื™

as it is clear that she cannot say to him that his field was inundated. Here, the circumstances were avoidable, and postponement of the wedding is attributable to her. When you should raise a dilemma is in a case where menstruation began not at the time of her set period. What is the ruling there? Since it is not the time of her set period, it is comparable to the case of her illness, and she can say to him that his field was inundated. Or, perhaps since there are some women whose set period changes, it is avoidable, and its legal status is like menstruation at the time of her set period, and postponement of the wedding is attributable to her.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ ืจื‘ ืื—ืื™ ื”ื’ื™ืข ื–ืžืŸ ื•ืœื ื ื™ืฉืื• ืื•ื›ืœื•ืช ืžืฉืœื• ื•ืื•ื›ืœื•ืช ื‘ืชืจื•ืžื” ืœื ื ืฉืื• ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ืืœื ืœื ื ื™ืฉืื•

Rav Aแธฅai resolved these dilemmas through a careful reading of the mishna: If the time arrived and they were not married, the brides are entitled to eat from his food and eat teruma. It doesnโ€™t teach: And the grooms didnโ€™t marry, in the active form. Rather, it teaches: And the brides were not married, in the passive form.

ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ืงื ืžืขื›ื‘ืŸ ืื™ื ื”ื™ ืืžืื™ ืื•ื›ืœื•ืช ืžืฉืœื• ื•ืื•ื›ืœื•ืช ื‘ืชืจื•ืžื” ืืœื ืœืื• ื“ืื™ืชื ื™ืก ื›ื™ ื”ืื™ ื’ื•ื•ื ื ื•ืงืชื ื™ ืื•ื›ืœื•ืช ืžืฉืœื• ื•ืื•ื›ืœื•ืช ื‘ืชืจื•ืžื”

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances described in the phrase: They were not married? If the brides postpone the marriage, why do they eat from his food and eat teruma? Rather, is it not referring to a case where they were compelled by circumstances beyond their control in that manner, e.g., the bride falling ill or beginning to menstruate, and it teaches: The brides eat from his food and eat teruma, and his bad fortune is responsible for his situation.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืžื ืœืš ื›ืœ ืื•ื ืกื ืœื ืื›ืœื” ื•ื“ืงื ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ ืื™ื ื”ื• ื•ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืžื™ืชื ื™ ืœื ื ืฉืื• ื•ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืชื ื ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื”ื™ ืชื ื ื ืžื™ ืกื™ืคื ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื”ื™

Rav Ashi said: Actually, I will say to you: In any case of unavoidable circumstances, whether they affect him or they affect her, she doesnโ€™t eat from his food, and the mishna is referring to a case where grooms postpone the wedding. And by right, the tanna should have taught: They didnโ€™t marry, which would have established that grooms caused the postponement. And since the tanna taught the first clause of the mishna cited above in terms of a bride: The Sages give a virgin twelve months, it taught the latter clause in terms of a bride. Therefore, no inference may be drawn from the formulation of the latter clause. Only if the groom postpones the wedding is he obligated to provide sustenance for the women when the time designated for the wedding arrives.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื•ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื›ืŸ ืืœืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื ืื™ืŸ ืื•ื ืก ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ

Rava said: And although delays caused by circumstances beyond his control exempt the groom from providing support to his betrothed at the time originally designated for the wedding, with regard to bills of divorce that is not so. Apparently, Rava maintains that unavoidable circumstances have no legal standing with regard to bills of divorce. If one stipulated that the bill of divorce will take effect only with the fulfillment of a condition, even if that condition was fulfilled due to circumstances beyond his control, the bill of divorce takes effect.

ืžื ื ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื ื”ื ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืžื”ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืš ืื ืœื ื‘ืืชื™ ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืขื“ ืฉื ื™ื ืขืฉืจ ื—ื“ืฉ ื•ืžืช ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉื ื™ื ืขืฉืจ ื—ื“ืฉ ืื™ื ื• ื’ื˜ ืžืช ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ื ื• ื’ื˜ ื”ื ื—ืœื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื’ื˜

The Gemara asks: From where does Rava learn this principle? If we say it is from that which we learned in a mishna (Gittin 76b) with regard to one who said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce, if I do not return from now until the conclusion of twelve months, and he died within those twelve months, the document is not a bill of divorce. Therefore, if she has no children from her deceased husband, the halakhot of levirate marriage would apply to her. The Gemara infers: If he died, that is when it is not a bill of divorce, since a divorce cannot take effect posthumously. By inference, in cases involving other circumstances beyond his control, e.g., if he fell ill, and therefore did not return, it is a bill of divorce and it takes effect. Apparently, if the reason for his failure to arrive is a circumstance beyond his control, the divorce takes effect.

ื•ื“ืœืžื ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืžื ืœืš ื—ืœื” ื ืžื™ ืื™ื ื• ื’ื˜ ื•ื”ื™ื ื’ื•ืคื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืื™ืŸ ื’ื˜ ืœืื—ืจ ืžื™ืชื”

The Gemara refutes that proof. And perhaps, actually I will say to you that in the case where he falls ill it is also not a bill of divorce, and the mishna cited the case of death merely as an example of circumstances beyond his control. And the reason that example itself was chosen is to teach us that there is no bill of divorce posthumously. Even if the divorce is not conditional, and the husband simply states that it will take effect after he dies, it is not a valid bill of divorce.

ืื™ืŸ ื’ื˜ ืœืื—ืจ ืžื™ืชื” ื”ื ืชื ื ืœื™ื” ืจื™ืฉื ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืš ืื ืžืชื™ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืš ืžื—ื•ืœื™ ื–ื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืš ืœืื—ืจ ืžื™ืชื” ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื

The Gemara asks: Does it come to teach that there is no bill of divorce posthumously? Wasnโ€™t it already taught in the first clause of the mishna (Gittin 72a) that if one on his deathbed said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I die, or: This is your bill of divorce if I die from this illness, or: This is your bill of divorce after I die, he said nothing. The bill of divorce does not take effect after his death.

ื“ืœืžื ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžื“ืจื‘ื•ืชื™ื ื• ื“ืชื ื™ื ื•ืจื‘ื•ืชื™ื ื• ื”ืชื™ืจื•ื” ืœื”ื ืฉื ื•ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืžืืŸ ืจื‘ื•ืชื™ื ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื“ืฉืจื• ืžืฉื—ื ืกื‘ืจื™ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื“ืืžืจ ื–ืžื ื• ืฉืœ ืฉื˜ืจ ืžื•ื›ื™ื— ืขืœื™ื•

The Gemara answers: Perhaps it was necessary for the first clause to mention specifically the case of death, to exclude that which our Rabbis said and not to exclude the case of one who fell ill, as it is taught in a baraita: And our Rabbis permitted her to remarry, in a case where he died within the twelve months that he stipulated. And we said: Who are our Rabbis mentioned here? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is the court that permitted the oil of gentiles for consumption. In this regard, they hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said: The time written in a document proves when it takes effect. The fact that a certain date is written in the bill of divorce indicates that oneโ€™s intention was that the divorce take effect from the day that it was written and delivered, not after his death. In any event, there is proof neither for nor against Ravaโ€™s opinion from this baraita.

ื•ืืœื ืžืกื™ืคื ืžืขื›ืฉื™ื• ืื ืœื ื‘ืืชื™ ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืขื“ ืฉื ื™ื ืขืฉืจ ื—ื“ืฉ ื•ืžืช ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉื ื™ื ืขืฉืจ ื—ื“ืฉ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื’ื˜ ืžืช ื•ื”ื•ื ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื—ืœื”

And rather, proof may be cited from the latter clause of the mishna. If a man says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce from now if I do not return from now until the conclusion of twelve months, and he died within those twelve months, this document is a bill of divorce. This is the halakha in a case where he dies, and the same is true if he fell ill. If the divorce takes effect when his failure to return is attributable to death, the ultimate circumstance beyond his control, all the more so should it take effect if it is attributable to a less extreme circumstance.

ื“ืœืžื ืžืช ื“ื•ืงื ื“ืœื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื” ื“ืชืคื•ืœ ืงืžื™ ื™ื‘ื

The Gemara rejects that proof: Perhaps the divorce takes effect specifically in the case where he died, because he is not amenable to have his wife happen before her yavam, his brother, if he had no children. However, if other circumstances beyond his control caused the condition to be fulfilled, where levirate marriage is not a consideration, his intention is that the bill of divorce will not take effect.

ืืœื ืžื”ื ื“ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืื™ ืœื ืืชื™ื ื ืžื™ื›ืŸ ื•ืขื“ ืชืœืชื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื™ืŸ ืœื™ื”ื•ื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื ืืชื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืชืœืชื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื™ืŸ ื•ืคืกืงื™ื” ืžื‘ืจื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื—ื–ื• ื“ืืชืื™ ื—ื–ื• ื“ืืชืื™ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœืื• ืฉืžื™ื” ืžืชื™ื

Rather, proof may be cited from this case, where a certain man who said to the agents with whom he entrusted the bill of divorce: If I do not return from now until after thirty days have passed, let this be a bill of divorce. He came at the end of thirty days, before the deadline passed, but was prevented from crossing the river by the ferry that was located on the other side of the river, so he did not come within the designated time. He said to the people across the river: See that I have come, see that I have come. Shmuel said: This is not considered to be a return. Apparently, even if the condition was fulfilled due to circumstances beyond his control, the condition is considered fulfilled.

ื•ื“ืœืžื ืื•ื ืกื ื“ืฉื›ื™ื— ืฉืื ื™ ื“ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืืชื ื•ื™ื™ ื•ืœื ืืชื ื™ ืื™ื”ื• ื“ืืคืกื™ื“ ืื ืคืฉื™ื”

The Gemara rejects that proof: And perhaps unavoidable circumstances that are common and could be anticipated, e.g., the ferry is located at the other side of the river, are different, since he should have stipulated that exception when establishing the condition, and he did not stipulate it, he brought the failure to arrive upon himself. Although he regrets it now, at the time his intent was that even if the condition were fulfilled due to that circumstance, the divorce would take effect. In contrast, however, if the condition is fulfilled due to an uncommon circumstance that could not have been anticipated, the divorce would not take effect.

ืืœื ืจื‘ื ืกื‘ืจื ื“ื ืคืฉื™ื” ืงืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืฆื ื•ืขื•ืช ื•ืžืฉื•ื ืคืจื•ืฆื•ืช ืžืฉื•ื ืฆื ื•ืขื•ืช ื“ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืœื ืœื”ื•ื™ ื’ื˜

Rather, Rava is stating a halakha based on his own reasoning. Circumstances beyond oneโ€™s control are not a factor in determining whether or not a condition is fulfilled, and this is due to virtuous women and due to licentious women. The Gemara articulates: There is concern due to virtuous women is, as, if you said: Let it not be a bill of divorce, if the reason that the condition was not fulfilled was due to circumstances beyond his control,

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Kessler, Wolkenfeld and Grossman families in loving memory of Mia Rose bat Matan Yehoshua vโ€™ Elana Malka. "ื” ื ืชืŸ ื•ื” ืœืงื—. ื™ื”ื™ ืฉื ื” ืžื‘ื•ืจืš"

  • This month's shiurim are sponsored by Shoshana Shur for the refuah shleima of Meira Bat Zelda Zahava.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 2-6 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

As we begin a new Masechet, we will review the concept of the Ketuva, its obligations, and its purpose. We...
Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

Gefet 40 – When and Why Do We Marry?

The first pages of Tractate Ketubot deal with the question of when to get married. In today's Gefet we will...
A Work of (He)Art

A Work of (HE)ART

Hello Ketubot! In this new tractate we will take a look at marriage obligations and responsibilities. The main document that...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 2: Unforeseen Circumstances

Introducing the tractate of Ketubot, including the question of defining virginity. And diving right in to the first mishnah -...

Ketubot 2

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 2

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื ืฉืืช ืœื™ื•ื ื”ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ ื•ืืœืžื ื” ืœื™ื•ื ื”ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ ืฉืคืขืžื™ื ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื‘ืชื™ ื“ื™ื ื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืฉื‘ื™ืŸ ื‘ืขื™ื™ืจื•ืช ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ืฉื ื™ ื•ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื—ืžื™ืฉื™ ืฉืื ื”ื™ื” ืœื• ื˜ืขื ืช ื‘ืชื•ืœื™ื ื”ื™ื” ืžืฉื›ื™ื ืœื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ

MISHNA: A virgin is married on Wednesday and a widow on Thursday. The reason for the former is that twice a week courts convene in the towns, on Monday and Thursday, so that if the husband had a claim concerning the brideโ€™s virginity when consummating the marriage on Wednesday night, he would go early the next day to court and make his claim.

ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืืžืจื• ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื ืฉืืช ืœื™ื•ื ื”ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ ืœืคื™ ืฉืฉื ื™ื ื• ื”ื’ื™ืข ื–ืžืŸ ื•ืœื ื ื™ืฉืื• ืื•ื›ืœื•ืช ืžืฉืœื• ื•ืื•ื›ืœื•ืช ื‘ืชืจื•ืžื”

GEMARA: Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Due to what reason did they say that a virgin is married on Wednesday? It is because we learned in a mishna elsewhere (57a): If the time that the groom designated for the wedding arrived, and the wedding was postponed, and they were not married, the brides are entitled to eat from his food and, if he is a priest, eat teruma.

ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื”ื’ื™ืข ื–ืžืŸ ื‘ืื—ื“ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื™ื”ื ืžืขืœื” ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ืœื›ืš ืฉื ื™ื ื• ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื ืฉืืช ืœื™ื•ื ื”ืจื‘ื™ืขื™

One might think that if the designated time arrived on Sunday, and the wedding was postponed, he would provide her sustenance beginning on Sunday. Therefore, we learned: A virgin is married on Wednesday. Until Wednesday, the designated time is not considered to have arrived, even if the original date was earlier in the week.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ืžืจื™ื” ื“ืื‘ืจื”ื ืชืœื™ ืชื ื™ื ื‘ื“ืœื ืชื ื™ื ื”ื™ ืชื ื™ื ื•ื”ื™ ืœื ืชื ื™ื ื”ื ืชื ื™ื ื•ื”ื ืชื ื™ื ืืœื ืชืœื™ ืชื ื™ื ื“ืžืคืจืฉ ื˜ืขืžื ื‘ื“ืชื ื™ื ื“ืœื ืžืคืจืฉ ื˜ืขืžื

After citing the statements above, Rav Yosef said in astonishment: Lord of Abraham, Shmuel makes that which is taught dependent on that which is not taught, using the latter to explain the former. The Gemara asks: Which is taught and which is not taught? Both this mishna is taught and that mishna is taught. The Gemara answers: Rather, Shmuel makes the halakha that is taught in the mishna here, whose reason is explicit, dependent on a halakha that is taught in the later mishna, whose reason is not explicit. Citation of the later mishna contributed nothing to the understanding of the mishna here.

ืืœื ืื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžืคื ื™ ืžื” ืืžืจื• ื‘ืชื•ืœื” ื ืฉืืช ืœื™ื•ื ื”ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ ืฉืื ื”ื™ื” ืœื• ื˜ืขื ืช ื‘ืชื•ืœื™ื ื”ื™ื” ืžืฉื›ื™ื ืœื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ืชื™ื ืฉื ื‘ืื—ื“ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืฉืื ื”ื™ื” ืœื• ื˜ืขื ืช ื‘ืชื•ืœื™ื ื”ื™ื” ืžืฉื›ื™ื ืœื‘ื™ืช ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืงื“ื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืขืœ ืชืงื ืช ื‘ื ื•ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉื™ื”ื ื˜ื•ืจื— ื‘ืกืขื•ื“ื” ืฉืœืฉื” ื™ืžื™ื ืื—ื“ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืฉื ื™ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื•ืฉืœื™ืฉื™ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ื•ื‘ืจื‘ื™ืขื™ ื›ื•ื ืกื”

Rather, if it was stated, this is how it was stated: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Due to what reason did the Sages in the mishna say that a virgin is married on Wednesday? It is so that if the husband had a claim concerning the brideโ€™s virginity, he would go early the next day to court and make his claim. The Gemara asks: But if that is the reason, let her marry on Sunday, as then too, if the husband had a claim concerning the brideโ€™s virginity, he would go early the next day to court and make his claim. The Gemara answers: The Sages were assiduous in seeing to the well-being of Jewish women and instituted that the wedding take place on Wednesday, so that the groom would exert himself in arranging the wedding feast for three days: Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, and on Wednesday, he marries her.

ื•ืขื›ืฉื• ืฉืฉื ื™ื ื• ืฉืงื“ื• ืื•ืชื” ืฉืฉื ื™ื ื• ื”ื’ื™ืข ื–ืžืŸ ื•ืœื ื ื™ืฉืื• ืื•ื›ืœื•ืช ืžืฉืœื• ื•ืื•ื›ืœื•ืช ื‘ืชืจื•ืžื” ื”ื’ื™ืข ื–ืžืŸ ื‘ืื—ื“ ื‘ืฉื‘ืช ืžืชื•ืš ืฉืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื›ื ื•ืก ืื™ื ื• ืžืขืœื” ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช

The Gemara continues: And now that we learned that the reason for the ruling in the mishna that a woman is married on Wednesday is that the Sages were assiduous in this matter, then with regard to that halakha, which we learned in the later mishna: If the time arrived and they were not married, the brides are entitled to eat from his food and eat teruma, one may conclude: If the time arrived on Sunday, since he is unable to marry her because he is busy preparing the wedding feast, he is not obligated to provide her sustenance until Wednesday.

ืœืคื™ื›ืš ื—ืœื” ื”ื•ื ืื• ืฉื—ืœืชื” ื”ื™ื ืื• ืฉืคื™ืจืกื” ื ื“ื” ืื™ื ื• ืžืขืœื” ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช

Therefore, according to the same line of reasoning, if the husband fell ill, or if the bride fell ill, or in a case where she began to menstruate [peirsa nidda] and the wedding had to be postponed, he similarly need not provide her sustenance from the designated time, as he did not initiate the delay.

ื•ืื™ื›ื ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืœื” ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื ื—ืœื” ื”ื•ื ืžื”ื• ื”ืชื ื˜ืขืžื ืžืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื ื™ืก ื•ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื ืื ื™ืก ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื”ืชื ืื ื™ืก ื‘ืชืงื ืชื ื“ืชืงื™ื ื• ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื”ื›ื ืœื

And there are those who raised it as a dilemma: If the groom fell ill, what is the ruling with regard to his obligation to provide her sustenance? There, in the case where the designated time arrived on Sunday, what is the reason that he is exempt? It is due to the fact that he was forced to postpone the wedding by circumstances beyond his control. And here too, isnโ€™t he forced by circumstances beyond his control, and he should therefore be exempt? Or, perhaps there is a distinction between the cases. There, he was forced by an ordinance that was instituted by the Sages that a virgin marries on Wednesday, and they exempted him from providing for her until then. However, here, that is not the case. Therefore, despite the existence of circumstances beyond his control, he is not exempt from providing her sustenance due to his illness.

ื•ืื ืชืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ื—ืœื” ื”ื•ื ืžืขืœื” ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ื—ืœืชื” ื”ื™ื ืžื”ื• ืžืฆื™ ืืžืจ ืœื” ืื ื ื”ื ืงืื™ืžื ื ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืžืฆื™ื ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ื ืกืชื—ืคื” ืฉื“ื”ื•

And if you say that if he fell ill, he provides her sustenance at the time designated for the wedding, then if she fell ill, what is the ruling? Can he say to her: I am standing here prepared to wed you, and if you are not prepared, it is not my fault? Or perhaps she can say to him that his field was inundated, i.e., her illness is tantamount to a natural disaster that befell him, and he must nevertheless provide for her.

ื•ืื ืชืžืฆื™ ืœื•ืžืจ ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ื ืกืชื—ืคื” ืฉื“ื”ื• ืคื™ืจืกื” ื ื“ื” ืžื”ื•

And if you say that if she fell ill she can say to him that his field was inundated, if she became a menstruating woman and the wedding was postponed, what is the ruling? Is this too considered an unavoidable circumstance, like illness, and he must provide for her, or was this predictable?

ื‘ืฉืขืช ื•ื•ืกืชื” ืœื ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืš

If she began menstruating at the time of her set period [vista], do not raise the dilemma,

ื“ืœื ืžืฆื™ื ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ื ืกืชื—ืคื” ืฉื“ื”ื• ื›ื™ ืชื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœืš ืฉืœื ื‘ืฉืขืช ื•ื•ืกืชื” ืžืื™ ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืœื ื‘ืฉืขืช ื•ื•ืกืชื” ื”ื•ื™ื ืžืฆื™ื ืืžืจื” ืœื™ื” ื ืกืชื—ืคื” ืฉื“ื”ื• ืื• ื“ืœืžื ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื›ื ื ืฉื™ ื“ืงื ืžืฉื ื™ื™ื ื•ื•ืกืชื™ื™ื”ื• ื›ืฉืขืช ื•ื•ืกืชื” ื“ืžื™

as it is clear that she cannot say to him that his field was inundated. Here, the circumstances were avoidable, and postponement of the wedding is attributable to her. When you should raise a dilemma is in a case where menstruation began not at the time of her set period. What is the ruling there? Since it is not the time of her set period, it is comparable to the case of her illness, and she can say to him that his field was inundated. Or, perhaps since there are some women whose set period changes, it is avoidable, and its legal status is like menstruation at the time of her set period, and postponement of the wedding is attributable to her.

ืคืฉื™ื˜ ืจื‘ ืื—ืื™ ื”ื’ื™ืข ื–ืžืŸ ื•ืœื ื ื™ืฉืื• ืื•ื›ืœื•ืช ืžืฉืœื• ื•ืื•ื›ืœื•ืช ื‘ืชืจื•ืžื” ืœื ื ืฉืื• ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ืืœื ืœื ื ื™ืฉืื•

Rav Aแธฅai resolved these dilemmas through a careful reading of the mishna: If the time arrived and they were not married, the brides are entitled to eat from his food and eat teruma. It doesnโ€™t teach: And the grooms didnโ€™t marry, in the active form. Rather, it teaches: And the brides were not married, in the passive form.

ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืื™ ื“ืงื ืžืขื›ื‘ืŸ ืื™ื ื”ื™ ืืžืื™ ืื•ื›ืœื•ืช ืžืฉืœื• ื•ืื•ื›ืœื•ืช ื‘ืชืจื•ืžื” ืืœื ืœืื• ื“ืื™ืชื ื™ืก ื›ื™ ื”ืื™ ื’ื•ื•ื ื ื•ืงืชื ื™ ืื•ื›ืœื•ืช ืžืฉืœื• ื•ืื•ื›ืœื•ืช ื‘ืชืจื•ืžื”

The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances described in the phrase: They were not married? If the brides postpone the marriage, why do they eat from his food and eat teruma? Rather, is it not referring to a case where they were compelled by circumstances beyond their control in that manner, e.g., the bride falling ill or beginning to menstruate, and it teaches: The brides eat from his food and eat teruma, and his bad fortune is responsible for his situation.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืžื ืœืš ื›ืœ ืื•ื ืกื ืœื ืื›ืœื” ื•ื“ืงื ืžืขื›ื‘ื™ ืื™ื ื”ื• ื•ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืžื™ืชื ื™ ืœื ื ืฉืื• ื•ืื™ื™ื“ื™ ื“ืชื ื ืจื™ืฉื ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื”ื™ ืชื ื ื ืžื™ ืกื™ืคื ื‘ื“ื™ื“ื”ื™

Rav Ashi said: Actually, I will say to you: In any case of unavoidable circumstances, whether they affect him or they affect her, she doesnโ€™t eat from his food, and the mishna is referring to a case where grooms postpone the wedding. And by right, the tanna should have taught: They didnโ€™t marry, which would have established that grooms caused the postponement. And since the tanna taught the first clause of the mishna cited above in terms of a bride: The Sages give a virgin twelve months, it taught the latter clause in terms of a bride. Therefore, no inference may be drawn from the formulation of the latter clause. Only if the groom postpones the wedding is he obligated to provide sustenance for the women when the time designated for the wedding arrives.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื•ืœืขื ื™ืŸ ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื›ืŸ ืืœืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืจื‘ื ืื™ืŸ ืื•ื ืก ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ

Rava said: And although delays caused by circumstances beyond his control exempt the groom from providing support to his betrothed at the time originally designated for the wedding, with regard to bills of divorce that is not so. Apparently, Rava maintains that unavoidable circumstances have no legal standing with regard to bills of divorce. If one stipulated that the bill of divorce will take effect only with the fulfillment of a condition, even if that condition was fulfilled due to circumstances beyond his control, the bill of divorce takes effect.

ืžื ื ืœื™ื” ืœืจื‘ื ื”ื ืื™ืœื™ืžื ืžื”ื ื“ืชื ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืš ืื ืœื ื‘ืืชื™ ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืขื“ ืฉื ื™ื ืขืฉืจ ื—ื“ืฉ ื•ืžืช ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉื ื™ื ืขืฉืจ ื—ื“ืฉ ืื™ื ื• ื’ื˜ ืžืช ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ื ื• ื’ื˜ ื”ื ื—ืœื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื’ื˜

The Gemara asks: From where does Rava learn this principle? If we say it is from that which we learned in a mishna (Gittin 76b) with regard to one who said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce, if I do not return from now until the conclusion of twelve months, and he died within those twelve months, the document is not a bill of divorce. Therefore, if she has no children from her deceased husband, the halakhot of levirate marriage would apply to her. The Gemara infers: If he died, that is when it is not a bill of divorce, since a divorce cannot take effect posthumously. By inference, in cases involving other circumstances beyond his control, e.g., if he fell ill, and therefore did not return, it is a bill of divorce and it takes effect. Apparently, if the reason for his failure to arrive is a circumstance beyond his control, the divorce takes effect.

ื•ื“ืœืžื ืœืขื•ืœื ืื™ืžื ืœืš ื—ืœื” ื ืžื™ ืื™ื ื• ื’ื˜ ื•ื”ื™ื ื’ื•ืคื ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืื™ืŸ ื’ื˜ ืœืื—ืจ ืžื™ืชื”

The Gemara refutes that proof. And perhaps, actually I will say to you that in the case where he falls ill it is also not a bill of divorce, and the mishna cited the case of death merely as an example of circumstances beyond his control. And the reason that example itself was chosen is to teach us that there is no bill of divorce posthumously. Even if the divorce is not conditional, and the husband simply states that it will take effect after he dies, it is not a valid bill of divorce.

ืื™ืŸ ื’ื˜ ืœืื—ืจ ืžื™ืชื” ื”ื ืชื ื ืœื™ื” ืจื™ืฉื ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืš ืื ืžืชื™ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืš ืžื—ื•ืœื™ ื–ื” ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื’ื™ื˜ื™ืš ืœืื—ืจ ืžื™ืชื” ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื

The Gemara asks: Does it come to teach that there is no bill of divorce posthumously? Wasnโ€™t it already taught in the first clause of the mishna (Gittin 72a) that if one on his deathbed said to his wife: This is your bill of divorce if I die, or: This is your bill of divorce if I die from this illness, or: This is your bill of divorce after I die, he said nothing. The bill of divorce does not take effect after his death.

ื“ืœืžื ืœืืคื•ืงื™ ืžื“ืจื‘ื•ืชื™ื ื• ื“ืชื ื™ื ื•ืจื‘ื•ืชื™ื ื• ื”ืชื™ืจื•ื” ืœื”ื ืฉื ื•ืืžืจื™ื ืŸ ืžืืŸ ืจื‘ื•ืชื™ื ื• ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ื™ ื“ื™ื ื ื“ืฉืจื• ืžืฉื—ื ืกื‘ืจื™ ืœื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื“ืืžืจ ื–ืžื ื• ืฉืœ ืฉื˜ืจ ืžื•ื›ื™ื— ืขืœื™ื•

The Gemara answers: Perhaps it was necessary for the first clause to mention specifically the case of death, to exclude that which our Rabbis said and not to exclude the case of one who fell ill, as it is taught in a baraita: And our Rabbis permitted her to remarry, in a case where he died within the twelve months that he stipulated. And we said: Who are our Rabbis mentioned here? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is the court that permitted the oil of gentiles for consumption. In this regard, they hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who said: The time written in a document proves when it takes effect. The fact that a certain date is written in the bill of divorce indicates that oneโ€™s intention was that the divorce take effect from the day that it was written and delivered, not after his death. In any event, there is proof neither for nor against Ravaโ€™s opinion from this baraita.

ื•ืืœื ืžืกื™ืคื ืžืขื›ืฉื™ื• ืื ืœื ื‘ืืชื™ ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืขื“ ืฉื ื™ื ืขืฉืจ ื—ื“ืฉ ื•ืžืช ื‘ืชื•ืš ืฉื ื™ื ืขืฉืจ ื—ื“ืฉ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื’ื˜ ืžืช ื•ื”ื•ื ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ืœื—ืœื”

And rather, proof may be cited from the latter clause of the mishna. If a man says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce from now if I do not return from now until the conclusion of twelve months, and he died within those twelve months, this document is a bill of divorce. This is the halakha in a case where he dies, and the same is true if he fell ill. If the divorce takes effect when his failure to return is attributable to death, the ultimate circumstance beyond his control, all the more so should it take effect if it is attributable to a less extreme circumstance.

ื“ืœืžื ืžืช ื“ื•ืงื ื“ืœื ื ื™ื—ื ืœื™ื” ื“ืชืคื•ืœ ืงืžื™ ื™ื‘ื

The Gemara rejects that proof: Perhaps the divorce takes effect specifically in the case where he died, because he is not amenable to have his wife happen before her yavam, his brother, if he had no children. However, if other circumstances beyond his control caused the condition to be fulfilled, where levirate marriage is not a consideration, his intention is that the bill of divorce will not take effect.

ืืœื ืžื”ื ื“ื”ื”ื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืื™ ืœื ืืชื™ื ื ืžื™ื›ืŸ ื•ืขื“ ืชืœืชื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื™ืŸ ืœื™ื”ื•ื™ ื’ื™ื˜ื ืืชื ื‘ืกื•ืฃ ืชืœืชื™ืŸ ื™ื•ืžื™ืŸ ื•ืคืกืงื™ื” ืžื‘ืจื ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื—ื–ื• ื“ืืชืื™ ื—ื–ื• ื“ืืชืื™ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœืื• ืฉืžื™ื” ืžืชื™ื

Rather, proof may be cited from this case, where a certain man who said to the agents with whom he entrusted the bill of divorce: If I do not return from now until after thirty days have passed, let this be a bill of divorce. He came at the end of thirty days, before the deadline passed, but was prevented from crossing the river by the ferry that was located on the other side of the river, so he did not come within the designated time. He said to the people across the river: See that I have come, see that I have come. Shmuel said: This is not considered to be a return. Apparently, even if the condition was fulfilled due to circumstances beyond his control, the condition is considered fulfilled.

ื•ื“ืœืžื ืื•ื ืกื ื“ืฉื›ื™ื— ืฉืื ื™ ื“ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ื“ืื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ืœืืชื ื•ื™ื™ ื•ืœื ืืชื ื™ ืื™ื”ื• ื“ืืคืกื™ื“ ืื ืคืฉื™ื”

The Gemara rejects that proof: And perhaps unavoidable circumstances that are common and could be anticipated, e.g., the ferry is located at the other side of the river, are different, since he should have stipulated that exception when establishing the condition, and he did not stipulate it, he brought the failure to arrive upon himself. Although he regrets it now, at the time his intent was that even if the condition were fulfilled due to that circumstance, the divorce would take effect. In contrast, however, if the condition is fulfilled due to an uncommon circumstance that could not have been anticipated, the divorce would not take effect.

ืืœื ืจื‘ื ืกื‘ืจื ื“ื ืคืฉื™ื” ืงืืžืจ ืžืฉื•ื ืฆื ื•ืขื•ืช ื•ืžืฉื•ื ืคืจื•ืฆื•ืช ืžืฉื•ื ืฆื ื•ืขื•ืช ื“ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืœื ืœื”ื•ื™ ื’ื˜

Rather, Rava is stating a halakha based on his own reasoning. Circumstances beyond oneโ€™s control are not a factor in determining whether or not a condition is fulfilled, and this is due to virtuous women and due to licentious women. The Gemara articulates: There is concern due to virtuous women is, as, if you said: Let it not be a bill of divorce, if the reason that the condition was not fulfilled was due to circumstances beyond his control,

Scroll To Top