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

Today's Daf Yomi

July 8, 2022 | 讟壮 讘转诪讜讝 转砖驻状讘

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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

Ketubot 2

Ketubot bookmark and checklist

Today’s daf is sponsored by Suri Stern in honor of Rabbanit Michelle Farber who rocked teaching this long and hard Masechet Yevamot and my sisters in Hadran Long Island who persevered through this difficult masechet with their usual humor. 诇讻讜 诪讞讬诇 讗诇 讞讬诇!

Today’s daf is sponsored by the Hadran Daf Yomi women of Hashmonaim to Phyllis, Gittel Pasha bat Masha Rachel for the continued refuah. “In addition to being a pillar of hesed and torah learning in our community, you have become so central in our daf learning, creating a WhatsApp daf yomi group with daily posts and other related materials so we can access it all with the flick of a finger. You have left us with huge shoes to fill in your absence and are waiting for your return in good health and vigor, as we continue to daven daily for you. Ken Yihi Ratzon!”

On what day do people get married and why? If the woman was a virgin, then on Wednesday and widows on Thursday. Why? The Mishna explains why virgins on Friday – since the courts meet on Thursday, they would marry on Wednesday so that if she was not actually a virgin, the husband can bring her to court the following morning to claim that she had lied about being a virgin, as the courts meet on Thursday. But as courts also met on Monday, why don’t they marry also on Sunday? To answer the question, they add that they wanted to give the husband three days (from Shabbat) to prepare the meal for the wedding in order to provide a proper feast for his wife. As a result, if the date passes after which the husband was already supposed to marry the wife (generally a year after the betrothal), the man needs to already provide sustenance for the woman, but only beginning from Wednesday as based on the takana of the rabbis that people should get married on Wednesday. If there was some reason beyond his control that the wedding was delayed, he does not need to start paying for her sustenance. What if the wedding was delayed because of the woman – a reason beyond her control? What would be/not be considered beyond her control? Rava said that this issue of making a claim that there were circumstances beyond’s one control (ones), does not apply for a divorce document, a get, that was given upon condition. From where does he learn this? The Gemara makes several attempts to bring a source, but in the end, they are unable to prove it from sources and they explain that Rava came to this conclusion using his own reasoning.

诪转谞讬壮 讘转讜诇讛 谞砖讗转 诇讬讜诐 讛专讘讬注讬 讜讗诇诪谞讛 诇讬讜诐 讛讞诪讬砖讬 砖驻注诪讬诐 讘砖讘转 讘转讬 讚讬谞讬谉 讬讜砖讘讬谉 讘注讬讬专讜转 讘讬讜诐 讛砖谞讬 讜讘讬讜诐 讛讞诪讬砖讬 砖讗诐 讛讬讛 诇讜 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐 讛讬讛 诪砖讻讬诐 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉

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 bride鈥檚 virginity when consummating the marriage on Wednesday night, he would go early the next day to court and make his claim.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讘转讜诇讛 谞砖讗转 诇讬讜诐 讛专讘讬注讬 诇驻讬 砖砖谞讬谞讜 讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讜诇讗 谞讬砖讗讜 讗讜讻诇讜转 诪砖诇讜 讜讗讜讻诇讜转 讘转专讜诪讛

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.

讬讻讜诇 讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讘讗讞讚 讘砖讘转 讬讛讗 诪注诇讛 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇讻讱 砖谞讬谞讜 讘转讜诇讛 谞砖讗转 诇讬讜诐 讛专讘讬注讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪专讬讛 讚讗讘专讛诐 转诇讬 转谞讬讗 讘讚诇讗 转谞讬讗 讛讬 转谞讬讗 讜讛讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗 讛讗 转谞讬讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗诇讗 转诇讬 转谞讬讗 讚诪驻专砖 讟注诪讗 讘讚转谞讬讗 讚诇讗 诪驻专砖 讟注诪讗

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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讘转讜诇讛 谞砖讗转 诇讬讜诐 讛专讘讬注讬 砖讗诐 讛讬讛 诇讜 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐 讛讬讛 诪砖讻讬诐 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜转讬谞砖讗 讘讗讞讚 讘砖讘转 砖讗诐 讛讬讛 诇讜 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐 讛讬讛 诪砖讻讬诐 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖拽讚讜 讞讻诪讬诐 注诇 转拽谞转 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 砖讬讛讗 讟讜专讞 讘住注讜讚讛 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讗讞讚 讘砖讘转 讜砖谞讬 讘砖讘转 讜砖诇讬砖讬 讘砖讘转 讜讘专讘讬注讬 讻讜谞住讛

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 bride鈥檚 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 bride鈥檚 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.

讜注讻砖讜 砖砖谞讬谞讜 砖拽讚讜 讗讜转讛 砖砖谞讬谞讜 讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讜诇讗 谞讬砖讗讜 讗讜讻诇讜转 诪砖诇讜 讜讗讜讻诇讜转 讘转专讜诪讛 讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讘讗讞讚 讘砖讘转 诪转讜讱 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讻谞讜住 讗讬谞讜 诪注诇讛 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转

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.

诇驻讬讻讱 讞诇讛 讛讜讗 讗讜 砖讞诇转讛 讛讬讗 讗讜 砖驻讬专住讛 谞讚讛 讗讬谞讜 诪注诇讛 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转

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.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讘注讬 诇讛 诪讬讘注讬讗 讞诇讛 讛讜讗 诪讛讜 讛转诐 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗谞讬住 讜讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讗 讗谞讬住 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛转诐 讗谞讬住 讘转拽谞转讗 讚转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讛讻讗 诇讗

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, isn鈥檛 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.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讞诇讛 讛讜讗 诪注诇讛 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讞诇转讛 讛讬讗 诪讛讜 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讗谞讗 讛讗 拽讗讬诪谞讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪爪讬讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 谞住转讞驻讛 砖讚讛讜

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.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 谞住转讞驻讛 砖讚讛讜 驻讬专住讛 谞讚讛 诪讛讜

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?

讘砖注转 讜讜住转讛 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱

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

讚诇讗 诪爪讬讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 谞住转讞驻讛 砖讚讛讜 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 讜讜住转讛 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讘砖注转 讜讜住转讛 讛讜讬讗 诪爪讬讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 谞住转讞驻讛 砖讚讛讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 谞砖讬 讚拽讗 诪砖谞讬讬讗 讜讜住转讬讬讛讜 讻砖注转 讜讜住转讛 讚诪讬

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.

驻砖讬讟 专讘 讗讞讗讬 讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讜诇讗 谞讬砖讗讜 讗讜讻诇讜转 诪砖诇讜 讜讗讜讻诇讜转 讘转专讜诪讛 诇讗 谞砖讗讜 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 诇讗 谞讬砖讗讜

Rav A岣i 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 doesn鈥檛 teach: And the grooms didn鈥檛 marry, in the active form. Rather, it teaches: And the brides were not married, in the passive form.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚拽讗 诪注讻讘谉 讗讬谞讛讬 讗诪讗讬 讗讜讻诇讜转 诪砖诇讜 讜讗讜讻诇讜转 讘转专讜诪讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗讬转谞讬住 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讜拽转谞讬 讗讜讻诇讜转 诪砖诇讜 讜讗讜讻诇讜转 讘转专讜诪讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讻诇 讗讜谞住讗 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讜讚拽讗 诪注讻讘讬 讗讬谞讛讜 讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转谞讬 诇讗 谞砖讗讜 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讘讚讬讚讛讬 转谞讗 谞诪讬 住讬驻讗 讘讚讬讚讛讬

Rav Ashi said: Actually, I will say to you: In any case of unavoidable circumstances, whether they affect him or they affect her, she doesn鈥檛 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 didn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诇注谞讬谉 讙讬讟讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讻谉 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讗 讗讬谉 讗讜谞住 讘讙讬讟讬谉

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.

诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讛讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诪转 讘转讜讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 诪转 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 讙讟 讛讗 讞诇讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟

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.

讜讚诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讞诇讛 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 讜讛讬讗 讙讜驻讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 讙讟 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

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.

讗讬谉 讙讟 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 讗诐 诪转讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 诪讞讜诇讬 讝讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

The Gemara asks: Does it come to teach that there is no bill of divorce posthumously? Wasn鈥檛 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.

讚诇诪讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讜转讬谞讜 讚转谞讬讗 讜专讘讜转讬谞讜 讛转讬专讜讛 诇讛谞砖讗 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗谉 专讘讜转讬谞讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚砖专讜 诪砖讞讗 住讘专讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 讝诪谞讜 砖诇 砖讟专 诪讜讻讬讞 注诇讬讜

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 one鈥檚 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 Rava鈥檚 opinion from this baraita.

讜讗诇讗 诪住讬驻讗 诪注讻砖讬讜 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诪转 讘转讜讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 诪转 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讞诇讛

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.

讚诇诪讗 诪转 讚讜拽讗 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚转驻讜诇 拽诪讬 讬讘诐

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.

讗诇讗 诪讛讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 诇讗 讗转讬谞讗 诪讬讻谉 讜注讚 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讗转讗 讘住讜祝 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讜驻住拽讬讛 诪讘专讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讞讝讜 讚讗转讗讬 讞讝讜 讚讗转讗讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗讜 砖诪讬讛 诪转讬讗

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.

讜讚诇诪讗 讗讜谞住讗 讚砖讻讬讞 砖讗谞讬 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗转谞讜讬讬 讜诇讗 讗转谞讬 讗讬讛讜 讚讗驻住讬讚 讗谞驻砖讬讛

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.

讗诇讗 专讘讗 住讘专讗 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 爪谞讜注讜转 讜诪砖讜诐 驻专讜爪讜转 诪砖讜诐 爪谞讜注讜转 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 诇讛讜讬 讙讟

Rather, Rava is stating a halakha based on his own reasoning. Circumstances beyond one鈥檚 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,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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

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

When and Why Do We Marry? Gefet 40

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

诪转谞讬壮 讘转讜诇讛 谞砖讗转 诇讬讜诐 讛专讘讬注讬 讜讗诇诪谞讛 诇讬讜诐 讛讞诪讬砖讬 砖驻注诪讬诐 讘砖讘转 讘转讬 讚讬谞讬谉 讬讜砖讘讬谉 讘注讬讬专讜转 讘讬讜诐 讛砖谞讬 讜讘讬讜诐 讛讞诪讬砖讬 砖讗诐 讛讬讛 诇讜 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐 讛讬讛 诪砖讻讬诐 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉

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 bride鈥檚 virginity when consummating the marriage on Wednesday night, he would go early the next day to court and make his claim.

讙诪壮 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讘转讜诇讛 谞砖讗转 诇讬讜诐 讛专讘讬注讬 诇驻讬 砖砖谞讬谞讜 讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讜诇讗 谞讬砖讗讜 讗讜讻诇讜转 诪砖诇讜 讜讗讜讻诇讜转 讘转专讜诪讛

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.

讬讻讜诇 讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讘讗讞讚 讘砖讘转 讬讛讗 诪注诇讛 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 诇讻讱 砖谞讬谞讜 讘转讜诇讛 谞砖讗转 诇讬讜诐 讛专讘讬注讬

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 诪专讬讛 讚讗讘专讛诐 转诇讬 转谞讬讗 讘讚诇讗 转谞讬讗 讛讬 转谞讬讗 讜讛讬 诇讗 转谞讬讗 讛讗 转谞讬讗 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讗诇讗 转诇讬 转谞讬讗 讚诪驻专砖 讟注诪讗 讘讚转谞讬讗 讚诇讗 诪驻专砖 讟注诪讗

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.

讗诇讗 讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗诪专讜 讘转讜诇讛 谞砖讗转 诇讬讜诐 讛专讘讬注讬 砖讗诐 讛讬讛 诇讜 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐 讛讬讛 诪砖讻讬诐 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 讜转讬谞砖讗 讘讗讞讚 讘砖讘转 砖讗诐 讛讬讛 诇讜 讟注谞转 讘转讜诇讬诐 讛讬讛 诪砖讻讬诐 诇讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖拽讚讜 讞讻诪讬诐 注诇 转拽谞转 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 砖讬讛讗 讟讜专讞 讘住注讜讚讛 砖诇砖讛 讬诪讬诐 讗讞讚 讘砖讘转 讜砖谞讬 讘砖讘转 讜砖诇讬砖讬 讘砖讘转 讜讘专讘讬注讬 讻讜谞住讛

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 bride鈥檚 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 bride鈥檚 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.

讜注讻砖讜 砖砖谞讬谞讜 砖拽讚讜 讗讜转讛 砖砖谞讬谞讜 讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讜诇讗 谞讬砖讗讜 讗讜讻诇讜转 诪砖诇讜 讜讗讜讻诇讜转 讘转专讜诪讛 讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讘讗讞讚 讘砖讘转 诪转讜讱 砖讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讻谞讜住 讗讬谞讜 诪注诇讛 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转

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.

诇驻讬讻讱 讞诇讛 讛讜讗 讗讜 砖讞诇转讛 讛讬讗 讗讜 砖驻讬专住讛 谞讚讛 讗讬谞讜 诪注诇讛 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转

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.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讘注讬 诇讛 诪讬讘注讬讗 讞诇讛 讛讜讗 诪讛讜 讛转诐 讟注诪讗 诪讗讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗谞讬住 讜讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讛讗 讗谞讬住 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛转诐 讗谞讬住 讘转拽谞转讗 讚转拽讬谞讜 诇讬讛 专讘谞谉 讛讻讗 诇讗

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, isn鈥檛 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.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讞诇讛 讛讜讗 诪注诇讛 诇讛 诪讝讜谞讜转 讞诇转讛 讛讬讗 诪讛讜 诪爪讬 讗诪专 诇讛 讗谞讗 讛讗 拽讗讬诪谞讗 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 诪爪讬讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 谞住转讞驻讛 砖讚讛讜

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.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讬 诇讜诪专 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 谞住转讞驻讛 砖讚讛讜 驻讬专住讛 谞讚讛 诪讛讜

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?

讘砖注转 讜讜住转讛 诇讗 转讬讘注讬 诇讱

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

讚诇讗 诪爪讬讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 谞住转讞驻讛 砖讚讛讜 讻讬 转讬讘注讬 诇讱 砖诇讗 讘砖注转 讜讜住转讛 诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讘砖注转 讜讜住转讛 讛讜讬讗 诪爪讬讗 讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 谞住转讞驻讛 砖讚讛讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讻讗 谞砖讬 讚拽讗 诪砖谞讬讬讗 讜讜住转讬讬讛讜 讻砖注转 讜讜住转讛 讚诪讬

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.

驻砖讬讟 专讘 讗讞讗讬 讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讜诇讗 谞讬砖讗讜 讗讜讻诇讜转 诪砖诇讜 讜讗讜讻诇讜转 讘转专讜诪讛 诇讗 谞砖讗讜 诇讗 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 诇讗 谞讬砖讗讜

Rav A岣i 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 doesn鈥檛 teach: And the grooms didn鈥檛 marry, in the active form. Rather, it teaches: And the brides were not married, in the passive form.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚拽讗 诪注讻讘谉 讗讬谞讛讬 讗诪讗讬 讗讜讻诇讜转 诪砖诇讜 讜讗讜讻诇讜转 讘转专讜诪讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讚讗讬转谞讬住 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讜拽转谞讬 讗讜讻诇讜转 诪砖诇讜 讜讗讜讻诇讜转 讘转专讜诪讛

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.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讻诇 讗讜谞住讗 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讜讚拽讗 诪注讻讘讬 讗讬谞讛讜 讜讘讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇诪讬转谞讬 诇讗 谞砖讗讜 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚转谞讗 专讬砖讗 讘讚讬讚讛讬 转谞讗 谞诪讬 住讬驻讗 讘讚讬讚讛讬

Rav Ashi said: Actually, I will say to you: In any case of unavoidable circumstances, whether they affect him or they affect her, she doesn鈥檛 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 didn鈥檛 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.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讜诇注谞讬谉 讙讬讟讬谉 讗讬谞讜 讻谉 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讗 讗讬谉 讗讜谞住 讘讙讬讟讬谉

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.

诪谞讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讗 讛讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诪转 讘转讜讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 诪转 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谞讜 讙讟 讛讗 讞诇讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟

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.

讜讚诇诪讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬诪讗 诇讱 讞诇讛 谞诪讬 讗讬谞讜 讙讟 讜讛讬讗 讙讜驻讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 讙讟 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

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.

讗讬谉 讙讟 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讛讗 转谞讗 诇讬讛 专讬砖讗 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 讗诐 诪转讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 诪讞讜诇讬 讝讛 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讬讟讬讱 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诇讗 讗诪专 讻诇讜诐

The Gemara asks: Does it come to teach that there is no bill of divorce posthumously? Wasn鈥檛 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.

讚诇诪讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讜转讬谞讜 讚转谞讬讗 讜专讘讜转讬谞讜 讛转讬专讜讛 诇讛谞砖讗 讜讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讗谉 专讘讜转讬谞讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘讬 讚讬谞讗 讚砖专讜 诪砖讞讗 住讘专讬 诇讛 讻专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 讝诪谞讜 砖诇 砖讟专 诪讜讻讬讞 注诇讬讜

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 one鈥檚 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 Rava鈥檚 opinion from this baraita.

讜讗诇讗 诪住讬驻讗 诪注讻砖讬讜 讗诐 诇讗 讘讗转讬 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诪转 讘转讜讱 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讛专讬 讝讛 讙讟 诪转 讜讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讞诇讛

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.

讚诇诪讗 诪转 讚讜拽讗 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚转驻讜诇 拽诪讬 讬讘诐

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.

讗诇讗 诪讛讗 讚讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 诇讗 讗转讬谞讗 诪讬讻谉 讜注讚 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讗转讗 讘住讜祝 转诇转讬谉 讬讜诪讬谉 讜驻住拽讬讛 诪讘专讗 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讞讝讜 讚讗转讗讬 讞讝讜 讚讗转讗讬 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗讜 砖诪讬讛 诪转讬讗

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.

讜讚诇诪讗 讗讜谞住讗 讚砖讻讬讞 砖讗谞讬 讚讻讬讜谉 讚讗讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讗转谞讜讬讬 讜诇讗 讗转谞讬 讗讬讛讜 讚讗驻住讬讚 讗谞驻砖讬讛

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.

讗诇讗 专讘讗 住讘专讗 讚谞驻砖讬讛 拽讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 爪谞讜注讜转 讜诪砖讜诐 驻专讜爪讜转 诪砖讜诐 爪谞讜注讜转 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 诇讛讜讬 讙讟

Rather, Rava is stating a halakha based on his own reasoning. Circumstances beyond one鈥檚 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