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 3

Today’s daf is sponsored by Emma Rinberg in loving memory of her father, Dr Eric Glick, Yitchak Nissan ben Yaacov. “He died on the 10th of Tammuz, 32 years ago, aged 62. With his warm smile, beautiful voice and healing hand I think of him daily and am comforted that he watches over us.”

For what reason did Rava claim that one cannot claim “oness” (it wasn’t circumstances beyond my control) regarding a get? He claims it is on account of women who are overly humble or not at all. If the man really doesn’t intend for the get to be valid and based on the rabbis, it is valid (as they decided not to accept a claim of oness), how can the rabbis uproot a Torah law? The answer is that they don’t assume the get is valid – they uproot the kiddushin (annul the marriage). How do they have the power to do that? After answering this question, the Gemara brings a different version of Rava’s statement claiming he said the opposite – one can claim ones in a case of get. All the sources they brought in Ketubot 2b to try to prove Rava’s statement are now brought to question Rava’s statement. All the explanations that were given to reject them as proven in Ketubot 2b are not used to respond to the difficulties. Since the takana of getting married on Wednesday is based on the court system instituted by Ezra of Mondays and Thursdays, it would not be relevant before that or in a time where courts meet any day. However, since there is the issue of having three days to prepare the meal, one can be flexible only if the meal is fully prepared. In order to properly explain the issue with preparing the meal, the Gemara brings a braita which explains it. The braita also describes an exception to the Wednesday rule. In a case of danger, one can get married on Tuesday and in a case of oness, one can even get married on Monday. What is meant by “danger” and “oness“?

讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诇讗 讗谞讬住 讜住讘专讛 讚讗谞讬住 讜诪讬注讙谞讗 讜讬转讘讛 讜诪砖讜诐 驻专讜爪讜转 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗谞讬住 讜讗诪专讛 诇讗 讗谞讬住 讜讗讝诇讗 讜诪讬谞住讘讗 讜谞诪爪讗 讙讟 讘讟诇 讜讘谞讬讛 诪诪讝专讬诐

then sometimes, where he was not detained unavoidably but he fulfilled the condition willingly to effect the divorce, and the wife thinks that he was detained unavoidably, she will sit deserted, forever unable to remarry. And the concern due to licentious women is, as, if you said: Let it not be a bill of divorce, then sometimes, when he was detained unavoidably and she thinks that he was not detained unavoidably, she goes and remarries. And the result will be that the bill of divorce is void, and her children from the second marriage will be mamzerim, products of an adulterous relationship.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 诇讛讜讬 讙讟 讜诪砖讜诐 爪谞讜注讜转 讜诪砖讜诐 驻专讜爪讜转 砖专讬谞谉 讗砖转 讗讬砖 诇注诇诪讗

The Gemara questions the following premise: By Torah law, a condition that is unfulfilled due to circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control is considered fulfilled, and it is merely by rabbinic ordinance that it is deemed unfulfilled: And is there a matter where by Torah law it is not a bill of divorce, but due to virtuous women and due to licentious women we permit a married woman to others?

讗讬谉 讻诇 讚诪拽讚砖 讗讚注转讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪拽讚砖 讜讗驻拽注讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara answers: Yes, it is within the authority of the Sages to institute an ordinance freeing the woman from the marriage, as anyone who betroths a woman, betroths her contingent upon the agreement of the Sages, and in certain cases, such as those mentioned above, the Sages invalidated his betrothal retroactively.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讬谞讞 拽讚讬砖 讘讻住驻讗 拽讚讬砖 讘讘讬讗讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉 诇讘注讬诇转讜 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: That works out well if he betrothed her with money, as in that case, the courts could declare the money ownerless, and one cannot betroth a woman with money that is not his. However, if he betrothed her with intercourse, what can be said? Rav Ashi answered: The Sages rendered his intercourse licentious intercourse.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 讙讬讟讬谉 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讗 讬砖 讗讜谞住 讘讙讬讟讬谉

Some say, to the contrary, that Rava said: Just as with regard to postponement of a wedding due to circumstances beyond his control, the groom is not obligated to provide sustenance for his betrothed, the same is true with regard to the matter of bills of divorce. The Gemara concludes that apparently Rava maintains: Unavoidable circumstances have legal standing with regard to bills of divorce.

诪讬转讬讘讬 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 raises an objection from 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. The Gemara infers: If he died, that is when it is not a bill of divorce, since a divorce cannot take effect posthumously. However, 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 does take effect.

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 讙讜驻讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 讙讟 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

The Gemara answers: Actually, I will say to you that in the case where one falls ill it is also not a bill of divorce, and death is merely an example of circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control. And the fact that the mishna cited that example itself teaches us that there is no bill of divorce posthumously.

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 讚诇诪讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讜转讬谞讜

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 that mishna? The Gemara answers: Perhaps it was necessary for the first clause to mention specifically the case of death, to exclude the opinion of our Rabbis.

转讗 砖诪注 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 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讞诇讛 诇讗 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

Come and hear an additional proof from the latter clause of that mishna: If one said: This is your bill of divorce from now if I have not returned from now until the conclusion of twelve months, and he died within those twelve months, then this document is a bill of divorce. What, is it not that the same is true if his failure to return is due to the fact that he fell ill? The Gemara rejects that proof. The divorce takes effect specifically in the case where he died, and he wrote the bill of divorce because he was not amenable to have his wife happen before her yavam, his brother, for levirate marriage if he had no children. However, in cases where that is not a consideration, if other circumstances beyond his control caused the condition to be fulfilled, his intention is that the bill of divorce will not take effect.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 诇讗 讗转讬谞讗 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 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 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 讞讝讜 讚讗转讗讬 讞讝讜 讚讗转讗讬 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 诪转讬讗

Come and hear an additional proof from the case of a certain man who said to the agents with whom he entrusted the bill of divorce: If I do not return from now until 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: It 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.

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 讛讜讗 讚讗驻住讬讚 讗谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara rejects that proof: Perhaps unavoidable circumstances that are common and could be anticipated, e.g., the ferry being located at the other side of the river, are different, since he should have stipulated that exception when giving his wife the bill of divorce. And since he did not stipulate it, he brought the failure upon himself.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪转拽谞转 注讝专讗 讜讗讬诇讱 砖讗讬谉 讘转讬 讚讬谞讬谉 拽讘讜注讬谉 讗诇讗 讘砖谞讬 讜讘讞诪讬砖讬 讗讘诇 拽讜讚诐 转拽谞转 注讝专讗 砖讘转讬 讚讬谞讬谉 拽讘讜注讬谉 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讗砖讛 谞砖讗转 讘讻诇 讬讜诐

Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k said: The Sages teach that this halakha that a virgin is married on Wednesday is in effect only from the institution of the ordinance of Ezra that courts are in regular session only on Monday and Thursday. However, prior to the institution of the ordinance of Ezra, when courts were in regular session every day, a woman was married on any day of the week.

拽讜讚诐 转拽谞转 注讝专讗 诪讗讬 讚讛讜讛 讛讜讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘转讬 讚讬谞讬谉 讚拽讘讜注讬谉 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讻拽讜讚诐 转拽谞转 注讝专讗 讗砖讛 谞砖讗转 讘讻诇 讬讜诐

The Gemara asks: Prior to the institution of the ordinance of Ezra? What was in the past was in the past. There are no halakhic ramifications to that statement. The Gemara answers: This is what Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k is saying: If there are courts in regular daily session today, as they were prior to the institution of the ordinance of Ezra, a woman is married on any day of the week.

讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 砖拽讚讜 讚讟专讬讞 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: Don鈥檛 we require the additional reason that a virgin is married on Wednesday because the Sages were assiduous in seeing to the well-being of Jewish women and made certain that the groom would have several days to prepare for the wedding feast prior to the wedding? The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where he already exerted himself and prepared everything before Shabbat, so the feast will be prepared even if the wedding is Sunday or Monday.

诪讗讬 砖拽讚讜 讚转谞讬讗 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 讜转谞砖讗 讘讗讞讚 讘砖讘转 讜讗诐 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 讗讚诐 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

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: The Sages were assiduous? It is as it is taught in a baraita: 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 baraita continues: 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 preferred Wednesday, so that the husband would exert himself in arranging the wedding feast for three days, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, and on Wednesday, he marries her.

讜诪住讻谞讛 讜讗讬诇讱 谞讛讙讜 讛注诐 诇讻谞讜住 讘砖诇讬砖讬 讜诇讗 诪讬讞讜 讘讬讚诐 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讘砖谞讬 诇讗 讬讻谞讜住 讜讗诐 诪讞诪转 讛讗讜谞住 诪讜转专 讜诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讗转 讛讞转谉 诪谉 讛讻诇讛 诇讬诇讬 砖讘转 转讞诇讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讞讘讜专讛

The baraita continues: And from the time of danger and onward, the people adopted the custom to marry on Tuesday as well, and the Sages did not reprimand them. And on Monday one may not marry even in time of danger. However, if it is due to the coercion, it is permitted. The baraita concludes: One isolates the groom from the virgin bride, so that he will not engage in intercourse with her for the first time on Shabbat evening, because by rupturing the hymen he inflicts a wound, which is a labor prohibited on Shabbat.

诪讗讬 住讻谞讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘转讜诇讛 讛谞砖讗转 诇讬讜诐 讛专讘讬注讬 转讬讛专讙 谞讛讙讜 诇讙诪专讬 谞讬注拽专讬讛

The Gemara elaborates: What is the danger mentioned in the baraita? If we say it is referring to a situation where the government said that a virgin who is married on Wednesday will be executed, would the response be merely that they adopted the custom to marry on Tuesday? Let them totally abolish the ordinance to marry on Wednesday in the face of life-threatening danger.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讚讗诪专讬 讘转讜诇讛 讛谞砖讗转 讘讬讜诐 讛专讘讬注讬 转讬讘注诇 诇讛讙诪讜谉 转讞诇讛 讛讗讬 住讻谞讛 讗讜谞住 讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 爪谞讜注讜转 讚诪住专谉 谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 诇拽讟诇讗 讜讗转讬讬谉 诇讬讚讬 住讻谞讛

Rabba said: The baraita is referring to a period where the government said that a virgin who is married on Wednesday will submit to intercourse with the prefect [hegmon] first. The Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita: Is that characterized as danger? It is coercion. The Gemara answers: There is also danger involved, as there are virtuous women who give their lives rather than allow themselves to be violated, and they will come to mortal danger.

讜诇讬讚专讜砖 诇讛讜 讚讗讜谞住 砖专讬 讗讬讻讗 驻专讜爪讜转 讜讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讛谞讜转

The Gemara asks: And if so, let the Sages instruct these women that in cases of coercion it is permitted to submit to violation rather than sacrifice their lives, and they will not be forbidden to their husbands. The Gemara answers: The Sages cannot issue an instruction of that sort, because there are licentious women who would exploit the situation to engage in intercourse willingly, rendering them forbidden to their husbands. And furthermore, there are also women married to priests, who are rendered forbidden to their husbands even if they are raped.

讜诇讬注拽专讬讛 砖诪讚讗 注讘讬讚讗 讚讘讟诇讗 讜转拽谞转讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪拽诪讬 砖诪讚讗 诇讗 注拽专讬谞谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘砖诇讬砖讬 谞诪讬 讗转讬 讜讘注讬诇 诪住驻讬拽讗 诇讗 注拽专 谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara asks: And let the Sages completely abolish the ordinance to marry on Wednesday and establish marriage on a different day. The Gemara answers: A decree of religious persecution [shemada] is likely to be abrogated, and we do not abolish a rabbinic ordinance in the face of a decree of religious persecution. Rather, a lenient ruling is issued instructing them not to follow the ordinance, as long as the decree of persecution is in effect. The Gemara asks: If so, what is accomplished by moving the marriage to Tuesday? The prefect will come on Tuesday too, to violate them. The Gemara answers: The date of the marriage is not fixed, and for a situation of uncertainty the prefect will not uproot himself to violate the bride.

讜讘砖谞讬 诇讗 讬讻谞讜住 讜讗诐 诪讞诪转 讛讗讜谞住 诪讜转专 诪讗讬 讗讜谞住 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讛转诐 拽专讬 诇讬讛 住讻谞讛 讜讛讻讗 拽讗 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讗讜谞住 讜转讜 讛转诐 谞讛讙讜 讛讻讗 诪讜转专

The baraita continues: And on Monday one may not marry even in time of danger. However, if it is due to the coercion, it is permitted. The Gemara asks: What is the coercion mentioned in the baraita? If we say it is referring to that which we mentioned with regard to the decree of prima nocta it is difficult, as there the tanna calls it danger, and here he calls it coercion. Furthermore, there it says that they adopted the custom to marry on Tuesday; here it states that it is permitted.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 砖专 爪讘讗 讘讗 诇注讬专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗转讬 讜讞诇讬祝 诇讬注讻讘 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗转讬 讜拽讘注 讘砖诇讬砖讬 诪讬讛讗 诇讻谞讜住 讗住驻专讜讜讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讘砖诇讬砖讬 拽讗转讜

Rava said: Coercion refers to a case where they said: A general and his army are coming to the city on Wednesday, and the concern is that the troops will appropriate the supplies for the feast. What are the circumstances? If it is a situation where the general comes and passes through, let them postpone the wedding until the following week. Rather, it is necessary to teach the halakha with regard to the general only in a case where he comes and establishes himself there. The Gemara asks: In any case, let one marry on Tuesday. Why does the baraita permit marrying on Monday? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to move the wedding to Monday because his entourage [asperava] arrives on Tuesday.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讗讬 诪讞诪转 讛讗讜谞住 讻讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 驻转讜 讗驻讜讬 讜讟讘讞讜 讟讘讜讞 讜讬讬谞讜 诪讝讜讙 讜诪转 讗讘讬讜 砖诇 讞转谉 讗讜 讗诪讛 砖诇 讻诇讛 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讗转 讛诪转 诇讞讚专 讜讗转 讛讞转谉 讜讗转 讛讻诇讛 诇讞讜驻讛

And if you wish, say instead: What is the meaning of: Due to the coercion? It is as it is taught in a baraita: If one鈥檚 bread was baked, and his animal slaughtered, and his wine diluted, and all preparations for the wedding feast were complete, and the father of the groom or the mother of the bride died before the wedding, then before burying the deceased, which would trigger the onset of mourning, one moves the corpse into a room, and the bride and groom are ushered to the wedding canopy and they are married.

  • 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...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 3: Roman Oppression of Brides-to-Be

Talking about... divorce. In the context of unavoidable circumstances. For example, when a husband gives his wife a conditional divorce,...
WhatsApp Image 2022-07-06 at 7.23.39 PM

Introduction to Masechet Ketubot

This shiur is sponsored by Valerie Adler. "Delighted to dedicate this introduction in honor of Ayelet and Adi Libson who...

Ketubot 3

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 3

讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诇讗 讗谞讬住 讜住讘专讛 讚讗谞讬住 讜诪讬注讙谞讗 讜讬转讘讛 讜诪砖讜诐 驻专讜爪讜转 讚讗讬 讗诪专转 诇讗 诇讬讛讜讬 讙讬讟讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚讗谞讬住 讜讗诪专讛 诇讗 讗谞讬住 讜讗讝诇讗 讜诪讬谞住讘讗 讜谞诪爪讗 讙讟 讘讟诇 讜讘谞讬讛 诪诪讝专讬诐

then sometimes, where he was not detained unavoidably but he fulfilled the condition willingly to effect the divorce, and the wife thinks that he was detained unavoidably, she will sit deserted, forever unable to remarry. And the concern due to licentious women is, as, if you said: Let it not be a bill of divorce, then sometimes, when he was detained unavoidably and she thinks that he was not detained unavoidably, she goes and remarries. And the result will be that the bill of divorce is void, and her children from the second marriage will be mamzerim, products of an adulterous relationship.

讜诪讬 讗讬讻讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诪讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 诇讗 诇讛讜讬 讙讟 讜诪砖讜诐 爪谞讜注讜转 讜诪砖讜诐 驻专讜爪讜转 砖专讬谞谉 讗砖转 讗讬砖 诇注诇诪讗

The Gemara questions the following premise: By Torah law, a condition that is unfulfilled due to circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control is considered fulfilled, and it is merely by rabbinic ordinance that it is deemed unfulfilled: And is there a matter where by Torah law it is not a bill of divorce, but due to virtuous women and due to licentious women we permit a married woman to others?

讗讬谉 讻诇 讚诪拽讚砖 讗讚注转讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪拽讚砖 讜讗驻拽注讬谞讛讜 专讘谞谉 诇拽讬讚讜砖讬 诪讬谞讬讛

The Gemara answers: Yes, it is within the authority of the Sages to institute an ordinance freeing the woman from the marriage, as anyone who betroths a woman, betroths her contingent upon the agreement of the Sages, and in certain cases, such as those mentioned above, the Sages invalidated his betrothal retroactively.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讬谞讞 拽讚讬砖 讘讻住驻讗 拽讚讬砖 讘讘讬讗讛 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 砖讜讬讜讛 专讘谞谉 诇讘注讬诇转讜 讘注讬诇转 讝谞讜转

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: That works out well if he betrothed her with money, as in that case, the courts could declare the money ownerless, and one cannot betroth a woman with money that is not his. However, if he betrothed her with intercourse, what can be said? Rav Ashi answered: The Sages rendered his intercourse licentious intercourse.

讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗诪专 专讘讗 讜讻谉 诇注谞讬谉 讙讬讟讬谉 讗诇诪讗 拽住讘专 专讘讗 讬砖 讗讜谞住 讘讙讬讟讬谉

Some say, to the contrary, that Rava said: Just as with regard to postponement of a wedding due to circumstances beyond his control, the groom is not obligated to provide sustenance for his betrothed, the same is true with regard to the matter of bills of divorce. The Gemara concludes that apparently Rava maintains: Unavoidable circumstances have legal standing with regard to bills of divorce.

诪讬转讬讘讬 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 raises an objection from 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. The Gemara infers: If he died, that is when it is not a bill of divorce, since a divorce cannot take effect posthumously. However, 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 does take effect.

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 讙讜驻讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚讗讬谉 讙讟 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

The Gemara answers: Actually, I will say to you that in the case where one falls ill it is also not a bill of divorce, and death is merely an example of circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control. And the fact that the mishna cited that example itself teaches us that there is no bill of divorce posthumously.

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 讚诇诪讗 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪讚专讘讜转讬谞讜

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 that mishna? The Gemara answers: Perhaps it was necessary for the first clause to mention specifically the case of death, to exclude the opinion of our Rabbis.

转讗 砖诪注 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 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讛讜讗 讛讚讬谉 诇讞诇讛 诇讗 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

Come and hear an additional proof from the latter clause of that mishna: If one said: This is your bill of divorce from now if I have not returned from now until the conclusion of twelve months, and he died within those twelve months, then this document is a bill of divorce. What, is it not that the same is true if his failure to return is due to the fact that he fell ill? The Gemara rejects that proof. The divorce takes effect specifically in the case where he died, and he wrote the bill of divorce because he was not amenable to have his wife happen before her yavam, his brother, for levirate marriage if he had no children. However, in cases where that is not a consideration, if other circumstances beyond his control caused the condition to be fulfilled, his intention is that the bill of divorce will not take effect.

转讗 砖诪注 诪讛讛讜讗 讚讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬 诇讗 讗转讬谞讗 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 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 讜讗诪专 诇讛讜 讞讝讜 讚讗转讗讬 讞讝讜 讚讗转讗讬 讜讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗 砖诪讬讛 诪转讬讗

Come and hear an additional proof from the case of a certain man who said to the agents with whom he entrusted the bill of divorce: If I do not return from now until 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: It 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.

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 讛讜讗 讚讗驻住讬讚 讗谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara rejects that proof: Perhaps unavoidable circumstances that are common and could be anticipated, e.g., the ferry being located at the other side of the river, are different, since he should have stipulated that exception when giving his wife the bill of divorce. And since he did not stipulate it, he brought the failure upon himself.

讗诪专 专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 讬爪讞拽 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 诪转拽谞转 注讝专讗 讜讗讬诇讱 砖讗讬谉 讘转讬 讚讬谞讬谉 拽讘讜注讬谉 讗诇讗 讘砖谞讬 讜讘讞诪讬砖讬 讗讘诇 拽讜讚诐 转拽谞转 注讝专讗 砖讘转讬 讚讬谞讬谉 拽讘讜注讬谉 讘讻诇 讬讜诐 讗砖讛 谞砖讗转 讘讻诇 讬讜诐

Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k said: The Sages teach that this halakha that a virgin is married on Wednesday is in effect only from the institution of the ordinance of Ezra that courts are in regular session only on Monday and Thursday. However, prior to the institution of the ordinance of Ezra, when courts were in regular session every day, a woman was married on any day of the week.

拽讜讚诐 转拽谞转 注讝专讗 诪讗讬 讚讛讜讛 讛讜讛 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬 讗讬讻讗 讘转讬 讚讬谞讬谉 讚拽讘讜注讬谉 讛讗讬讚谞讗 讻拽讜讚诐 转拽谞转 注讝专讗 讗砖讛 谞砖讗转 讘讻诇 讬讜诐

The Gemara asks: Prior to the institution of the ordinance of Ezra? What was in the past was in the past. There are no halakhic ramifications to that statement. The Gemara answers: This is what Rav Shmuel bar Yitz岣k is saying: If there are courts in regular daily session today, as they were prior to the institution of the ordinance of Ezra, a woman is married on any day of the week.

讛讗 讘注讬谞谉 砖拽讚讜 讚讟专讬讞 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: Don鈥檛 we require the additional reason that a virgin is married on Wednesday because the Sages were assiduous in seeing to the well-being of Jewish women and made certain that the groom would have several days to prepare for the wedding feast prior to the wedding? The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case where he already exerted himself and prepared everything before Shabbat, so the feast will be prepared even if the wedding is Sunday or Monday.

诪讗讬 砖拽讚讜 讚转谞讬讗 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 讜转谞砖讗 讘讗讞讚 讘砖讘转 讜讗诐 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 讗讚诐 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

The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: The Sages were assiduous? It is as it is taught in a baraita: 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 baraita continues: 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 preferred Wednesday, so that the husband would exert himself in arranging the wedding feast for three days, Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, and on Wednesday, he marries her.

讜诪住讻谞讛 讜讗讬诇讱 谞讛讙讜 讛注诐 诇讻谞讜住 讘砖诇讬砖讬 讜诇讗 诪讬讞讜 讘讬讚诐 讞讻诪讬诐 讜讘砖谞讬 诇讗 讬讻谞讜住 讜讗诐 诪讞诪转 讛讗讜谞住 诪讜转专 讜诪驻专讬砖讬谉 讗转 讛讞转谉 诪谉 讛讻诇讛 诇讬诇讬 砖讘转 转讞诇讛 诪驻谞讬 砖讛讜讗 注讜砖讛 讞讘讜专讛

The baraita continues: And from the time of danger and onward, the people adopted the custom to marry on Tuesday as well, and the Sages did not reprimand them. And on Monday one may not marry even in time of danger. However, if it is due to the coercion, it is permitted. The baraita concludes: One isolates the groom from the virgin bride, so that he will not engage in intercourse with her for the first time on Shabbat evening, because by rupturing the hymen he inflicts a wound, which is a labor prohibited on Shabbat.

诪讗讬 住讻谞讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘转讜诇讛 讛谞砖讗转 诇讬讜诐 讛专讘讬注讬 转讬讛专讙 谞讛讙讜 诇讙诪专讬 谞讬注拽专讬讛

The Gemara elaborates: What is the danger mentioned in the baraita? If we say it is referring to a situation where the government said that a virgin who is married on Wednesday will be executed, would the response be merely that they adopted the custom to marry on Tuesday? Let them totally abolish the ordinance to marry on Wednesday in the face of life-threatening danger.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讚讗诪专讬 讘转讜诇讛 讛谞砖讗转 讘讬讜诐 讛专讘讬注讬 转讬讘注诇 诇讛讙诪讜谉 转讞诇讛 讛讗讬 住讻谞讛 讗讜谞住 讛讜讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讗讬讻讗 爪谞讜注讜转 讚诪住专谉 谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 诇拽讟诇讗 讜讗转讬讬谉 诇讬讚讬 住讻谞讛

Rabba said: The baraita is referring to a period where the government said that a virgin who is married on Wednesday will submit to intercourse with the prefect [hegmon] first. The Gemara questions the formulation of the baraita: Is that characterized as danger? It is coercion. The Gemara answers: There is also danger involved, as there are virtuous women who give their lives rather than allow themselves to be violated, and they will come to mortal danger.

讜诇讬讚专讜砖 诇讛讜 讚讗讜谞住 砖专讬 讗讬讻讗 驻专讜爪讜转 讜讗讬讻讗 谞诪讬 讻讛谞讜转

The Gemara asks: And if so, let the Sages instruct these women that in cases of coercion it is permitted to submit to violation rather than sacrifice their lives, and they will not be forbidden to their husbands. The Gemara answers: The Sages cannot issue an instruction of that sort, because there are licentious women who would exploit the situation to engage in intercourse willingly, rendering them forbidden to their husbands. And furthermore, there are also women married to priests, who are rendered forbidden to their husbands even if they are raped.

讜诇讬注拽专讬讛 砖诪讚讗 注讘讬讚讗 讚讘讟诇讗 讜转拽谞转讗 讚专讘谞谉 诪拽诪讬 砖诪讚讗 诇讗 注拽专讬谞谉 讗讬 讛讻讬 讘砖诇讬砖讬 谞诪讬 讗转讬 讜讘注讬诇 诪住驻讬拽讗 诇讗 注拽专 谞驻砖讬讛

The Gemara asks: And let the Sages completely abolish the ordinance to marry on Wednesday and establish marriage on a different day. The Gemara answers: A decree of religious persecution [shemada] is likely to be abrogated, and we do not abolish a rabbinic ordinance in the face of a decree of religious persecution. Rather, a lenient ruling is issued instructing them not to follow the ordinance, as long as the decree of persecution is in effect. The Gemara asks: If so, what is accomplished by moving the marriage to Tuesday? The prefect will come on Tuesday too, to violate them. The Gemara answers: The date of the marriage is not fixed, and for a situation of uncertainty the prefect will not uproot himself to violate the bride.

讜讘砖谞讬 诇讗 讬讻谞讜住 讜讗诐 诪讞诪转 讛讗讜谞住 诪讜转专 诪讗讬 讗讜谞住 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讛讗 讚讗诪专谉 讛转诐 拽专讬 诇讬讛 住讻谞讛 讜讛讻讗 拽讗 拽专讬 诇讬讛 讗讜谞住 讜转讜 讛转诐 谞讛讙讜 讛讻讗 诪讜转专

The baraita continues: And on Monday one may not marry even in time of danger. However, if it is due to the coercion, it is permitted. The Gemara asks: What is the coercion mentioned in the baraita? If we say it is referring to that which we mentioned with regard to the decree of prima nocta it is difficult, as there the tanna calls it danger, and here he calls it coercion. Furthermore, there it says that they adopted the custom to marry on Tuesday; here it states that it is permitted.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讚讗诪专讬 砖专 爪讘讗 讘讗 诇注讬专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗转讬 讜讞诇讬祝 诇讬注讻讘 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗转讬 讜拽讘注 讘砖诇讬砖讬 诪讬讛讗 诇讻谞讜住 讗住驻专讜讜讗 讚讬讚讬讛 讘砖诇讬砖讬 拽讗转讜

Rava said: Coercion refers to a case where they said: A general and his army are coming to the city on Wednesday, and the concern is that the troops will appropriate the supplies for the feast. What are the circumstances? If it is a situation where the general comes and passes through, let them postpone the wedding until the following week. Rather, it is necessary to teach the halakha with regard to the general only in a case where he comes and establishes himself there. The Gemara asks: In any case, let one marry on Tuesday. Why does the baraita permit marrying on Monday? The Gemara answers: It was necessary to move the wedding to Monday because his entourage [asperava] arrives on Tuesday.

讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 诪讗讬 诪讞诪转 讛讗讜谞住 讻讚转谞讬讗 讛专讬 砖讛讬讛 驻转讜 讗驻讜讬 讜讟讘讞讜 讟讘讜讞 讜讬讬谞讜 诪讝讜讙 讜诪转 讗讘讬讜 砖诇 讞转谉 讗讜 讗诪讛 砖诇 讻诇讛 诪讻谞讬住讬谉 讗转 讛诪转 诇讞讚专 讜讗转 讛讞转谉 讜讗转 讛讻诇讛 诇讞讜驻讛

And if you wish, say instead: What is the meaning of: Due to the coercion? It is as it is taught in a baraita: If one鈥檚 bread was baked, and his animal slaughtered, and his wine diluted, and all preparations for the wedding feast were complete, and the father of the groom or the mother of the bride died before the wedding, then before burying the deceased, which would trigger the onset of mourning, one moves the corpse into a room, and the bride and groom are ushered to the wedding canopy and they are married.

Scroll To Top