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

Today's Daf Yomi

March 22, 2015 | 讘壮 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • 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 48

Study Guide Ketubot 48


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 砖讗专讛 讻住讜转讛 诇驻讜诐 砖讗专讛 转谉 讻住讜转讛 砖诇讗 讬转谉 诇讛 诇讗 砖诇 讬诇讚讛 诇讝拽讬谞讛 讜诇讗 砖诇 讝拽讬谞讛 诇讬诇讚讛 讻住讜转讛 讜注讜谞转讛 诇驻讜诐 注讜谞转讛 转谉 讻住讜转讛 砖诇讗 讬转谉 讞讚砖讬诐 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜诇讗 砖讞拽讬诐 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says that she鈥檈ra and kesuta should be interpreted as follows: In accordance with her flesh [she鈥檈ra], i.e., her age, give her clothing [kesuta]. This means that he should not give the garments of a young girl to an elderly woman, nor those of an elderly woman to a young girl. Similarly, kesuta and onata are linked: In accordance with the time of year [onata], give her clothing [kesuta], meaning that he should not give new, heavy clothes in the summer, nor worn-out garments in the rainy season, i.e., the winter, when she requires heavier, warmer clothes. The entire phrase, therefore, refers only to a husband鈥檚 obligation to provide clothing for his wife.

转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 砖讗专讛 讝讜 拽专讜讘 讘砖专 砖诇讗 讬谞讛讙 讘讛 诪谞讛讙 驻专住讬讬诐 砖诪砖诪砖讬谉 诪讟讜转讬讛谉 讘诇讘讜砖讬讛谉 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讗讜诪专 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讗诇讗 讗谞讬 讘讘讙讚讬 讜讛讬讗 讘讘讙讚讛 讬讜爪讬讗 讜谞讜转谉 讻转讜讘讛

Rav Yosef taught the following baraita: She鈥檈ra,鈥 this is referring to closeness of flesh during intercourse, which teaches that he should not treat her in the manner of Persians, who have conjugal relations in their clothes. The Gemara comments: This baraita supports the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said: With regard to one who says: I do not want to have intercourse with my wife unless I am in my clothes and she is in her clothes, he must divorce his wife and give her the payment for her marriage contract. This is in keeping with the opinion of the tanna of the baraita that the Torah mandates the intimacy of flesh during sexual relations.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注谞讬 砖讘讬砖专讗诇 讜讻讜壮 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讛谞讬 诇讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讜专讞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讜讗讬 讚诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the poorest man of the Jewish people may not provide fewer than two flutes and a lamenting woman for his wife鈥檚 funeral. The Gemara infers: This proves by inference that the first, anonymous tanna cited in the mishna holds that these are not part of a husband鈥檚 obligations. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If this is the common custom in her family at funerals, what is the reason for the opinion of the first tanna who said that he does not have to do so? If he neglected to provide these items he would be treating her with disrespect. And if this is not the common custom in her family, what is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讜专讞讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讜诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讛 讚讬讚讛 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 注讜诇讛 注诪讜 讜讗讬谞讛 讬讜专讚转 注诪讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪讞讬讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诇讗

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state their dispute in a case where it is the common custom for his family according to its social status, but it is not common for her family according to its social status. The first tanna holds: When we say that a woman who marries a man ascends with him, i.e., she must be treated as equal in status to her husband if his social status is higher than hers, and does not descend with him if he is from a lower social status, this applies only when they are alive, but after death the Sages did not enforce this rule.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

And Rabbi Yehuda maintains: Even after death she must be treated in accordance with his status, which means that if those in his family are mourned with flutes and lamenting women, he must provide the same for her funeral. Rav 岣sda said that Mar Ukva said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 诪讬 砖谞砖转讟讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬讜专讚讬谉 诇谞讻住讬讜 讜讝谞讬谉 讜诪驻专谞住讬谉 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讜转讬讜 讜讚讘专 讗讞专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讬 砖讛诇讱 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讗砖转讜 转讜讘注转 诪讝讜谞讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬讜专讚讬谉 诇谞讻住讬讜 讜讝谞讬谉 讜诪驻专谞住讬谉 讗转 讗砖转讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讜转讬讜 讜诇讗 讚讘专 讗讞专

Apropos this ruling, the Gemara cites another statement that Rav 岣sda said that Mar Ukva said: With regard to one who became insane, the court enters his property and feeds and provides a livelihood for his wife, his sons, and his daughters, and it also gives something else, as will be explained. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: In what way is this case different from that which is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who went overseas and his wife claims sustenance, the court descends to his property and feeds and provides a livelihood for his wife, but not for his sons and daughters and does not give something else. If a father is not obligated to sustain his children in his absence, what is different about a situation where he is mad?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 砖讗谞讬 诇讱 讘讬谉 讬讜爪讗 诇讚注转 诇讬讜爪讗 砖诇讗 诇讚注转

Rav Ashi said to Ravina: Is there no difference for you between a man who leaves his responsibilities knowingly and one who leaves them unknowingly? A father who lost his sanity did not do so by his own choice, and therefore it can be assumed that he would want to provide for his children from his possessions, despite the fact that he is not obligated to do so. By contrast, if he went overseas he freely decided to depart, and one would think that he would leave enough for his sons and daughters. If he failed to do so, he has demonstrated that he does not want to provide for them.

诪讗讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讝讛 转讻砖讬讟 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 爪讚拽讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转讻砖讬讟 讻诇 砖讻谉 爪讚拽讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 爪讚拽讛 讗讘诇 转讻砖讬讟 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚转讬谞讜讜诇

The Gemara asks: What is this something else mentioned in the baraita? Rav 岣sda said: This is a wife鈥檚 ornaments, to which she is entitled in addition to her sustenance. Rav Yosef said: It is money for charity. The Gemara comments: According to the one who says that the court does not pay for a woman鈥檚 ornaments from her husband鈥檚 property if he has gone overseas, all the more so he maintains that the husband鈥檚 property is not taken for charity. Conversely, the one who says that the court does not give money for charity holds that this applies only to charity, but it does give her ornaments, as it is assumed that it is not satisfactory for him that his wife be demeaned by a lack of jewelry.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讬 砖讛诇讱 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜诪转讛 讗砖转讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬讜专讚讬谉 诇谞讻住讬讜 讜拽讜讘专讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇驻讬 讻讘讜讚讜 诇驻讬 讻讘讜讚讜 讜诇讗 诇驻讬 讻讘讜讚讛

Rav 岣yya bar Avin said that Rav Huna said: In the case of one who went overseas and his wife died, the court enters his property and buries her in accordance with his dignity. The Gemara asks: Does the court act in accordance with his dignity and not in accordance with her dignity? What if she came from a more dignified family than her husband?

讗讬诪讗 讗祝 诇驻讬 讻讘讜讚讜 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 注讜诇讛 注诪讜 讜讗讬谞讛 讬讜专讚转 注诪讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

The Gemara answers: Say that Rav 岣yya bar Avin meant: Even in accordance with his dignity, i.e., if his family was more distinguished than hers, he must bury her in accordance with the dignity of his family. The Gemara adds: This comes to teach us that she ascends with him to his social status and does not descend with him, and this principle applies even after her death, in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion in the mishna.

讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讛讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪转讛 诇讗 转拽讘专讜讛 诪谞讻住讬讜 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讻讬 讗诪专 讚谞驻诇讬 谞讻住讬 拽诪讬 讬转诪讬 讻讬 诇讗 讗诪专 谞诪讬 谞讻住讬 拽诪讬 讬转诪讬 专诪讜

Rav Mattana said: In the case of one who says that if his wife dies, they should not bury her using funds from his property, the court listens to him. The Gemara asks: What is different about the case when he says this command that induces the court to comply with his wishes? It is due to the fact that the property has come before the orphans as an inheritance, while the obligation to bury her is not incumbent upon them but is a duty of the inheritors of her marriage contract. However, even if he did not state the above preference, the property is cast before the orphans and it belongs to them. What does it matter whether or not the husband issued a command to this effect?

讗诇讗 讛讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪转 讛讜讗 诇讗 转拽讘专讜讛讜 诪谞讻住讬讜 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诇讗讜 讻诇 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讬注砖讬专 讗转 讘谞讬讜 讜讬驻讬诇 注爪诪讜 注诇 讛爪讬讘讜专

Rather, the Gemara amends Rav Mattana鈥檚 statement: With regard to one who says that if he himself dies, they should not bury him using funds from his property, one does not listen to him, but the court spends his money without resorting to charity. The reason for this is that it is not in his power to enrich his sons by saving them this expense and to cast himself as a burden on the community.

诪转谞讬壮 诇注讜诇诐 讛讬讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讗讘 注讚 砖转讻谞住

MISHNA: Even after she is betrothed, a daughter is always under her father鈥檚 authority until she enters

诇专砖讜转 讛讘注诇 诇谞砖讜讗讬谉 诪住专 讛讗讘 诇砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讘注诇 讛诇讱 讛讗讘 注诐 砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 讗讜 砖讛诇讻讜 砖诇讜讞讬 讛讗讘 注诐 砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讗讘 诪住专讜 砖诇讜讞讬 讛讗讘 诇砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讘注诇

her husband鈥檚 authority in marriage via the wedding canopy. If the father delivered his daughter to the husband鈥檚 messengers to bring her to her husband and the wedding canopy, once she has been handed over she is under the husband鈥檚 authority. However, if the father went with the husband鈥檚 messengers, or if the father鈥檚 messengers went with the husband鈥檚 messengers, she is still under the father鈥檚 authority, as he has not fully delivered her to the husband鈥檚 messengers. If her father sent her with his own messengers and the father鈥檚 messengers delivered the woman to the husband鈥檚 messengers, from that moment onwards she is under her husband鈥檚 authority.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪诪砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讚转谞谉 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 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇注讜诇诐

GEMARA: The mishna taught that a daughter always remains under her father鈥檚 authority until she has fully entered her husband鈥檚 jurisdiction. The Gemara asks: What is the significance of the term: Always, in the mishna? The Gemara explains: This comes to exclude the opinion stated in the initial version of the mishna. As we learned in a mishna (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, like married women. The mishna here teaches us that the halakha is not in accordance with this earlier ruling cited in that mishna. Rather, they are always under their father鈥檚 authority until they actually enter the wedding canopy.

诪住专 讛讗讘 诇砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讘注诇 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 诪住讬专转讛 诇讻诇 讞讜抓 诪转专讜诪讛 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 讗祝 诇转专讜诪讛

搂 The mishna taught that if the father delivered his daughter to the husband鈥檚 messengers, she is under the husband鈥檚 authority, unless the father or his messengers accompanied them. Rav said: When her father delivers her she leaves his jurisdiction in all respects, apart from the issue of partaking of teruma. Even if her husband is a priest, if she is not from a family of priests, she may not partake of teruma until she is fully married. And Rav Asi said that once she has been delivered to the husband鈥檚 messengers she is under her husband鈥檚 authority even with regard to teruma.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇专讘 讗住讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诇专讘 讗住讬 诇注讜诇诐 讛讬讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讗讘 注讚 砖转讻谞住 诇讞讜驻讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 诇讗讜 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讻讜 诇讗 转讬讝诇讜 讘转专 讗讬驻讻讗 讬讻讜诇 诇砖谞讜讬讬 诇讻讜 诪住讬专转讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 讻谞讬住转讛 诇讞讜驻讛

Rav Huna raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Asi, and some say that it was 岣yya, son of Rav, who raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Asi: The mishna states that she is always under her father鈥檚 authority until she enters the wedding canopy. According to Rav Asi, however, as soon as her father delivers her to the husband鈥檚 messengers she is no longer under her father鈥檚 authority. Rav said to them: Didn鈥檛 I tell you not to follow, i.e., attempt to refute rulings, on the basis of sources that can be explained in opposing manners? Rav Asi can answer you that the mishna means that her delivery to the husband鈥檚 messengers is equivalent to her entrance to the wedding canopy, and the same halakhot apply in both cases.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬专讜砖转讛

And Shmuel said that once a woman鈥檚 father has delivered her to the messengers of her husband, she is under her husband鈥檚 authority only with regard to her inheritance, i.e., her husband inherits her property upon her death as though she had already entered the wedding canopy.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讻转讜讘转讛 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗讬 诪转讛 讬专讬转 诇讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诇讜诪专 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讗讞专 诪谞讛

Reish Lakish said: Her delivery is also effective with regard to her marriage contract. The Gemara asks: What is Reish Lakish referring to when he says that she is under her husband鈥檚 authority with regard to her marriage contract? If you say it means that if she dies he inherits all her property, including the dowry specified in her marriage contract, that is the same as the statement of Shmuel, and Reish Lakish has added nothing to his ruling. Ravina said: Reish Lakish is coming to say that if the man dies before marrying her, and she then marries someone else, her marriage contract from the other man is one hundred dinars, as she is considered a widow from marriage rather than a widow from betrothal.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪住讬专转讛 诇讻诇 讗祝 诇转专讜诪讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi 岣nina both say that a woman鈥檚 delivery to the messengers of her husband causes her to be under his authority for all matters, even including partaking of teruma.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诇讱 讛讗讘 注诐 砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 讗讜 砖讛诇讻讜 砖诇讜讞讬 讛讗讘 注诐 砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 讗讜 砖讛讬转讛 诇讛 讞爪专 讘讚专讱 讜谞讻谞住讛 注诪讜 诇诇讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讻转讜讘转讛 讘讘讬转 讘注诇讛 诪转讛 讗讘讬讛 讬讜专砖讛

The Gemara raises an objection from the Tosefta (Ketubot 4:4): If the father went with the husband鈥檚 messengers, or if the father鈥檚 messengers went with the husband鈥檚 messengers, or if she owned a courtyard along the way and she entered with her groom to lodge, not for the purpose of marriage but merely to stay overnight until they arrive at his residence, then even if the dowry specified in her marriage contract is already in her husband鈥檚 house, if she dies, her father inherits from her, as she is not considered to have entered her husband鈥檚 domain.

诪住专 讛讗讘 诇砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 讗讜 砖诪住专讜 砖诇讜讞讬 讛讗讘 诇砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 讗讜 砖讛讬转讛 诇讜 讞爪专 讘讚专讱 讜谞讻谞住讛 注诪讜 诇砖讜诐 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讻转讜讘转讛 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 诪转讛 讘注诇讛 讬讜专砖讛

Conversely, if the father delivered her to the husband鈥檚 messengers, or if the father鈥檚 messengers delivered her to the husband鈥檚 messengers, or if the groom owned a courtyard along the way and she entered with him for the purpose of marriage, then even if the dowry specified in her marriage contract is still in her father鈥檚 house and has not yet been given to her husband, if she dies, her husband inherits from her.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 诇讬专讜砖转讛 讗讘诇 诇转专讜诪讛 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 注讚 砖转讻谞住 诇讞讜驻讛 转讬讜讘转讗 讚讻讜诇讛讜 转讬讜讘转讗

The Tosefta concludes: In what case is this statement said? It is stated with regard to the husband鈥檚 right to inherit from her. However, with regard to teruma, the halakha is that a woman who marries a priest may not partake of teruma until she actually enters the wedding canopy. This baraita is apparently a refutation of all of them, i.e., all of the opinions cited previously that hold that once the woman is delivered to the husband鈥檚 messengers, if the husband is a priest, the woman may partake of teruma. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is a conclusive refutation.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 谞讻谞住讛 注诪讜 诇诇讬谉 讟注诪讗 讚诇诇讬谉 讛讗 住转诪讗 诇砖诐 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 谞讻谞住讛 注诪讜 诇砖诐 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讛讗 住转诪讗 诇诇讬谉

The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult. You said in the Tosefta that if she entered with him to her courtyard to lodge for one night, and she dies, her father inherits her property. The reason is because it specified that they entered only to lodge there, from which it may be inferred that if they entered without specification it is as though she entered for the sake of marriage. Say the latter clause of the Tosefta: If she entered with him to his courtyard for the purpose of marriage, and she dies, her husband inherits her property. This indicates that if she entered without specification, i.e., without saying that they were doing so for marriage, it is considered as though they entered merely to lodge. The inferences from these two clauses of the Tosefta apparently contradict one another.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 住转诪讬 住转诪讬 拽转谞讬 住转诐 讞爪专 讚讬讚讛 诇诇讬谉 住转诐 讞爪专 讚讬讚讬讛 诇谞砖讜讗讬谉

Rav Ashi said: This is an incorrect interpretation, as the tanna taught the halakha of entering one type of courtyard without specification and the halakha of entering a different type of courtyard without specification, as follows: If they entered her courtyard without specification it is assumed that they entered merely to lodge, whereas if they entered his courtyard without specification, it is assumed that they did so for the sake of marriage, unless they expressly stated that they had another purpose in mind.

转谞讗 诪住专 讛讗讘 诇砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 讜讝讬谞转讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞谞拽 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讝谞讜转 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 驻专讟 诇砖诪住专 讛讗讘 诇砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇

搂 A Sage taught in a baraita: If the father delivered his daughter to the husband鈥檚 messengers and she subsequently committed adultery, she is sentenced to strangulation, in accordance with the halakha of a married woman who committed adultery, rather than stoning, which is the punishment for a betrothed woman who commits adultery. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Ami bar 岣ma said that the verse states, in the context of the command to stone a young woman who commits adultery during betrothal: 鈥淭o play the whore in her father鈥檚 house鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:21), which excludes a case when the father has delivered her to the husband鈥檚 messengers, when she is no longer in her father鈥檚 house.

讜讗讬诪讗 驻专讟 砖谞讻谞住讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But one can say that the verse is excluding a case where she has entered the wedding canopy but she has not yet had intercourse, whereas if her father has merely delivered her to the husband鈥檚 messengers she is still considered to have sinned in his house and is punishable by stoning like any other betrothed woman.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讗诪讬 讞讜驻讛 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘讗 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 谞注专讛 讘转讜诇讛 诪讗讜专砖讛 诇讗讬砖 谞注专讛 讜诇讗 讘讜讙专转 讘转讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讘注讜诇讛 诪讗讜专砖讛 讜诇讗 谞砖讜讗讛

In answer to this question, Rava said: The verse cannot be excluding that case, as Ami said to me that the case where she already entered the wedding canopy is not derived by inference from that verse; it is explicitly written in the following verse: 鈥淚f there is a young woman who is a virgin betrothed to a man鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:23). The terminology of the verse indicates that it applies to a 鈥測oung woman鈥 and not to a grown woman; to a 鈥渧irgin鈥 and not to a non-virgin; and to a 鈥渂etrothed鈥 woman and not to a married woman.

诪讗讬 谞砖讜讗讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 谞砖讜讗讛 诪诪砖 讛讬讬谞讜 讘转讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讘注讜诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖谞讻谞住讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讛

The Gemara analyzes this statement: What is the meaning of the term: A married woman, in this context? If we say that she is actually married and has already engaged in intercourse with her husband, this ruling is the same as the previous one, that she must be a virgin and not a non-virgin. Rather, is it not the case that it is referring to a woman who has entered the wedding canopy but has not had intercourse, and yet if she committed adultery at this stage she is sentenced to strangulation, like one who had engaged in relations with her husband? Consequently, the other verse, cited by Rabbi Ami bar 岣ma, cannot be referring to this case.

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • 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: 42-48 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

The fourth chapter continues discussing the maiden who is seduced or raped. We will learn what payments are made and...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 48: The Transactional Equations of Marriage

What does a wife owe her husband? What does a husband owe his wife? From her earnings to her conjugal...

Ketubot 48

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 48

专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 砖讗专讛 讻住讜转讛 诇驻讜诐 砖讗专讛 转谉 讻住讜转讛 砖诇讗 讬转谉 诇讛 诇讗 砖诇 讬诇讚讛 诇讝拽讬谞讛 讜诇讗 砖诇 讝拽讬谞讛 诇讬诇讚讛 讻住讜转讛 讜注讜谞转讛 诇驻讜诐 注讜谞转讛 转谉 讻住讜转讛 砖诇讗 讬转谉 讞讚砖讬诐 讘讬诪讜转 讛讞诪讛 讜诇讗 砖讞拽讬诐 讘讬诪讜转 讛讙砖诪讬诐

Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov says that she鈥檈ra and kesuta should be interpreted as follows: In accordance with her flesh [she鈥檈ra], i.e., her age, give her clothing [kesuta]. This means that he should not give the garments of a young girl to an elderly woman, nor those of an elderly woman to a young girl. Similarly, kesuta and onata are linked: In accordance with the time of year [onata], give her clothing [kesuta], meaning that he should not give new, heavy clothes in the summer, nor worn-out garments in the rainy season, i.e., the winter, when she requires heavier, warmer clothes. The entire phrase, therefore, refers only to a husband鈥檚 obligation to provide clothing for his wife.

转谞讬 专讘 讬讜住祝 砖讗专讛 讝讜 拽专讜讘 讘砖专 砖诇讗 讬谞讛讙 讘讛 诪谞讛讙 驻专住讬讬诐 砖诪砖诪砖讬谉 诪讟讜转讬讛谉 讘诇讘讜砖讬讛谉 诪住讬讬注 诇讬讛 诇专讘 讛讜谞讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛讗讜诪专 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讗诇讗 讗谞讬 讘讘讙讚讬 讜讛讬讗 讘讘讙讚讛 讬讜爪讬讗 讜谞讜转谉 讻转讜讘讛

Rav Yosef taught the following baraita: She鈥檈ra,鈥 this is referring to closeness of flesh during intercourse, which teaches that he should not treat her in the manner of Persians, who have conjugal relations in their clothes. The Gemara comments: This baraita supports the opinion of Rav Huna, as Rav Huna said: With regard to one who says: I do not want to have intercourse with my wife unless I am in my clothes and she is in her clothes, he must divorce his wife and give her the payment for her marriage contract. This is in keeping with the opinion of the tanna of the baraita that the Torah mandates the intimacy of flesh during sexual relations.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 注谞讬 砖讘讬砖专讗诇 讜讻讜壮 诪讻诇诇 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讛谞讬 诇讗 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讗讜专讞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 讜讗讬 讚诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

搂 The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: Even the poorest man of the Jewish people may not provide fewer than two flutes and a lamenting woman for his wife鈥檚 funeral. The Gemara infers: This proves by inference that the first, anonymous tanna cited in the mishna holds that these are not part of a husband鈥檚 obligations. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If this is the common custom in her family at funerals, what is the reason for the opinion of the first tanna who said that he does not have to do so? If he neglected to provide these items he would be treating her with disrespect. And if this is not the common custom in her family, what is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讻讙讜谉 讚讗讜专讞讬讛 讚讬讚讬讛 讜诇讗讜 讗讜专讞讛 讚讬讚讛 转谞讗 拽诪讗 住讘专 讻讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 注讜诇讛 注诪讜 讜讗讬谞讛 讬讜专讚转 注诪讜 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 诪讞讬讬诐 讗讘诇 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 诇讗

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary to state their dispute in a case where it is the common custom for his family according to its social status, but it is not common for her family according to its social status. The first tanna holds: When we say that a woman who marries a man ascends with him, i.e., she must be treated as equal in status to her husband if his social status is higher than hers, and does not descend with him if he is from a lower social status, this applies only when they are alive, but after death the Sages did not enforce this rule.

讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 住讘专 讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

And Rabbi Yehuda maintains: Even after death she must be treated in accordance with his status, which means that if those in his family are mourned with flutes and lamenting women, he must provide the same for her funeral. Rav 岣sda said that Mar Ukva said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讜讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 诪专 注讜拽讘讗 诪讬 砖谞砖转讟讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬讜专讚讬谉 诇谞讻住讬讜 讜讝谞讬谉 讜诪驻专谞住讬谉 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讜转讬讜 讜讚讘专 讗讞专 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 诪讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 诪讬 砖讛诇讱 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜讗砖转讜 转讜讘注转 诪讝讜谞讜转 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬讜专讚讬谉 诇谞讻住讬讜 讜讝谞讬谉 讜诪驻专谞住讬谉 讗转 讗砖转讜 讗讘诇 诇讗 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讜转讬讜 讜诇讗 讚讘专 讗讞专

Apropos this ruling, the Gemara cites another statement that Rav 岣sda said that Mar Ukva said: With regard to one who became insane, the court enters his property and feeds and provides a livelihood for his wife, his sons, and his daughters, and it also gives something else, as will be explained. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: In what way is this case different from that which is taught in a baraita: In the case of one who went overseas and his wife claims sustenance, the court descends to his property and feeds and provides a livelihood for his wife, but not for his sons and daughters and does not give something else. If a father is not obligated to sustain his children in his absence, what is different about a situation where he is mad?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 砖讗谞讬 诇讱 讘讬谉 讬讜爪讗 诇讚注转 诇讬讜爪讗 砖诇讗 诇讚注转

Rav Ashi said to Ravina: Is there no difference for you between a man who leaves his responsibilities knowingly and one who leaves them unknowingly? A father who lost his sanity did not do so by his own choice, and therefore it can be assumed that he would want to provide for his children from his possessions, despite the fact that he is not obligated to do so. By contrast, if he went overseas he freely decided to depart, and one would think that he would leave enough for his sons and daughters. If he failed to do so, he has demonstrated that he does not want to provide for them.

诪讗讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讝讛 转讻砖讬讟 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 爪讚拽讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 转讻砖讬讟 讻诇 砖讻谉 爪讚拽讛 诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 爪讚拽讛 讗讘诇 转讻砖讬讟 讬讛讘讬谞谉 诇讛 讚诇讗 谞讬讞讗 诇讬讛 讚转讬谞讜讜诇

The Gemara asks: What is this something else mentioned in the baraita? Rav 岣sda said: This is a wife鈥檚 ornaments, to which she is entitled in addition to her sustenance. Rav Yosef said: It is money for charity. The Gemara comments: According to the one who says that the court does not pay for a woman鈥檚 ornaments from her husband鈥檚 property if he has gone overseas, all the more so he maintains that the husband鈥檚 property is not taken for charity. Conversely, the one who says that the court does not give money for charity holds that this applies only to charity, but it does give her ornaments, as it is assumed that it is not satisfactory for him that his wife be demeaned by a lack of jewelry.

讗诪专 专讘 讞讬讬讗 讘专 讗讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诪讬 砖讛诇讱 诇诪讚讬谞转 讛讬诐 讜诪转讛 讗砖转讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讬讜专讚讬谉 诇谞讻住讬讜 讜拽讜讘专讬谉 讗讜转讛 诇驻讬 讻讘讜讚讜 诇驻讬 讻讘讜讚讜 讜诇讗 诇驻讬 讻讘讜讚讛

Rav 岣yya bar Avin said that Rav Huna said: In the case of one who went overseas and his wife died, the court enters his property and buries her in accordance with his dignity. The Gemara asks: Does the court act in accordance with his dignity and not in accordance with her dignity? What if she came from a more dignified family than her husband?

讗讬诪讗 讗祝 诇驻讬 讻讘讜讚讜 讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 注讜诇讛 注诪讜 讜讗讬谞讛 讬讜专讚转 注诪讜 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诇讗讞专 诪讬转讛

The Gemara answers: Say that Rav 岣yya bar Avin meant: Even in accordance with his dignity, i.e., if his family was more distinguished than hers, he must bury her in accordance with the dignity of his family. The Gemara adds: This comes to teach us that she ascends with him to his social status and does not descend with him, and this principle applies even after her death, in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 opinion in the mishna.

讗诪专 专讘 诪转谞讛 讛讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪转讛 诇讗 转拽讘专讜讛 诪谞讻住讬讜 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 讻讬 讗诪专 讚谞驻诇讬 谞讻住讬 拽诪讬 讬转诪讬 讻讬 诇讗 讗诪专 谞诪讬 谞讻住讬 拽诪讬 讬转诪讬 专诪讜

Rav Mattana said: In the case of one who says that if his wife dies, they should not bury her using funds from his property, the court listens to him. The Gemara asks: What is different about the case when he says this command that induces the court to comply with his wishes? It is due to the fact that the property has come before the orphans as an inheritance, while the obligation to bury her is not incumbent upon them but is a duty of the inheritors of her marriage contract. However, even if he did not state the above preference, the property is cast before the orphans and it belongs to them. What does it matter whether or not the husband issued a command to this effect?

讗诇讗 讛讗讜诪专 讗诐 诪转 讛讜讗 诇讗 转拽讘专讜讛讜 诪谞讻住讬讜 讗讬谉 砖讜诪注讬谉 诇讜 诇讗讜 讻诇 讛讬诪谞讜 砖讬注砖讬专 讗转 讘谞讬讜 讜讬驻讬诇 注爪诪讜 注诇 讛爪讬讘讜专

Rather, the Gemara amends Rav Mattana鈥檚 statement: With regard to one who says that if he himself dies, they should not bury him using funds from his property, one does not listen to him, but the court spends his money without resorting to charity. The reason for this is that it is not in his power to enrich his sons by saving them this expense and to cast himself as a burden on the community.

诪转谞讬壮 诇注讜诇诐 讛讬讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讗讘 注讚 砖转讻谞住

MISHNA: Even after she is betrothed, a daughter is always under her father鈥檚 authority until she enters

诇专砖讜转 讛讘注诇 诇谞砖讜讗讬谉 诪住专 讛讗讘 诇砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讘注诇 讛诇讱 讛讗讘 注诐 砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 讗讜 砖讛诇讻讜 砖诇讜讞讬 讛讗讘 注诐 砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讗讘 诪住专讜 砖诇讜讞讬 讛讗讘 诇砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讘注诇

her husband鈥檚 authority in marriage via the wedding canopy. If the father delivered his daughter to the husband鈥檚 messengers to bring her to her husband and the wedding canopy, once she has been handed over she is under the husband鈥檚 authority. However, if the father went with the husband鈥檚 messengers, or if the father鈥檚 messengers went with the husband鈥檚 messengers, she is still under the father鈥檚 authority, as he has not fully delivered her to the husband鈥檚 messengers. If her father sent her with his own messengers and the father鈥檚 messengers delivered the woman to the husband鈥檚 messengers, from that moment onwards she is under her husband鈥檚 authority.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗驻讜拽讬 诪诪砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讚转谞谉 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 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 诇注讜诇诐

GEMARA: The mishna taught that a daughter always remains under her father鈥檚 authority until she has fully entered her husband鈥檚 jurisdiction. The Gemara asks: What is the significance of the term: Always, in the mishna? The Gemara explains: This comes to exclude the opinion stated in the initial version of the mishna. As we learned in a mishna (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, like married women. The mishna here teaches us that the halakha is not in accordance with this earlier ruling cited in that mishna. Rather, they are always under their father鈥檚 authority until they actually enter the wedding canopy.

诪住专 讛讗讘 诇砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讘注诇 讜讻讜壮 讗诪专 专讘 诪住讬专转讛 诇讻诇 讞讜抓 诪转专讜诪讛 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 讗祝 诇转专讜诪讛

搂 The mishna taught that if the father delivered his daughter to the husband鈥檚 messengers, she is under the husband鈥檚 authority, unless the father or his messengers accompanied them. Rav said: When her father delivers her she leaves his jurisdiction in all respects, apart from the issue of partaking of teruma. Even if her husband is a priest, if she is not from a family of priests, she may not partake of teruma until she is fully married. And Rav Asi said that once she has been delivered to the husband鈥檚 messengers she is under her husband鈥檚 authority even with regard to teruma.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 诇专讘 讗住讬 讜讗诪专讬 诇讛 讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 诇专讘 讗住讬 诇注讜诇诐 讛讬讗 讘专砖讜转 讛讗讘 注讚 砖转讻谞住 诇讞讜驻讛 讗诪专 诇讛讜 专讘 诇讗讜 讗诪讬谞讗 诇讻讜 诇讗 转讬讝诇讜 讘转专 讗讬驻讻讗 讬讻讜诇 诇砖谞讜讬讬 诇讻讜 诪住讬专转讛 讝讜 讛讬讗 讻谞讬住转讛 诇讞讜驻讛

Rav Huna raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Asi, and some say that it was 岣yya, son of Rav, who raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Asi: The mishna states that she is always under her father鈥檚 authority until she enters the wedding canopy. According to Rav Asi, however, as soon as her father delivers her to the husband鈥檚 messengers she is no longer under her father鈥檚 authority. Rav said to them: Didn鈥檛 I tell you not to follow, i.e., attempt to refute rulings, on the basis of sources that can be explained in opposing manners? Rav Asi can answer you that the mishna means that her delivery to the husband鈥檚 messengers is equivalent to her entrance to the wedding canopy, and the same halakhot apply in both cases.

讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 诇讬专讜砖转讛

And Shmuel said that once a woman鈥檚 father has delivered her to the messengers of her husband, she is under her husband鈥檚 authority only with regard to her inheritance, i.e., her husband inherits her property upon her death as though she had already entered the wedding canopy.

专讬砖 诇拽讬砖 讗诪专 诇讻转讜讘转讛 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讗讬 讛讬讗 讚讗讬 诪转讛 讬专讬转 诇讛 讛讬讬谞讜 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 专讘讬谞讗 诇讜诪专 讻转讜讘转讛 诪讗讞专 诪谞讛

Reish Lakish said: Her delivery is also effective with regard to her marriage contract. The Gemara asks: What is Reish Lakish referring to when he says that she is under her husband鈥檚 authority with regard to her marriage contract? If you say it means that if she dies he inherits all her property, including the dowry specified in her marriage contract, that is the same as the statement of Shmuel, and Reish Lakish has added nothing to his ruling. Ravina said: Reish Lakish is coming to say that if the man dies before marrying her, and she then marries someone else, her marriage contract from the other man is one hundred dinars, as she is considered a widow from marriage rather than a widow from betrothal.

专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 转专讜讬讬讛讜 诪住讬专转讛 诇讻诇 讗祝 诇转专讜诪讛

Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi 岣nina both say that a woman鈥檚 delivery to the messengers of her husband causes her to be under his authority for all matters, even including partaking of teruma.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛诇讱 讛讗讘 注诐 砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 讗讜 砖讛诇讻讜 砖诇讜讞讬 讛讗讘 注诐 砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 讗讜 砖讛讬转讛 诇讛 讞爪专 讘讚专讱 讜谞讻谞住讛 注诪讜 诇诇讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讻转讜讘转讛 讘讘讬转 讘注诇讛 诪转讛 讗讘讬讛 讬讜专砖讛

The Gemara raises an objection from the Tosefta (Ketubot 4:4): If the father went with the husband鈥檚 messengers, or if the father鈥檚 messengers went with the husband鈥檚 messengers, or if she owned a courtyard along the way and she entered with her groom to lodge, not for the purpose of marriage but merely to stay overnight until they arrive at his residence, then even if the dowry specified in her marriage contract is already in her husband鈥檚 house, if she dies, her father inherits from her, as she is not considered to have entered her husband鈥檚 domain.

诪住专 讛讗讘 诇砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 讗讜 砖诪住专讜 砖诇讜讞讬 讛讗讘 诇砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 讗讜 砖讛讬转讛 诇讜 讞爪专 讘讚专讱 讜谞讻谞住讛 注诪讜 诇砖讜诐 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讗祝 注诇 驻讬 砖讻转讜讘转讛 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 诪转讛 讘注诇讛 讬讜专砖讛

Conversely, if the father delivered her to the husband鈥檚 messengers, or if the father鈥檚 messengers delivered her to the husband鈥檚 messengers, or if the groom owned a courtyard along the way and she entered with him for the purpose of marriage, then even if the dowry specified in her marriage contract is still in her father鈥檚 house and has not yet been given to her husband, if she dies, her husband inherits from her.

讘诪讛 讚讘专讬诐 讗诪讜专讬诐 诇讬专讜砖转讛 讗讘诇 诇转专讜诪讛 讗讬谉 讗砖讛 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 注讚 砖转讻谞住 诇讞讜驻讛 转讬讜讘转讗 讚讻讜诇讛讜 转讬讜讘转讗

The Tosefta concludes: In what case is this statement said? It is stated with regard to the husband鈥檚 right to inherit from her. However, with regard to teruma, the halakha is that a woman who marries a priest may not partake of teruma until she actually enters the wedding canopy. This baraita is apparently a refutation of all of them, i.e., all of the opinions cited previously that hold that once the woman is delivered to the husband鈥檚 messengers, if the husband is a priest, the woman may partake of teruma. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is a conclusive refutation.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 谞讻谞住讛 注诪讜 诇诇讬谉 讟注诪讗 讚诇诇讬谉 讛讗 住转诪讗 诇砖诐 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 谞讻谞住讛 注诪讜 诇砖诐 谞讬砖讜讗讬谉 讛讗 住转诪讗 诇诇讬谉

The Gemara asks: This matter itself is difficult. You said in the Tosefta that if she entered with him to her courtyard to lodge for one night, and she dies, her father inherits her property. The reason is because it specified that they entered only to lodge there, from which it may be inferred that if they entered without specification it is as though she entered for the sake of marriage. Say the latter clause of the Tosefta: If she entered with him to his courtyard for the purpose of marriage, and she dies, her husband inherits her property. This indicates that if she entered without specification, i.e., without saying that they were doing so for marriage, it is considered as though they entered merely to lodge. The inferences from these two clauses of the Tosefta apparently contradict one another.

讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 住转诪讬 住转诪讬 拽转谞讬 住转诐 讞爪专 讚讬讚讛 诇诇讬谉 住转诐 讞爪专 讚讬讚讬讛 诇谞砖讜讗讬谉

Rav Ashi said: This is an incorrect interpretation, as the tanna taught the halakha of entering one type of courtyard without specification and the halakha of entering a different type of courtyard without specification, as follows: If they entered her courtyard without specification it is assumed that they entered merely to lodge, whereas if they entered his courtyard without specification, it is assumed that they did so for the sake of marriage, unless they expressly stated that they had another purpose in mind.

转谞讗 诪住专 讛讗讘 诇砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇 讜讝讬谞转讛 讛专讬 讝讜 讘讞谞拽 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘专 讞诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 诇讝谞讜转 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 驻专讟 诇砖诪住专 讛讗讘 诇砖诇讜讞讬 讛讘注诇

搂 A Sage taught in a baraita: If the father delivered his daughter to the husband鈥檚 messengers and she subsequently committed adultery, she is sentenced to strangulation, in accordance with the halakha of a married woman who committed adultery, rather than stoning, which is the punishment for a betrothed woman who commits adultery. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Ami bar 岣ma said that the verse states, in the context of the command to stone a young woman who commits adultery during betrothal: 鈥淭o play the whore in her father鈥檚 house鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:21), which excludes a case when the father has delivered her to the husband鈥檚 messengers, when she is no longer in her father鈥檚 house.

讜讗讬诪讗 驻专讟 砖谞讻谞住讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讛

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But one can say that the verse is excluding a case where she has entered the wedding canopy but she has not yet had intercourse, whereas if her father has merely delivered her to the husband鈥檚 messengers she is still considered to have sinned in his house and is punishable by stoning like any other betrothed woman.

讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬 讗诪讬 讞讜驻讛 讘讛讚讬讗 讻转讬讘讗 讻讬 讬讛讬讛 谞注专讛 讘转讜诇讛 诪讗讜专砖讛 诇讗讬砖 谞注专讛 讜诇讗 讘讜讙专转 讘转讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讘注讜诇讛 诪讗讜专砖讛 讜诇讗 谞砖讜讗讛

In answer to this question, Rava said: The verse cannot be excluding that case, as Ami said to me that the case where she already entered the wedding canopy is not derived by inference from that verse; it is explicitly written in the following verse: 鈥淚f there is a young woman who is a virgin betrothed to a man鈥 (Deuteronomy 22:23). The terminology of the verse indicates that it applies to a 鈥測oung woman鈥 and not to a grown woman; to a 鈥渧irgin鈥 and not to a non-virgin; and to a 鈥渂etrothed鈥 woman and not to a married woman.

诪讗讬 谞砖讜讗讛 讗讬诇讬诪讗 谞砖讜讗讛 诪诪砖 讛讬讬谞讜 讘转讜诇讛 讜诇讗 讘注讜诇讛 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 砖谞讻谞住讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讛

The Gemara analyzes this statement: What is the meaning of the term: A married woman, in this context? If we say that she is actually married and has already engaged in intercourse with her husband, this ruling is the same as the previous one, that she must be a virgin and not a non-virgin. Rather, is it not the case that it is referring to a woman who has entered the wedding canopy but has not had intercourse, and yet if she committed adultery at this stage she is sentenced to strangulation, like one who had engaged in relations with her husband? Consequently, the other verse, cited by Rabbi Ami bar 岣ma, cannot be referring to this case.

Scroll To Top