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

Today's Daf Yomi

September 1, 2022 | 讛壮 讘讗诇讜诇 转砖驻状讘

  • 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 57

Rami bar Hama’s sister-in-law lost her ketuba. Rav Yosef wanted to let it go based on the rabbi’s opinion who thought it was not a problem since anyway a ketuba is a stipulation of the court so she had a way to demand her ketuba money in the end. But Abaye quoted Rav Nachman saying that we hold like Rabbi Meir when he has a takana and he has held that one who stays with a woman without a ketuba is like one who engages in licentious behavior. Rav Dimi and Ravin each had a different tradition about a debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi regarding at what stage do Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Yehuda disagree about the ability of the woman to verbally forgo her ketuba. However, Rabbi Avahu has a different tradition that Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi don’t disagree – they just used different terms to describe the same thing. Rav Papa accepts Rabbi Avahu’s tradition, but points out a weakness regarding it and says that were it not for Rabbi Avahu’s explanation, he would have preferred to say the debate was between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rav Dimi and Ravin said the same thing, just used different terms to describe the same thing. What is the amount of time given to the bride and groom to prepare for the wedding after the groom proposes marriage? Twelve months for a woman not previously married and thirty days for a woman previously married. Once that date is reached, the man is obligated to provide sustenance for the woman and if she is betrothed to a kohen, she can eat truma. Can he give her all her food from truma produce or only part, as some of the month she will be impure and cannot eat truma? What are the laws if the time period was split between a man and his yabam (in the event that he died)? The Mishna states that law regarding truma changed over time and now a woman can only eat truma after the chuppa. The twelve-month period derived from the verses about Rivka before she was taken to Yitzchak to be married. If the woman is a minor, she or her father can push off the marriage more than twelve months. Why? If the girl is a minor, the girl or the father can decided can decide not to get married even after the twelve months have past. Why would the father want to do that if the girl is willing to get married? Even though a father can betroth his daughter at a young age and marry her off, Rabbi Abba did not allow this until she is of age to be married. Rav Huna said that a woman who is a bogeret, only gets thirty days to prepare for the wedding. Three sources are brought against him – two are resolved but one is not. By Torah law, a woman betrothed to a kohen can eat truma but the rabbis forbade it. Two reasons are brought – either because her family may come to eat truma by accident, or because the husband may find blemish in the wife and will not in the end marry her.

讗讬专讻住 讻转讜讘转讛 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Her marriage contract was lost, and the woman and her husband came before Rav Yosef to ask what they should do. He said to them: This is what Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: That ruling, that if someone reduces his wife鈥檚 marriage contract by even a small amount, their marriage amounts to licentious sexual intercourse, is the statement of Rabbi Meir. According to that opinion, the husband and wife were forbidden to each other because she was not in possession of a valid marriage contract.

讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖讛讗 讗讚诐 讗转 讗砖转讜 砖转讬诐 讜砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讘诇讗 讻转讜讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讙讝讬专讜转讬讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 讝讬诇 讻转讜讘 诇讛

But the Rabbis say: Since the woman relies on the fact that she will eventually collect payment for her marriage contract, a man may maintain his wife for as long as two or three years without a written marriage contract. There is no urgent need to write a new one, since the husband鈥檚 obligation remains intact. Abaye said to him: But didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir with regard to all of his decrees? Since Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement about marriage contracts was a form of decree, the halakha should be in accordance with his opinion. Rav Yosef responded: If so, go and write her a new marriage contract.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘转讞诇讛 讗讘诇 讘住讜祝 诇讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谞讛 诪讜讞诇转 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘讬谉 讘讝讜 讜讘讬谉 讘讝讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 诪讬驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗谞讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇讗 驻诇讙讬谞谉 讗讛讚讚讬

搂 The Gemara relates that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: This dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei concerning whether one may make a verbal stipulation with a woman to reduce her marriage contract is referring only to the beginning of the process. But with regard to the end, all agree that she cannot waive her rights by verbal confirmation alone, and she must instead write a receipt. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Both in this case and in that case there is a dispute. Rabbi Abbahu said: This was explained to me personally by Rabbi Yo岣nan himself, who said: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and I do not actually disagree with one another. We merely used different language to express the same halakha.

诪讗讬 讘转讞诇讛 讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 转讞诇转 讞讜驻讛 讜诪讗讬 住讜祝 住讜祝 讘讬讗讛 讜讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讗谞讗 讘讬谉 讘讝讜 讜讘讬谉 讘讝讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 转讞诇转 讞讜驻讛 讜住讜祝 讞讜驻讛 讚讛讬讗 转讞讬诇转 讘讬讗讛

What is the meaning of the term: To the beginning, which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said? It is referring to the beginning of the wedding ceremony. And what is meant by the end? It is referring to the end of intercourse; Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi鈥檚 opinion is that after the marriage has been consummated, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei agree that the wife cannot relinquish her rights verbally. And when I said that both in this case and in that case there is a dispute, I was referring to the beginning of the wedding ceremony and the end of the wedding ceremony, which is also the beginning of the time designated for intercourse. Consequently, according to Rav Dimi, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rabbi Yo岣nan agree that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei applies only until the consummation of the marriage. After that point, all agree that she cannot waive her rights verbally.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇讘住讜祝 讗讘诇 讘转讞诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讞诇转 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘讬谉 讘讝讜 讜讘讬谉 讘讝讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 诪讬驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗谞讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇讗 驻诇讙讬谞谉 讗讛讚讚讬 诪讗讬 诇讘住讜祝 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 住讜祝 讞讜驻讛 讜诪讗讬 转讞诇讛 转讞诇转 讞讜驻讛 讜讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讗谞讗 讘讬谉 讘讝讜 讘讬谉 讘讝讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 转讞诇转 讘讬讗讛 讜住讜祝 讘讬讗讛

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he reported this matter differently than Rav Dimi did: Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: This dispute is referring only to the end of the process, but with regard to the beginning, all agree that she can waive her rights verbally. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Both in this case and in that case there is a dispute. Rabbi Abbahu said: This was explained to me personally by Rabbi Yo岣nan himself, who said: I and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi do not disagree with one another. What is the meaning of: The end, which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said? The end of the wedding ceremony. And what is the meaning of the beginning? The beginning of the wedding ceremony. And when I said that both in this case and in that case there is a dispute, I was referring to the beginning of intercourse and the end of intercourse.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 诪讬驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗谞讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇讗 驻诇讙讬谞谉 讗讛讚讚讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜专讘讬谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

Consequently, according to Ravin, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rabbi Yo岣nan agree that at the time of the of the wedding ceremony the wife can verbally waive her rights, and the dispute of the tanna鈥檌m is referring to the time after the ceremony, which is also the beginning of the time for consummation of the marriage. Rav Pappa said: Had Rabbi Abbahu not said: This was explained to me personally by Rabbi Yo岣nan himself, that I, i.e. Rabbi Yo岣nan, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi do not disagree with one another, I, i.e., Rav Pappa, would have said that the way to understand the various texts is that Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi do disagree with one another, whereas Rav Dimi and Ravin do not disagree with one another, but rather they both cited the same tradition from Eretz Yisrael.

诪讗讬 住讜祝 讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬谉 住讜祝 讞讜驻讛 讜诪讗讬 转讞诇讛 讚拽讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 转讞诇转 讘讬讗讛

I would have explained it in the following manner: What is the meaning of the word end, which Ravin said? It is referring to the end of the wedding ceremony. And what is the meaning of the word beginning, which Rav Dimi said? It is referring to the beginning of the time designated for intercourse, which begins at the end of the wedding ceremony. It would then follow that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagreed about the explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, whereas Rav Dimi and Ravin both said the same thing.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

What is Rav Pappa teaching us? Since he accepts Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 statement, he acknowledges that his alternate way of reading the sources is not correct. What, then, is the point of telling us that he would have explained Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi鈥檚 and Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 words differently?

讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 转专讬 讗诪讜专讗讬 讗讟注诪讗 讚谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 转专讬 讗诪讜专讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚讞讚 讗诪讜专讗

The Gemara explains: It teaches us this: If we were discussing the meaning of an amoraic dispute about which we have different traditions, it is better to explain that two amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to their own reasons and not that two amora鈥檌m disagree according to the opinion of another amora, as it is more plausible to say that there is a dispute about logical reasoning than that there is a dispute about the correct transmission of a halakhic tradition. Consequently, had Rabbi Abbahu not declared that he was told otherwise by Rabbi Yo岣nan, it would have been preferable to explain that there is a logical dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rabbi Yo岣nan, rather than saying that the dispute is about the details of the tradition received by Rav Dimi and Ravin.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讘转讜诇讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 诪砖转讘注讛 讛讘注诇 诇驻专谞住 讗转 注爪诪讛 讜讻砖诐 砖谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讗砖讛 讻讱 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讗讬砖 诇驻专谞住 讗转 注爪诪讜 讜诇讗诇诪谞讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 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

MISHNA: One gives a virgin twelve months from the time the husband asked to marry her after having betrothed her, in order to prepare herself with clothes and jewelry for the marriage. And just as one gives a woman this amount of time, so too does one give a man an equivalent period of time to prepare himself, as he too needs time to prepare for the marriage. However, in the case of a widow, who already has items available from her previous marriage, she is given only thirty days to prepare. If the appointed time for the wedding arrived and they did not get married due to some delay on the part of the husband, then the woman may partake of his food. And if her husband is a priest, she may partake of teruma, even if she is an Israelite woman.

专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 讛讻诇 转专讜诪讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪讞爪讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诪讞爪讛 转专讜诪讛

The tanna鈥檌m disagree about the permission granted to a priest to sustain his betrothed with teruma before she is married to him. Rabbi Tarfon says: He may give her all of her required sustenance from teruma. During her periods of impurity, e.g., menstruation, when she cannot partake of teruma, she may sell the teruma to a priest and use the proceeds to buy non-sacred food. Rabbi Akiva says: He must give her half of her needs from non-sacred food and half may be from teruma, so that she can eat from the non-sacred food when she is ritually impure.

讛讬讘诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇 讘转专讜诪讛 注砖转讛 砖砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讘驻谞讬 讛讘注诇 讜砖砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讘驻谞讬 讛讬讘诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜诇谉 讘驻谞讬 讛讘注诇 讞住专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘驻谞讬 讛讬讘诐 讗讜 讻讜诇谉 讘驻谞讬 讛讬讘诐 讞住专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘驻谞讬 讛讘注诇 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛

The mishna continues: A priest who is a yavam, i.e., his brother died childless after betrothing a woman, does not enable his yevama to partake of teruma by virtue of her relationship with him. If she had completed six months of the twelve-month wait for marriage under the aegis of the husband, and then he died, and she waited six more months under the aegis of the yavam; or even if she completed all of the necessary time under the aegis of the husband except for one day that she was under the aegis of the yavam; or if she completed all of the necessary time under the aegis of the yavam except for one day that she was under the aegis of the husband, she still may not partake of teruma.

讝讜 诪砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讗讞专讬讛谉 讗诪专讜

This set of rulings, concerning the permission granted a betrothed woman whose wedding date has arrived to partake of teruma, is in accordance with the initial version of the mishna. However, a court that convened after them, in a later generation, said:

讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 注讚 砖转讻谞住 诇讞讜驻讛

A woman may not partake of teruma until she has actually entered the wedding canopy.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬讗诪专 讗讞讬讛 讜讗诪讛 转砖讘 讛谞注专讛 讗转谞讜 讬诪讬诐 讗讜 注砖讜专

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that a virgin is given twelve months to prepare for her wedding? Rav 岣sda said it is based on the fact that the verse states with regard to Rebecca: 鈥淎nd her brother and mother said: Let the damsel abide with us for days, or ten鈥 (Genesis 24:55).

诪讗讬 讬诪讬诐 讗讬诇讬诪讗 转专讬 讬讜诪讬 诪砖转注讬 讗讬谞讬砖 讛讻讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 转专讬 讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 注砖专讛 讬讜诪讬 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讬诪讬诐 砖谞讛 讚讻转讬讘 讬诪讬诐 转讛讬讛 讙讗讜诇转讜

The Gemara first analyzes the language of the verse: What is the meaning of 鈥渄ays鈥? If we say two days, the minimum number justifying the use of the plural, does a person really speak like this? Rebecca鈥檚 relatives said to Abraham鈥檚 servant that they wanted her to stay for two days, after which he said to them no, as he did not want to wait even that long. If so, is it possible that after that they said to him that they wanted her to stay for ten days? Consequently, it is impossible to explain the word 鈥渄ays鈥 as two days and 鈥渢en鈥 as ten days. Rather, what is the meaning of 鈥渄ays鈥? It means: A year, as it is written: 鈥淔or days he shall have redemption鈥 (Leviticus 25:29), and there it is explained that 鈥渄ays鈥 is referring to a year. Consequently, in the verse 鈥淎nd her brother and mother said: Let the damsel abide with us for days, or ten鈥 (Genesis 24:55), 鈥渄ays鈥 refers to a year, and 鈥渢en鈥 refers to a shorter period of similar magnitude, i.e. ten months, in order to prepare for her wedding.

讜讗讬诪讗 讞讚砖 讚讻转讬讘 注讚 讞讚砖 讬诪讬诐 讗诪专讬 讚谞讬谉 讬诪讬诐 住转诐 诪讬诪讬诐 住转诐 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讬诪讬诐 住转诐 诪讬诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘讛谉 讞讚砖

The Gemara asks: And let us say that 鈥渄ays鈥 means a month, as it is written: 鈥淏ut a whole month of days鈥 (Numbers 11:20), and the verse about Rebecca might then have meant that her family wanted to wait for a month, or at least for ten days. They say: One derives the meaning of an unspecified use of the term 鈥渄ays鈥 from another unspecified instance of the term 鈥渄ays,鈥 which means a year. And one does not derive the meaning of an unspecified use of the term 鈥渄ays鈥 from an instance of the term 鈥渄ays,鈥 about which the term 鈥渕onth鈥 is stated. Consequently, it can be derived from the verse that the ordinary amount of time required for a virgin to prepare for marriage is twelve months.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 转谞讗 拽讟谞讛 讘讬谉 讛讬讗 讜讘讬谉 讗讘讬讛 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇注讻讘 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬讛讬 诪爪讬 诪注讻讘讗 讗诇讗 讗讘讬讛 讗讬 讗讬讛讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讛 讗讘讬讛 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讛 住讘专 讛砖转讗 诇讗 讬讚注讛 诇诪讞专 诪讬诪专讚讗 讜谞驻拽讗 讜讗转讬讗 讜谞驻诇讛 注讬诇讜讗讬

Rabbi Zeira said: It was taught in the Tosefta (Ketubot 5:1) with regard to a minor girl: Either she or her father may delay the wedding until she has reached majority. The Gemara asks: Granted, she, the girl herself, may delay the wedding if she feels she is not ready, as she is the one who will be directly affected, but why should her father be allowed to delay her wedding? If it is suitable for her to get married, what difference does it make to her father? The Gemara answers: He thinks: Perhaps she agrees to get married now because she does not fully know what she is doing. But tomorrow, she will realize the marriage was a mistake, rebel, and leave her husband, and then she will come back and become a burden to me. Therefore, her father prefers that she wait until she has reached majority and marry when she is completely aware of what is involved.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诇讜讬 讗讬谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 诇讛砖讬讗讛 讻砖讛讬讗 拽讟谞讛 讗讘诇 驻讜住拽讬谉 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 诇讛砖讬讗讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讙讚讜诇讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 诪注讬讬诇讗 驻讞讚讗 诪讛砖转讗 讜讞诇砖讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rabbi Abba bar Levi said: One may not finalize an agreement to marry a minor girl in order to marry her while she is still a minor, but one may finalize an agreement to marry a minor girl in order to marry her when she becomes an adult woman. With regard to the latter halakha, the Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? If he will marry her when she becomes an adult woman, there is nothing unusual about this case. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that one should be concerned that she might become afraid of marriage from making plans now, and this will cause her resolve to weaken, and then even when she becomes an adult she will maintain reservations about the matter, Rabbi Abba bar Levi therefore teaches us that one need not be concerned about this. One may finalize an agreement to marry her as an adult even when she is a minor girl.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讙专讛 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜谞转拽讚砖讛 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讻讗诇诪谞讛 诪讬转讬讘讬 讘讙专讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻转讘讜注讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻转讘讜注讛 讚讘转讜诇讛 诇讗 讻转讘讜注讛 讚讗诇诪谞讛

Rav Huna said: If she has reached her majority, even for just one day, and then she is betrothed, she is given her thirty days to prepare for her wedding, like a widow, since prior to reaching adulthood she presumably had already prepared everything needed for her marriage. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If she grew up, she is similar to a betrothed woman who has been asked to marry her betrothed. What, is it not that she is similar to a virgin who has been asked to marry, and she has twelve months to prepare? The Gemara answers: No, it means that she is similar to a widow who has been asked to marry her betrothed, who gets only thirty days to prepare. Only young women who have not reached majority and who are virgins get a year to prepare; after majority, all women, regardless of whether they are virgins, get thirty days.

转讗 砖诪注 讘讜讙专转 砖砖讛转讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讬讬讘 讘注诇讛 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛 讬驻专 讗讬诪讗 讘讜讙专转 讜砖砖讛转讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘注诇讛 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛 讬驻专

The Gemara attempts another refutation of Rav Huna鈥檚 statement: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Nedarim 73b): If a grown woman waited twelve months since betrothal and is still not married, Rabbi Eliezer says: Since her husband is obligated to provide for her sustenance, he may also nullify her vows (see Numbers, chapter 30). It can be inferred from this that the waiting period for a grown woman is also twelve months. The Gemara responds by emending the text of the mishna: Say that if a grown woman waited thirty days or a young woman waited twelve months, Rabbi Eliezer says: Since her husband is obligated to provide for her sustenance, he may nullify her vows.

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讗专住 讗转 讛讘转讜诇讛 讘讬谉 砖转讘注讛 讛讘注诇 讜讛讬讗 诪注讻讘转 讜讘讬谉 砖转讘注讛 讛讬讗 讜讘注诇 诪注讻讘 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 诪砖注转 转讘讬注讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪砖注转 讗讬专讜住讬谉 讜讘讙专讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻转讘讜注讛 讻讬爪讚 讘讙专讛 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜谞转拽讚砖讛 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诇讗专讜住讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara attempts another refutation of Rav Huna鈥檚 statement: Come and hear a baraita: If someone betrothed a virgin, whether the husband asks to marry her and she delays the process because she says that she requires more time or whether she asks to marry him and the husband delays the process because he is not yet ready, she is given twelve months from the time the request was issued but not from the time of the betrothal, even if that was much earlier, and a grown woman is similar to one who has been asked to marry. How is this so? If she has reached her majority for one day, and she is then betrothed, she is given twelve months from the day of her betrothal, because it is the same as the day of her majority. One who was already a betrothed woman when she reached majority is given thirty days. Therefore, the refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna is a conclusive refutation.

诪讗讬 讜诇讗专讜住讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘讜讙专转 砖注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讘讘讙专讜转 讜谞转拽讚砖讛 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讻讗诇诪谞讛

The Gemara asks: What is meant by the words: And one who was already a betrothed woman is given thirty days? Rav Pappa said: This is what it is saying: With regard to a grown woman who has been an adult for twelve months and is then betrothed, she is given thirty days, like a widow, and not another twelve months.

讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讜诇讗 谞讬砖讗讜 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讗专讜住讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讛谉 讻讬 讬拽谞讛 谞驻砖 拽谞讬谉 讻住驻讜 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 拽谞讬谉 讻住驻讜 讛讜讗 诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 砖诪讗 讬诪讝讙讜 诇讛 讻讜住 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讜转砖拽讛 诇讗讞讬讛 讜诇讗讞讜转讛

搂 The mishna states: If the appointed time for the wedding arrived and they did not get married, she may partake of teruma. Ulla said: By Torah law, the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest may partake of teruma immediately, even before the wedding date arrives, as it is stated: 鈥淚f a priest buy any soul, the acquisition of his money, he may eat of it鈥 (Leviticus 22:11), and this woman is also an acquisition of his money through the betrothal. Therefore, she is entitled to partake of teruma. What, then, is the reason the Sages said that she may not partake? It is lest someone pour her a cup of teruma wine while she is in her father鈥檚 house. Although she may drink it as the betrothed of a priest, since she is still living in her father鈥檚 house there is a concern that she will give her brother or sister to drink from the wine, which is prohibited, as they are non-priests.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讜诇讗 谞讬砖讗讜 谞诪讬 讛转诐 讚讜讻转讗 诪讬讬讞讚 诇讛

The Gemara asks: If so, then if the time arrived and they did not get married, there should also be concern that she might give it to members of her family, as she is still in her father鈥檚 house. Why, then, does the mishna say that she is permitted to partake of teruma at that time? The Gemara answers: There, after the time for the wedding has arrived, he designates a specific place for her. Since her husband is obligated to provide for her sustenance, he will want to ensure that she receives her food in a particular place so that she not use it to feed her family. This mitigates the concern that she may inadvertently give it to her brother or sister to drink.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诇拽讬讟 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 诇讬讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讚诇诪讗 讗转讜 诇诪讬讻诇 讘讛讚讬讛 讛砖转讗 诪讚讬讚讛讜 住驻讜 诇讬讛 诪讚讬讚讬讛 讗讻诇讬

The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, then the halakha should also be that a gleaner who is a priest and is employed by an Israelite may not partake of teruma, lest the other members of the household come to eat with him from the teruma. The Gemara rejects this: Now, even though the members of the Israelite household feed the priest from their food, as he is their employee, would they eat from his food? They would not. Therefore, there is no reason for concern and no reason to prohibit him from eating teruma. This is Ulla鈥檚 opinion.

专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 住讬诪驻讜谉

However, Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda said: The reason for the rabbinic decree is due to abrogation [simfon], cancellation of the contract. It may become known after the betrothal that she has blemishes that can retroactively annul the betrothal, and it would then become apparent that she had partaken of teruma unlawfully.

讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讻谞住讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讛 谞诪讬 讛转诐 诪讬讘讚拽 讘讚讬拽 诇讛 讜讛讚专 诪注讬讬诇

The Gemara asks: If so, if the rabbinic decree that prohibits a woman betrothed to a priest from partaking of teruma is due to concern for possible abrogation of the marriage, then a woman who entered the wedding canopy but has not yet engaged in sexual intercourse should also be prohibited from partaking of teruma, as the husband does not yet know whether she has blemishes. The Gemara answers: There, in that situation, he investigates her through the agency of his female relatives and only then enters the wedding canopy. Consequently, there is no longer any concern about abrogation.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 注讘讚 讻讛谉 砖诇拽讞讜 诪讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 诇讬讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪砖讜诐 住讬诪驻讜谉 住讬诪驻讜谉 讘注讘讚讬诐 诇讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讚讗讘专讗讬 讛讗 拽讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 讚讙讜讗讬 诇诪诇讗讻讛 拽讗 讘注讬 讜砖讘住转专 诇讗 讗讬讻驻转 诇讬讛 谞诪爪讗 讙谞讘 讗讜

The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, then according to this rationale, a priest鈥檚 slave whom the priest purchased from an Israelite should not partake of teruma, due to concern of abrogation. Perhaps the priest will discover a defect in the slave, resulting in the retroactive cancellation of the acquisition and causing the slave to return to his Israelite master after he had mistakenly eaten teruma. The Gemara answers: There is no abrogation with regard to slaves, since no type of defect could cause the cancellation of the transaction. The reason for this is that if the defect is external, then he sees it at the point of sale and accepts it. And if the defect is internal, since he needs him for labor, concealed defects do not concern him. With regard to other types of defects, e.g., if he was discovered to be a thief or

  • 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: 56-62 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn if a woman can forgo her Ketuva and what happens if she loses her Ketuva....
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 57: Using Rivka’s Story to Explain No Child-Marriage

More on the chuppah, and the end of the marriage ceremony. Also, a new mishnah: preparation for the wedding and...

Ketubot 57

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 57

讗讬专讻住 讻转讜讘转讛 讗转讜 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讛讻讬 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讝讜 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专

Her marriage contract was lost, and the woman and her husband came before Rav Yosef to ask what they should do. He said to them: This is what Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: That ruling, that if someone reduces his wife鈥檚 marriage contract by even a small amount, their marriage amounts to licentious sexual intercourse, is the statement of Rabbi Meir. According to that opinion, the husband and wife were forbidden to each other because she was not in possession of a valid marriage contract.

讗讘诇 讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 诪砖讛讗 讗讚诐 讗转 讗砖转讜 砖转讬诐 讜砖诇砖 砖谞讬诐 讘诇讗 讻转讜讘讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讜讛讗 讗诪专 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讘讙讝讬专讜转讬讜 讗讬 讛讻讬 讝讬诇 讻转讜讘 诇讛

But the Rabbis say: Since the woman relies on the fact that she will eventually collect payment for her marriage contract, a man may maintain his wife for as long as two or three years without a written marriage contract. There is no urgent need to write a new one, since the husband鈥檚 obligation remains intact. Abaye said to him: But didn鈥檛 Rav Na岣an say that Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir with regard to all of his decrees? Since Rabbi Meir鈥檚 statement about marriage contracts was a form of decree, the halakha should be in accordance with his opinion. Rav Yosef responded: If so, go and write her a new marriage contract.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘转讞诇讛 讗讘诇 讘住讜祝 诇讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 讗讬谞讛 诪讜讞诇转 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘讬谉 讘讝讜 讜讘讬谉 讘讝讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 诪讬驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗谞讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇讗 驻诇讙讬谞谉 讗讛讚讚讬

搂 The Gemara relates that when Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: This dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei concerning whether one may make a verbal stipulation with a woman to reduce her marriage contract is referring only to the beginning of the process. But with regard to the end, all agree that she cannot waive her rights by verbal confirmation alone, and she must instead write a receipt. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Both in this case and in that case there is a dispute. Rabbi Abbahu said: This was explained to me personally by Rabbi Yo岣nan himself, who said: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and I do not actually disagree with one another. We merely used different language to express the same halakha.

诪讗讬 讘转讞诇讛 讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 转讞诇转 讞讜驻讛 讜诪讗讬 住讜祝 住讜祝 讘讬讗讛 讜讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讗谞讗 讘讬谉 讘讝讜 讜讘讬谉 讘讝讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 转讞诇转 讞讜驻讛 讜住讜祝 讞讜驻讛 讚讛讬讗 转讞讬诇转 讘讬讗讛

What is the meaning of the term: To the beginning, which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said? It is referring to the beginning of the wedding ceremony. And what is meant by the end? It is referring to the end of intercourse; Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi鈥檚 opinion is that after the marriage has been consummated, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei agree that the wife cannot relinquish her rights verbally. And when I said that both in this case and in that case there is a dispute, I was referring to the beginning of the wedding ceremony and the end of the wedding ceremony, which is also the beginning of the time designated for intercourse. Consequently, according to Rav Dimi, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rabbi Yo岣nan agree that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei applies only until the consummation of the marriage. After that point, all agree that she cannot waive her rights verbally.

讻讬 讗转讗 专讘讬谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讘专 拽驻专讗 诪讞诇讜拽转 诇讘住讜祝 讗讘诇 讘转讞诇讛 讚讘专讬 讛讻诇 诪讜讞诇转 讜专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讗诪专 讘讬谉 讘讝讜 讜讘讬谉 讘讝讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 诪讬驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗谞讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇讗 驻诇讙讬谞谉 讗讛讚讚讬 诪讗讬 诇讘住讜祝 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 住讜祝 讞讜驻讛 讜诪讗讬 转讞诇讛 转讞诇转 讞讜驻讛 讜讻讬 拽讗诪讬谞讗 讗谞讗 讘讬谉 讘讝讜 讘讬谉 讘讝讜 诪讞诇讜拽转 转讞诇转 讘讬讗讛 讜住讜祝 讘讬讗讛

When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael, he reported this matter differently than Rav Dimi did: Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: This dispute is referring only to the end of the process, but with regard to the beginning, all agree that she can waive her rights verbally. And Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Both in this case and in that case there is a dispute. Rabbi Abbahu said: This was explained to me personally by Rabbi Yo岣nan himself, who said: I and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi do not disagree with one another. What is the meaning of: The end, which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said? The end of the wedding ceremony. And what is the meaning of the beginning? The beginning of the wedding ceremony. And when I said that both in this case and in that case there is a dispute, I was referring to the beginning of intercourse and the end of intercourse.

讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讬 诇讗讜 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 诪讬驻专砖讗 诇讬 诪讬谞讬讛 讚专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讚讗谞讗 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 诇讗 驻诇讙讬谞谉 讗讛讚讚讬 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘 讚讬诪讬 讜专讘讬谉 诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬

Consequently, according to Ravin, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rabbi Yo岣nan agree that at the time of the of the wedding ceremony the wife can verbally waive her rights, and the dispute of the tanna鈥檌m is referring to the time after the ceremony, which is also the beginning of the time for consummation of the marriage. Rav Pappa said: Had Rabbi Abbahu not said: This was explained to me personally by Rabbi Yo岣nan himself, that I, i.e. Rabbi Yo岣nan, and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi do not disagree with one another, I, i.e., Rav Pappa, would have said that the way to understand the various texts is that Rabbi Yo岣nan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi do disagree with one another, whereas Rav Dimi and Ravin do not disagree with one another, but rather they both cited the same tradition from Eretz Yisrael.

诪讗讬 住讜祝 讚拽讗诪专 专讘讬谉 住讜祝 讞讜驻讛 讜诪讗讬 转讞诇讛 讚拽讗诪专 专讘 讚讬诪讬 转讞诇转 讘讬讗讛

I would have explained it in the following manner: What is the meaning of the word end, which Ravin said? It is referring to the end of the wedding ceremony. And what is the meaning of the word beginning, which Rav Dimi said? It is referring to the beginning of the time designated for intercourse, which begins at the end of the wedding ceremony. It would then follow that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rabbi Yo岣nan disagreed about the explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, whereas Rav Dimi and Ravin both said the same thing.

诪讗讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

What is Rav Pappa teaching us? Since he accepts Rabbi Abbahu鈥檚 statement, he acknowledges that his alternate way of reading the sources is not correct. What, then, is the point of telling us that he would have explained Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi鈥檚 and Rabbi Yo岣nan鈥檚 words differently?

讛讗 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚驻诇讬讙讬 转专讬 讗诪讜专讗讬 讗讟注诪讗 讚谞驻砖讬讬讛讜 讜诇讗 驻诇讬讙讬 转专讬 讗诪讜专讗讬 讗诇讬讘讗 讚讞讚 讗诪讜专讗

The Gemara explains: It teaches us this: If we were discussing the meaning of an amoraic dispute about which we have different traditions, it is better to explain that two amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to their own reasons and not that two amora鈥檌m disagree according to the opinion of another amora, as it is more plausible to say that there is a dispute about logical reasoning than that there is a dispute about the correct transmission of a halakhic tradition. Consequently, had Rabbi Abbahu not declared that he was told otherwise by Rabbi Yo岣nan, it would have been preferable to explain that there is a logical dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rabbi Yo岣nan, rather than saying that the dispute is about the details of the tradition received by Rav Dimi and Ravin.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讘转讜诇讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 诪砖转讘注讛 讛讘注诇 诇驻专谞住 讗转 注爪诪讛 讜讻砖诐 砖谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讗砖讛 讻讱 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讗讬砖 诇驻专谞住 讗转 注爪诪讜 讜诇讗诇诪谞讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 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

MISHNA: One gives a virgin twelve months from the time the husband asked to marry her after having betrothed her, in order to prepare herself with clothes and jewelry for the marriage. And just as one gives a woman this amount of time, so too does one give a man an equivalent period of time to prepare himself, as he too needs time to prepare for the marriage. However, in the case of a widow, who already has items available from her previous marriage, she is given only thirty days to prepare. If the appointed time for the wedding arrived and they did not get married due to some delay on the part of the husband, then the woman may partake of his food. And if her husband is a priest, she may partake of teruma, even if she is an Israelite woman.

专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 讛讻诇 转专讜诪讛 专讘讬 注拽讬讘讗 讗讜诪专 诪讞爪讛 讞讜诇讬谉 讜诪讞爪讛 转专讜诪讛

The tanna鈥檌m disagree about the permission granted to a priest to sustain his betrothed with teruma before she is married to him. Rabbi Tarfon says: He may give her all of her required sustenance from teruma. During her periods of impurity, e.g., menstruation, when she cannot partake of teruma, she may sell the teruma to a priest and use the proceeds to buy non-sacred food. Rabbi Akiva says: He must give her half of her needs from non-sacred food and half may be from teruma, so that she can eat from the non-sacred food when she is ritually impure.

讛讬讘诐 讗讬谞讜 诪讗讻讬诇 讘转专讜诪讛 注砖转讛 砖砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讘驻谞讬 讛讘注诇 讜砖砖讛 讞讚砖讬诐 讘驻谞讬 讛讬讘诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 讻讜诇谉 讘驻谞讬 讛讘注诇 讞住专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘驻谞讬 讛讬讘诐 讗讜 讻讜诇谉 讘驻谞讬 讛讬讘诐 讞住专 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讘驻谞讬 讛讘注诇 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛

The mishna continues: A priest who is a yavam, i.e., his brother died childless after betrothing a woman, does not enable his yevama to partake of teruma by virtue of her relationship with him. If she had completed six months of the twelve-month wait for marriage under the aegis of the husband, and then he died, and she waited six more months under the aegis of the yavam; or even if she completed all of the necessary time under the aegis of the husband except for one day that she was under the aegis of the yavam; or if she completed all of the necessary time under the aegis of the yavam except for one day that she was under the aegis of the husband, she still may not partake of teruma.

讝讜 诪砖谞讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖诇 讗讞专讬讛谉 讗诪专讜

This set of rulings, concerning the permission granted a betrothed woman whose wedding date has arrived to partake of teruma, is in accordance with the initial version of the mishna. However, a court that convened after them, in a later generation, said:

讗讬谉 讛讗砖讛 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 注讚 砖转讻谞住 诇讞讜驻讛

A woman may not partake of teruma until she has actually entered the wedding canopy.

讙诪壮 诪谞讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讬讗诪专 讗讞讬讛 讜讗诪讛 转砖讘 讛谞注专讛 讗转谞讜 讬诪讬诐 讗讜 注砖讜专

GEMARA: The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived, that a virgin is given twelve months to prepare for her wedding? Rav 岣sda said it is based on the fact that the verse states with regard to Rebecca: 鈥淎nd her brother and mother said: Let the damsel abide with us for days, or ten鈥 (Genesis 24:55).

诪讗讬 讬诪讬诐 讗讬诇讬诪讗 转专讬 讬讜诪讬 诪砖转注讬 讗讬谞讬砖 讛讻讬 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 转专讬 讬讜诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讗 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 注砖专讛 讬讜诪讬 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讬诪讬诐 砖谞讛 讚讻转讬讘 讬诪讬诐 转讛讬讛 讙讗讜诇转讜

The Gemara first analyzes the language of the verse: What is the meaning of 鈥渄ays鈥? If we say two days, the minimum number justifying the use of the plural, does a person really speak like this? Rebecca鈥檚 relatives said to Abraham鈥檚 servant that they wanted her to stay for two days, after which he said to them no, as he did not want to wait even that long. If so, is it possible that after that they said to him that they wanted her to stay for ten days? Consequently, it is impossible to explain the word 鈥渄ays鈥 as two days and 鈥渢en鈥 as ten days. Rather, what is the meaning of 鈥渄ays鈥? It means: A year, as it is written: 鈥淔or days he shall have redemption鈥 (Leviticus 25:29), and there it is explained that 鈥渄ays鈥 is referring to a year. Consequently, in the verse 鈥淎nd her brother and mother said: Let the damsel abide with us for days, or ten鈥 (Genesis 24:55), 鈥渄ays鈥 refers to a year, and 鈥渢en鈥 refers to a shorter period of similar magnitude, i.e. ten months, in order to prepare for her wedding.

讜讗讬诪讗 讞讚砖 讚讻转讬讘 注讚 讞讚砖 讬诪讬诐 讗诪专讬 讚谞讬谉 讬诪讬诐 住转诐 诪讬诪讬诐 住转诐 讜讗讬谉 讚谞讬谉 讬诪讬诐 住转诐 诪讬诪讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讘讛谉 讞讚砖

The Gemara asks: And let us say that 鈥渄ays鈥 means a month, as it is written: 鈥淏ut a whole month of days鈥 (Numbers 11:20), and the verse about Rebecca might then have meant that her family wanted to wait for a month, or at least for ten days. They say: One derives the meaning of an unspecified use of the term 鈥渄ays鈥 from another unspecified instance of the term 鈥渄ays,鈥 which means a year. And one does not derive the meaning of an unspecified use of the term 鈥渄ays鈥 from an instance of the term 鈥渄ays,鈥 about which the term 鈥渕onth鈥 is stated. Consequently, it can be derived from the verse that the ordinary amount of time required for a virgin to prepare for marriage is twelve months.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 转谞讗 拽讟谞讛 讘讬谉 讛讬讗 讜讘讬谉 讗讘讬讛 讬讻讜诇讬谉 诇注讻讘 讘砖诇诪讗 讗讬讛讬 诪爪讬 诪注讻讘讗 讗诇讗 讗讘讬讛 讗讬 讗讬讛讬 谞讬讞讗 诇讛 讗讘讬讛 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讬讛 诪讬谞讛 住讘专 讛砖转讗 诇讗 讬讚注讛 诇诪讞专 诪讬诪专讚讗 讜谞驻拽讗 讜讗转讬讗 讜谞驻诇讛 注讬诇讜讗讬

Rabbi Zeira said: It was taught in the Tosefta (Ketubot 5:1) with regard to a minor girl: Either she or her father may delay the wedding until she has reached majority. The Gemara asks: Granted, she, the girl herself, may delay the wedding if she feels she is not ready, as she is the one who will be directly affected, but why should her father be allowed to delay her wedding? If it is suitable for her to get married, what difference does it make to her father? The Gemara answers: He thinks: Perhaps she agrees to get married now because she does not fully know what she is doing. But tomorrow, she will realize the marriage was a mistake, rebel, and leave her husband, and then she will come back and become a burden to me. Therefore, her father prefers that she wait until she has reached majority and marry when she is completely aware of what is involved.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗讘讗 讘专 诇讜讬 讗讬谉 驻讜住拽讬谉 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 诇讛砖讬讗讛 讻砖讛讬讗 拽讟谞讛 讗讘诇 驻讜住拽讬谉 注诇 讛拽讟谞讛 诇讛砖讬讗讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讙讚讜诇讛 驻砖讬讟讗 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诇讬讞讜砖 讚诇诪讗 诪注讬讬诇讗 驻讞讚讗 诪讛砖转讗 讜讞诇砖讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

Rabbi Abba bar Levi said: One may not finalize an agreement to marry a minor girl in order to marry her while she is still a minor, but one may finalize an agreement to marry a minor girl in order to marry her when she becomes an adult woman. With regard to the latter halakha, the Gemara asks: Isn鈥檛 that obvious? If he will marry her when she becomes an adult woman, there is nothing unusual about this case. The Gemara answers: Lest you say that one should be concerned that she might become afraid of marriage from making plans now, and this will cause her resolve to weaken, and then even when she becomes an adult she will maintain reservations about the matter, Rabbi Abba bar Levi therefore teaches us that one need not be concerned about this. One may finalize an agreement to marry her as an adult even when she is a minor girl.

讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘讙专讛 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜谞转拽讚砖讛 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讻讗诇诪谞讛 诪讬转讬讘讬 讘讙专讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻转讘讜注讛 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讻转讘讜注讛 讚讘转讜诇讛 诇讗 讻转讘讜注讛 讚讗诇诪谞讛

Rav Huna said: If she has reached her majority, even for just one day, and then she is betrothed, she is given her thirty days to prepare for her wedding, like a widow, since prior to reaching adulthood she presumably had already prepared everything needed for her marriage. The Gemara raises an objection from a baraita: If she grew up, she is similar to a betrothed woman who has been asked to marry her betrothed. What, is it not that she is similar to a virgin who has been asked to marry, and she has twelve months to prepare? The Gemara answers: No, it means that she is similar to a widow who has been asked to marry her betrothed, who gets only thirty days to prepare. Only young women who have not reached majority and who are virgins get a year to prepare; after majority, all women, regardless of whether they are virgins, get thirty days.

转讗 砖诪注 讘讜讙专转 砖砖讛转讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讞讬讬讘 讘注诇讛 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛 讬驻专 讗讬诪讗 讘讜讙专转 讜砖砖讛转讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讜讚砖 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讘注诇讛 讞讬讬讘 讘诪讝讜谞讜转讬讛 讬驻专

The Gemara attempts another refutation of Rav Huna鈥檚 statement: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (Nedarim 73b): If a grown woman waited twelve months since betrothal and is still not married, Rabbi Eliezer says: Since her husband is obligated to provide for her sustenance, he may also nullify her vows (see Numbers, chapter 30). It can be inferred from this that the waiting period for a grown woman is also twelve months. The Gemara responds by emending the text of the mishna: Say that if a grown woman waited thirty days or a young woman waited twelve months, Rabbi Eliezer says: Since her husband is obligated to provide for her sustenance, he may nullify her vows.

转讗 砖诪注 讛诪讗专住 讗转 讛讘转讜诇讛 讘讬谉 砖转讘注讛 讛讘注诇 讜讛讬讗 诪注讻讘转 讜讘讬谉 砖转讘注讛 讛讬讗 讜讘注诇 诪注讻讘 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 诪砖注转 转讘讬注讛 讗讘诇 诇讗 诪砖注转 讗讬专讜住讬谉 讜讘讙专讛 讛专讬 讛讬讗 讻转讘讜注讛 讻讬爪讚 讘讙专讛 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讜谞转拽讚砖讛 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讜诇讗专讜住讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 转讬讜讘转讗 讚专讘 讛讜谞讗 转讬讜讘转讗

The Gemara attempts another refutation of Rav Huna鈥檚 statement: Come and hear a baraita: If someone betrothed a virgin, whether the husband asks to marry her and she delays the process because she says that she requires more time or whether she asks to marry him and the husband delays the process because he is not yet ready, she is given twelve months from the time the request was issued but not from the time of the betrothal, even if that was much earlier, and a grown woman is similar to one who has been asked to marry. How is this so? If she has reached her majority for one day, and she is then betrothed, she is given twelve months from the day of her betrothal, because it is the same as the day of her majority. One who was already a betrothed woman when she reached majority is given thirty days. Therefore, the refutation of the opinion of Rav Huna is a conclusive refutation.

诪讗讬 讜诇讗专讜住讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗诪专 专讘 驻驻讗 讛讻讬 拽讗诪专 讘讜讙专转 砖注讘专讜 注诇讬讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讘讘讙专讜转 讜谞转拽讚砖讛 谞讜转谞讬谉 诇讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讻讗诇诪谞讛

The Gemara asks: What is meant by the words: And one who was already a betrothed woman is given thirty days? Rav Pappa said: This is what it is saying: With regard to a grown woman who has been an adult for twelve months and is then betrothed, she is given thirty days, like a widow, and not another twelve months.

讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讜诇讗 谞讬砖讗讜 讗诪专 注讜诇讗 讚讘专 转讜专讛 讗专讜住讛 讘转 讬砖专讗诇 讗讜讻诇转 讘转专讜诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜讻讛谉 讻讬 讬拽谞讛 谞驻砖 拽谞讬谉 讻住驻讜 讜讛讗讬 谞诪讬 拽谞讬谉 讻住驻讜 讛讜讗 诪讛 讟注诐 讗诪专讜 讗讬谞讛 讗讜讻诇转 砖诪讗 讬诪讝讙讜 诇讛 讻讜住 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讜转砖拽讛 诇讗讞讬讛 讜诇讗讞讜转讛

搂 The mishna states: If the appointed time for the wedding arrived and they did not get married, she may partake of teruma. Ulla said: By Torah law, the daughter of a non-priest betrothed to a priest may partake of teruma immediately, even before the wedding date arrives, as it is stated: 鈥淚f a priest buy any soul, the acquisition of his money, he may eat of it鈥 (Leviticus 22:11), and this woman is also an acquisition of his money through the betrothal. Therefore, she is entitled to partake of teruma. What, then, is the reason the Sages said that she may not partake? It is lest someone pour her a cup of teruma wine while she is in her father鈥檚 house. Although she may drink it as the betrothed of a priest, since she is still living in her father鈥檚 house there is a concern that she will give her brother or sister to drink from the wine, which is prohibited, as they are non-priests.

讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讙讬注 讝诪谉 讜诇讗 谞讬砖讗讜 谞诪讬 讛转诐 讚讜讻转讗 诪讬讬讞讚 诇讛

The Gemara asks: If so, then if the time arrived and they did not get married, there should also be concern that she might give it to members of her family, as she is still in her father鈥檚 house. Why, then, does the mishna say that she is permitted to partake of teruma at that time? The Gemara answers: There, after the time for the wedding has arrived, he designates a specific place for her. Since her husband is obligated to provide for her sustenance, he will want to ensure that she receives her food in a particular place so that she not use it to feed her family. This mitigates the concern that she may inadvertently give it to her brother or sister to drink.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 诇拽讬讟 讻讛谉 诇讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 诇讬讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 讚诇诪讗 讗转讜 诇诪讬讻诇 讘讛讚讬讛 讛砖转讗 诪讚讬讚讛讜 住驻讜 诇讬讛 诪讚讬讚讬讛 讗讻诇讬

The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, then the halakha should also be that a gleaner who is a priest and is employed by an Israelite may not partake of teruma, lest the other members of the household come to eat with him from the teruma. The Gemara rejects this: Now, even though the members of the Israelite household feed the priest from their food, as he is their employee, would they eat from his food? They would not. Therefore, there is no reason for concern and no reason to prohibit him from eating teruma. This is Ulla鈥檚 opinion.

专讘 砖诪讜讗诇 讘专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 诪砖讜诐 住讬诪驻讜谉

However, Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda said: The reason for the rabbinic decree is due to abrogation [simfon], cancellation of the contract. It may become known after the betrothal that she has blemishes that can retroactively annul the betrothal, and it would then become apparent that she had partaken of teruma unlawfully.

讗讬 讛讻讬 谞讻谞住讛 诇讞讜驻讛 讜诇讗 谞讘注诇讛 谞诪讬 讛转诐 诪讬讘讚拽 讘讚讬拽 诇讛 讜讛讚专 诪注讬讬诇

The Gemara asks: If so, if the rabbinic decree that prohibits a woman betrothed to a priest from partaking of teruma is due to concern for possible abrogation of the marriage, then a woman who entered the wedding canopy but has not yet engaged in sexual intercourse should also be prohibited from partaking of teruma, as the husband does not yet know whether she has blemishes. The Gemara answers: There, in that situation, he investigates her through the agency of his female relatives and only then enters the wedding canopy. Consequently, there is no longer any concern about abrogation.

讗诇讗 诪注转讛 注讘讚 讻讛谉 砖诇拽讞讜 诪讬砖专讗诇 诇讗 诇讬讻讜诇 讘转专讜诪讛 诪砖讜诐 住讬诪驻讜谉 住讬诪驻讜谉 讘注讘讚讬诐 诇讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讚讗讘专讗讬 讛讗 拽讞讝讬 诇讬讛 讜讗讬 讚讙讜讗讬 诇诪诇讗讻讛 拽讗 讘注讬 讜砖讘住转专 诇讗 讗讬讻驻转 诇讬讛 谞诪爪讗 讙谞讘 讗讜

The Gemara asks: However, if that is so, then according to this rationale, a priest鈥檚 slave whom the priest purchased from an Israelite should not partake of teruma, due to concern of abrogation. Perhaps the priest will discover a defect in the slave, resulting in the retroactive cancellation of the acquisition and causing the slave to return to his Israelite master after he had mistakenly eaten teruma. The Gemara answers: There is no abrogation with regard to slaves, since no type of defect could cause the cancellation of the transaction. The reason for this is that if the defect is external, then he sees it at the point of sale and accepts it. And if the defect is internal, since he needs him for labor, concealed defects do not concern him. With regard to other types of defects, e.g., if he was discovered to be a thief or

Scroll To Top