|  |  | Previous Folio / Kethuboth Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth ### Folio 57a and her kethubah 1 was lost. When they came before R. Joseph2 he said to them, Thus said Rab Judah in the name of Samuel: This3 is the opinion of R. Meir,4 but the Sages ruled that a man may live with his wife without a kethubah for two or three years.5 Said Abaye to him:6 But did not R. Nahman state in the name of Samuel that the halachah is in agreement with R. Meir in his preventive measures?7 — If so, [the other replied] go and write one8 for her. When R. Dimi came9 he stated in the name of R. Simeon b. Pazzi in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi who had it from Bar Kappara: The dispute10 refers to the beginning,11 but at the end11 she cannot, according to the opinion of all, surrender12 [any portion of her kethubah].13 R. Johanan, however stated that their dispute extended to both cases.14 Said R. Abbahu: [The following] was explained to me by R. Johanan: 'I and R. Joshua b. Levi do not dispute with one another. The "beginning" of which R. Joshua b. Levi spoke means15 the beginning of [the meeting in] the bridal chamber, and by the "end" was meant15 the termination of the intercourse;16 and when I stated that the dispute extended to both cases [I meant] the beginning [of the meeting in] the bridal chamber and the end of that meeting which is the beginning of the intercourse.'17 When Rabin came18 he stated in the name of R. Simeon b. Pazzi in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi who had it from Bar Kappara. The dispute refers only to the end, but at the beginning she may, so is the opinion of all, renounce19 [any portion of her kethubah].20 R. Johanan, however, stated that their dispute extended to both cases. Said R. Abbahu: This was explained to me by R. Johanan: 'I and R. Joshua b. Levi do not dispute with one another. The "end" of which R. Joshua b. Levi spoke meant the end of [the meeting in] the bridal chamber, and by the "beginning" was meant the beginning of [the meeting in] the bridal chamber; and when I stated that the dispute extended to both cases [I meant] the beginning,21 and the termination of the intercourse.' Said R. Papa: Had not R. Abbahu stated, 'This was explained to me by R. Johanan: "I and R. Joshua b. Levi do not dispute with one another"' I would have submitted that R. Johanan and R. Joshua b. Levi were in dispute while R. Dimi and Rabin22 were not in dispute. The 'end' of which Rabin spoke might mean23 the end of [the meeting in] the bridal chamber, and the 'beginning' of which R. Dimi spoke might mean23 the beginning of the intercourse.21 What does he24 teach us thereby?25 — It is this that he teaches us: [It is preferable to assume]26 that two Amoraim differ in their own opinions27 rather than that two Amoraim should differ as to what was the view of another Amora.28 MISHNAH. A VIRGIN IS ALLOWED TWELVE MONTHS FROM THE [TIME HER INTENDED] HUSBAND CLAIMED HER,29 [IN WHICH] TO PREPARE HER MARRIAGE OUTFIT.30 AND, AS [SUCH A PERIOD] IS ALLOWED FOR THE WOMAN, SO IS IT ALLOWED FOR THE MAN FOR HIS OUTFIT.31 FOR A WIDOW32 THIRTY DAYS [ARE ALLOWED]. IF THE RESPECTIVE PERIODS EXPIRED33 AND THEY WERE NOT MARRIED34 THEY35 ARE ENTITLED TO MAINTENANCE OUT OF THE MAN'S ESTATE36 AND [IF HE IS A PRIEST] MAY ALSO EAT TERUMAH. R. TARFON SAID: ALL [THE SUSTENANCE] FOR SUCH A WOMAN MAY BE GIVEN OF TERUMAH.37 R. AKIBA SAID: ONE HALF OF UNCONSECRATED FOOD38 AND ONE HALF OF TERUMAH.39 A LEVIR40 [WHO IS A PRIEST] DOES NOT CONFER [UPON HIS SISTER-IN-LAW]41 THE RIGHT OF EATING TERUMAH.42 IF SHE43 HAD SPENT SIX MONTHS44 WITH45 HER HUSBAND AND SIX MONTHS WITH45 THE LEVIR,46 OR EVEN [IF SHE SPENT] ALL OF THEM47 WITH HER HUSBAND LESS ONE DAY WITH45 THE LEVIR,46 OR ALL OF THEM47 WITH45 THE LEVIR46 LESS ONE DAY WITH HER HUSBAND,48 SHE IS NOT PERMITTED TO EAT TERUMAH.49 THIS50 [WAS THE RULING ACCORDING TO] AN EARLIER51 MISHNAH.52 THE COURT, HOWEVER, THAT SUCCEEDED53 RULED: To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files I.e., the written marriage contract. V. Glos. To obtain his ruling on the question whether she may continue to live with her husband without the kethubah. That living with a wife whose kethubah is less than the prescribed minimum, and much more so with one who has no kethubah at all, is regarded as mere prostitution, even though the woman remained legally entitled to collect the full amount of her kethubah. Who holds that since the woman is not absolutely certain that she will obtain the full amount of her kethubah (either in the case, supra, because she believes the man's stipulation to be valid or, in this case, because she has no document to prove her claim) it can only be regarded as an act of prostitution (v. supra p. 333, n. 8). I.e., for any length of time. V. Tosaf. s.v. [H] a.l. R. Joseph. The Rabbinical restrictions he added to those of the Torah. A new marriage contract. From Palestine to Babylon. Between R. Judah and R. Jose on the question whether a verbal renouncement of the woman is valid (supra 56b). This is explained infra. By a mere verbal statement. Since she has already acquired it. Only by means of a written quittance may her rights then be surrendered. I.e., to the 'beginning' and 'end'. Lit., 'what'. R. Judah and R. Jose dispute only in respect of the period between the beginning and the conclusion of the meeting in the bridal chamber but agree that after intercourse the man's stipulation is invalid unless the woman has surrendered her rights in writing. It was, therefore, quite correct for R. Joshua b. Levi to state that 'at the end (i.e., of the intercourse), she cannot, according to the opinion of all, surrender (i.e., verbally) any part of her kethubah'. To which the dispute indeed refers (cf. supra p. 335, n. 14). From Palestine to Babylon. V. Supra p. 335, nn. 8-10. Since she has not yet legally acquired it. Which corresponds to the termination of the meeting in the bridal chamber. Whose reports appear contradictory. Lit., 'what'. R. Papa. In view of R. Abbahu's definite statement R. Papa's remark seems pointless. Unless there is proof to the contrary. It is natural and legitimate for opinions to differ. In which case one of the two must be definitely wrong since the view of the Amora which both of them claim to represent could not possibly have agreed with what both of them submit. Had not R. Abbahu's statement been authoritative, coming as it did from R. Johanan himself, R. Papa's submission would have been preferred to his. After their betrothal. Jewels and similar ornaments (v. Rashi). The preparations for the wedding dinner and the bridal chamber (v. ibid.). Who is presumed to be in the possession of some trinkets and jewellery from her first marriage. Lit., 'the time arrived'. Owing to the man's delay (v. supra 2b). The women. Lit., 'they eat of his'. Out of the proceeds of which she may buy unconsecrated food for consumption during the days of her Levitical uncleanness. For consumption during her period of uncleanness. For her use in her clean state. [H], the brother of a deceased childless husband, whose duty it is to marry the widow. Who became a widow while still betrothed. Prior to their marriage (v. supra n. 12). As a betrothed virgin. Of the period of twelve months that is granted to her. Lit., 'in the presence of'. I.e., in awaiting his marriage. The twelve months. [Isaiah Trani preserves a better reading, 'even if (she spent) all of them with the husband, less one day, or all of them with the levir]. By virtue of her husband whose obligation to maintain her does not begin until the end of the twelve months, and even then terminates with his death. That after THE RESPECTIVE PERIODS EXPIRED … THEY ARE ENTITLED … EAT TERUMAH. Lit., 'first'. Cf. Sanh. Sonc. ed. p. 163, n. 7. The authors of the earlier Mishnah. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Kethuboth 57b A WOMAN1 MAY NOT EAT TERUMAH UNTIL SHE HAS ENTERED THE BRIDAL CHAMBER.2 GEMARA. Whence is this3 derived? — R. Hisda replied: From Scripture which states, And her brother and her mother said: 'Let the damsel abide with us yamim,4 at the least ten.5 Now, what could be meant by yamim? If it be suggested 'two days',6 do people, [it might be retorted,] speak in such a manner? [If when] they suggested to him7 two days he said no, would they then suggest ten days? Yamim must consequently mean8 a year, for it is written, yamim9 shall he have the right of redemption.10 But might it not be said [that yamim means] a month,11 for it is written, But a month of yamim?12 — I will tell you: [The meaning of] an undefined [expression of] yamim may well be inferred from another undefined expression of yamim, but no undefined expression of yamim may be inferred from one in connection with which month was specifically mentioned. R. Zera stated that a Tanna taught: In the case of a minor,13 either she herself or her father is empowered to postpone14 [her marriage].15 One can well understand why she is empowered to postpone [the marriage], but [why also her] father? If she is satisfied, what matters it to her father? — He might think this: Now she does not realize [what marriage implies] but to-morrow16 she will rebel [against her husband], leave him and come back to, and fall [a burden] upon me.17 R. Abba b. Levi stated: No arrangements may be made for marrying a minor while she is still in her minority. Arrangements18 may, however, be made while she is a minor for marrying her when she becomes of age. Is not this obvious? — It might have been suggested that [this should not be allowed] as a precaution against the possibility of her beginning to feel anxiety at once19 and so becoming ill. Hence we were taught [that no such possibility need be considered]. R. Huna stated: If on the day she became adolescent20 she was betrothed, she is allowed thirty days21 like a widow.22 An objection was raised: One who has attained adolescence is like one who has been claimed [by her intended husband in marriage]. Does not this imply, 'Like a Virgin who was claimed'?23 — No, like a widow who was claimed. Come and hear: If a woman who is adolescent had waited for twelve months24 her husband, said R. Eliezer, since he is liable for her maintenance, may also annul [her vows]!25 — Read: A woman who is adolescent26 or one27 who waited twelve months.28 Come and hear: If a man betrothed a virgin, whether he29 claimed her and she held back or whether she claimed him and he29 held back, she is allowed twelve months30 from the time of the claim but not from the time of the betrothal; and one who is adolescent is like one who has been claimed. How [is this to be understood]? If she was betrothed on the day she became adolescent,31 she is allowed twelve months; while one betrothed [is sometimes allowed] thirty days.32 Is not this a refutation against R. Huna? — It is a refutation. What [was meant by] 'while one betrothed [is sometimes allowed] thirty days'? — R. Papa replied, It is this that was meant: If an adolescent woman was betrothed after twelve months of her adolescence have elapsed, she is allowed30 thirty days like a widow. IF THE RESPECTIVE PERIODS EXPIRED AND THEY WERE NOT MARRIED. 'Ulla stated: The daughter of an Israelite who is betrothed [to a priest] is, according to Pentateuchal law, permitted to eat terumah, for it is written In Scripture, But if a priest buy any soul, the purchase of his money,33 and that [woman] also is the purchase of his money.34 What then is the reason why [the Rabbis] ruled that she is not permitted to eat [terumah]? Because it might happen that when a cup [of terumah] will be offered35 to her in the house of her father she might give her brother or sister36 to drink [from it]. If so, [the same reason should apply] also where THE RESPECTIVE PERIODS EXPIRED AND THEY WERE NOT MARRIED! — In that case37 he appoints for her a special place.38 Now then, no [hired harvest] gleaner39 [working] for an Israelite should be allowed to eat terumah, since it is possible that [the household of the Israelite] would come to eat with him! If40 they feed him from their own [victuals], Would they eat of his?41 R. Samuel son of Rab42 Judah explained:43 Owing to a bodily defect44 [that might subsequently be detected].45 lf so, [should not the same reason] also [be applicable to a woman who] had entered the bridal chamber, but intercourse with whom did not take place?46 — In that case47 he arranges for her to be first examined and only then takes her in.48 Now then, the slave of a priest,49 bought from an Israelite, should not be allowed to eat terumah on account of a bodily defect44 [that might be discovered]!50 — [The law of cancellation of a sale owing to a subsequent detection of a] bodily defect44 does not apply to slaves. For if the defect is external [the buyer] has presumably seen it;51 and if it is internal, since [the buyer] requires [the slave] for work only he does not mind a private defect.52 Were [the slave] to be found to have been a thief or - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Who is not the daughter of a priest. Huppah, v. Glos. Lit., 'whence these words', that A VIRGIN IS ALLOWED TWELVE MONTHS. [H], E.V., a few days. Gen. XXIV, 55, referring to the period the relatives of Rebekah wished her to remain with them after consenting to her marriage with Isaac. The minimum of the plural. Abraham's servant. Lit., 'but what'. E.V., for a full year. Lev. XXV, 29. As here yamim means 'a year' so it does in Gen. XXIV, 55, while [H] means 'ten months'. And [H], 'ten days'. Num. XI, 20. E.V. a full month. Who was claimed by the man who betrothed her. Lit., 'prevent'. Beyond the period given in our Mishnah; until she is of age. V. Tosef. Keth. V. After the marriage, when she finds her connubial duties distasteful. He would then have to provide for her a new marriage outfit (v. Rashi). It is the privilege of a minor to leave her husband at any moment by the mere making of a formal declaration that she does not like him (v. Glos. s.v. Mi'un). Without legal betrothal. Lit., 'bring in fear from now'. A bogereth (v. Glos.). Lit., 'she became adolescent one day'. In which to prepare her marriage outfit. Not the longer period of twelve months. It is assumed that on approaching adolescence a woman begins to prepare her marriage outfit, and the shorter period of one month is regarded as sufficient for completing it. Who (v. our Mishnah) is allowed a period of twelve months! From the time she was claimed by the man who betrothed her. Ned. 70b, 73b. There is no need for her father to consent to the annulment. (Cf. Num. XXX, 4ff). From here it follows that even one who is adolescent is not entitled to maintenance until after the expiry of twelve months, which is an objection against R. Huna. Who waited thirty days. A na'arah (v. Glos.). The difference between the two readings is represented in the original by the addition of a mere waw. Lit., 'the (intended) husband'. For the preparation of her outfit. Lit., 'she became of age one day'. V. infra for further explanation. Lev. XXII, 11. The conclusion of the verse is he may eat of it, i.e., of terumah. The money, or the object of value, which the man gives to the woman as her token of betrothal, and whereby she is acquired as his wife. Rt. [H] lit., 'to mix', sc. wine with water or spices. Who are Israelites to whom the eating or drinking of terumah is forbidden. Lit., 'there', where the priest is legally liable to maintain her. Away from her father's household; thus preventing her from giving away his victuals to her relatives. Who is a priest. Lit., 'now'. Obviously not. Hence the permissibility for the gleaner to eat his terumah. Wanting in MS.M. The reason why the daughter of an Israelite who was betrothed to a priest is not permitted to eat terumah before the time her husband becomes liable to maintain her. [H] 'an implied condition the non-fulfilment of which annuls the agreement', whence 'a bodily defect … not stated in the contract' (Jast.) Cf. [G]. In the woman. This might be discovered before the marriage and, as a result, the betrothal would be annulled retrospectively. In this case also, should a bodily defect be discovered before the consummation of the marriage the betrothal would be annulled retrospectively. Why then does our Mishnah permit the eating of terumah in such a case? Lit., there'. Into the bridal chamber. After entering into the chamber it may be safely assumed that he has satisfied himself that she was not suffering from any bodily defects. Who eats terumah by virtue of being the slave of a priest. And that would retrospectively annul the purchase. The slave would consequently retain the status of an Israelite's slave to whom the eating of terumah was all the time forbidden. And since he nevertheless consented to the purchase he must have been content to overlook it. The sale, therefore, cannot thereby be annulled. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |