Previous Folio / Kethuboth Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth
and her kethubah1 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
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 -