Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth

Folio 57a

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

MISHNAH.⁵²  THE COURT, HOWEVER, THAT SUCCEEDED⁵³  RULED:

1. I.e., the written marriage contract. V. Glos.
2. To obtain his ruling on the question whether she may continue to live with her husband without the kethubah.
3. 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.
4. 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).
5. I.e., for any length of time. V. Tosaf. s.v. [H] a.l.
6. R. Joseph.
7. The Rabbinical restrictions he added to those of the Torah.
8. A new marriage contract.
9. From Palestine to Babylon.
10. Between R. Judah and R. Jose on the question whether a verbal renouncement of the woman is valid (supra 56b).
11. This is explained infra.
12. By a mere verbal statement.
13. Since she has already acquired it. Only by means of a written quittance may her rights then be surrendered.
14. I.e., to the 'beginning' and 'end'.
15. Lit., 'what'.
16. 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'.
17. To which the dispute indeed refers (cf. supra p. 335, n. 14).
18. From Palestine to Babylon.
19. V. Supra p. 335, nn. 8-10.
20. Since she has not yet legally acquired it.
21. Which corresponds to the termination of the meeting in the bridal chamber.
22. Whose reports appear contradictory.
23. Lit., 'what'.
24. R. Papa.
25. In view of R. Abbahu's definite statement R. Papa's remark seems pointless.
26. Unless there is proof to the contrary.
27. It is natural and legitimate for opinions to differ.
28. 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.
29. After their betrothal.
30. Jewels and similar ornaments (v. Rashi).
31. The preparations for the wedding dinner and the bridal chamber (v. ibid.).
32. Who is presumed to be in the possession of some trinkets and jewellery from her first marriage.
33. Lit., 'the time arrived'.
34. Owing to the man's delay (v. supra 2b).
35. The women.
36. Lit., 'they eat of his'.
37. Out of the proceeds of which she may buy unconsecrated food for consumption during the days of her Levitical uncleanness.
38. For consumption during her period of uncleanness.
39. For her use in her clean state.
40. [H], the brother of a deceased childless husband, whose duty it is to marry the widow.
41. Who became a widow while still betrothed.
42. Prior to their marriage (v. supra n. 12).
43. As a betrothed virgin.
44. Of the period of twelve months that is granted to her.
45. Lit., 'in the presence of'.
46. I.e., in awaiting his marriage.
47. The twelve months.
48. [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].
49. 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.
50. That after THE RESPECTIVE PERIODS EXPIRED … THEY ARE ENTITLED … EAT TERUMAH.
51. Lit., 'first'.
52. Cf. Sanh. Sonc. ed. p. 163, n. 7.
53. The authors of the earlier Mishnah.

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

1. Who is not the daughter of a priest.
2. Huppah, v. Glos.
3. Lit., 'whence these words', that A VIRGIN IS ALLOWED TWELVE MONTHS.
4. [H], E.V., a few days.
5. Gen. XXIV, 55, referring to the period the relatives of Rebekah wished her to remain with them after consenting to her marriage with Isaac.
6. The minimum of the plural.
7. Abraham's servant.
8. Lit., 'but what'.
9. E.V., for a full year.
10. Lev. XXV, 29. As here yamim means 'a year' so it does in Gen. XXIV, 55, while [H] means 'ten months'.
11. And [H], 'ten days'.
12. Num. XI, 20. E.V. a full month.
13. Who was claimed by the man who betrothed her.
14. Lit., 'prevent'.
15. Beyond the period given in our Mishnah; until she is of age. V. Tosef. Keth. V.
16. After the marriage, when she finds her connubial duties distasteful.
17. 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).
18. Without legal betrothal.
19. Lit., 'bring in fear from now'.
20. A bogereth (v. Glos.). Lit., 'she became adolescent one day'.
21. In which to prepare her marriage outfit.
22. 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.
23. Who (v. our Mishnah) is allowed a period of twelve months!
24. From the time she was claimed by the man who betrothed her.
25. 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.
26. Who waited thirty days.
27. A na'arah (v. Glos.).
28. The difference between the two readings is represented in the original by the addition of a mere waw.
29. Lit., 'the (intended) husband'.
30. For the preparation of her outfit.
31. Lit., 'she became of age one day'.
32. V. infra for further explanation.
33. Lev. XXII, 11. The conclusion of the verse is he may eat of it, i.e., of terumah.
34. 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.
35. Rt. [H] lit., 'to mix', sc. wine with water or spices.
36. Who are Israelites to whom the eating or drinking of terumah is forbidden.
37. Lit., 'there', where the priest is legally liable to maintain her.
38. Away from her father's household; thus preventing her from giving away his victuals to her relatives.
39. Who is a priest.
40. Lit., 'now'.
41. Obviously not. Hence the permissibility for the gleaner to eat his terumah.
42. Wanting in MS.M.
43. 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.
44. [H] 'an implied condition the non-fulfilment of which annuls the agreement', whence 'a bodily defect … not stated in the contract' (Jast.) Cf. [G].
45. In the woman. This might be discovered before the marriage and, as a result, the betrothal would be annulled retrospectively.
46. 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?
47. Lit., there'.
48. 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.
49. Who eats terumah by virtue of being the slave of a priest.
50. 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.
51. And since he nevertheless consented to the purchase he must have been content to overlook it.
52. The sale, therefore, cannot thereby be annulled.