Daf Yomi - Kesuvos 2 - Highlights

The Mishna states: A virgin is married on Wednesday and a widow is married on Thursday. Beis Din would be in session in the cities on Monday and Thursday. If a husband, who got married on Wednesday, will have a claim regarding his wife’s virginity, he would be able to go early the next morning to the Beis Din. (2a)

Rav Yosef said in the name of Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel: Why does a virgin get married on Wednesday? It is because we learned in the following Mishna: If the time arrived (In former times the betrothal (kiddushin) and the marriage (nisu'in) ceremonies were not performed at the same time as is our practice today. Rather it was customary for the bridegroom to first betroth his bride and make her his arusah (betrothed) and only later did he take her to the chuppah (bridal canopy) for the marriage ceremony. During the period intervening between the betrothal and the marriage, the arusah lived in her father's house, and the arus was not liable for her maintenance, and if she was the daughter of an Israelite, who had been betrothed by a kohen, she was not allowed to eat terumah, although, by Torah law, the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a kohen is allowed to eat terumah, as it is written, "But if a kohen buy any soul, the acquisition of his money, he may eat of it" (Lev. 22:11), and the arusah is an "acquisition" effected by him with the money of the kiddushin, nevertheless, since she lives in her father's home, the Sages prohibited her from eating of the terumah, "lest they pour a cup of terumah for her in her father's home, and she offer it to her brothers and sisters" According to another opinion the prohibition was enacted "because of a blemish," i.e., if he found a physical defect in her, her kiddushin would be considered erroneous, and would be annulled retroactively and thus a non-kohen will have partaken of terumah. This Mishna discusses the case of one who betroths a woman without specifying a marriage date and teaches how they set the marriage date subsequently, and the law regarding an arusah whose bridegroom (arus) does not wed her when the marriage date arrives. Kehati) and they (the virgin or the widow) were not married by the husband, they eat from his food and they eat of the terumah. One might think that if the time for nisuin arrived on a Sunday, the husband would be obligated to supply her with food immediately; we therefore learned in our Mishna that a virgin is married on Wednesday (and the husband is not obligated to provide sustenance for her until Wednesday).

Rav Yosef asked: Our Mishna specifically states the reason why a virgin is married on Wednesday. The other does not offer a reason as to why the husband’s obligation does not begin on a Sunday. How can Shmuel use a Mishna which contains no reason at all to illuminate a Mishna which specifically states a reason for its ruling, and the former will be the reason why a virgin may not get married on Sunday?

The Gemora revises Shmuel’s statement: Rather, this is what Rav Yosef said in the name of Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel: Why does a virgin get married on Wednesday? It is because if a husband will have a claim regarding his wife’s virginity, he would be able to go early Thursday morning to the Beis Din. But, let them get married on Sunday, for Beis Din is in session on Monday as well? The Gemora answers: The sages were concerned for the welfare of the Jewish girls, and that the husband should be involved in preparing a wedding meal for three days: Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, and then he should marry her on Wednesday. And now that we have learned this concept, that which we have learned in the following Mishna: If the time arrived and they (the virgin or the widow) were not married by the husband, they eat from his food and they eat of the terumah; if the time for nisuin arrived on a Sunday, the husband would not be obligated to supply her with food then since he is not able to marry her. (2a)

(It emerges that if the delay is not because of the husband, he is not obligated to supply her with food.) Rav Yosef continues: Therefore, if he became ill, or she became ill, or if she began to menstruate, he is not obligated to supply her with food.

Other Amoraim asked this as an inquiry: What is the law if he became ill? If the wedding day falls out on a Sunday, he is not obligated to supply her with food because he is forced, and here too, he is forced? Or perhaps, there he is forced on account of a Rabbinical enactment, here, he is not (and therefore he will be obligated to supply her with food).

If you will say that when he became ill, he is obligated to supply her with food, what is the law if she became ill? Can the husband say to her: I am prepared to go ahead with the wedding (it is not me causing the delay)? Or perhaps, she can say to him: It is as if your field has become flooded (it is the husband’s bad luck and he must support her).

If you will say that when she became ill, he is obligated to supply her with food, what is the law if she began to menstruate? The Gemora qualifies this last inquiry: If she began to menstruate on the day that her period was due, she can certainly not say that it is his bad luck. The inquiry is in a case that she began to menstruate at a time that was not her fixed period. Do we say that since she began to menstruate in a time that was not her fixed period, she could say to him that it is his bad luck, and he would be obligated to supply her with food? Or perhaps, since there are women whose fixed periods change sometimes, it is as if she menstruated at the time of her fixed period (and he would be obligated to supply her with food).

Rav Achai attempts to resolve these inquiries from the Mishna, which states: If the time arrived and they were not married by the husband, they eat from his food and they eat of the terumah. The Mishna does not say that he did not marry (which would indicate that the delay was due to the husband); but rather, the Mishna states that they were not married (indicating that the delay could have been because of the brides as well). Now, what would be that case? It cannot be that she caused the delay, for why would he be obligated to supply her with food? Rather, it must be that she was forced to cause the delay, like our inquiries (she became ill or began to menstruate), and nevertheless, the Mishna states that she eats from him.

Rav Ashi rejects the proof: Indeed I can say that in the case of an accident, she does not eat of his food. The Mishna could have written that the husbands did not marry them, but since the first part of the Mishna refers to the brides, the latter part of the Mishna refers to them as well. (2a – 2b)

Rava said: And with regard to divorce, it is not so (an accident will not invalidate a divorce). Accordingly Rava holds that an accident is not a valid claim in regards to a conditional divorce.

How does Rava know this rule? If you will say that it is from the following Mishna: If a man says to his wife: Behold this is your bill of divorce if I do not come back until twelve months, and he died within the twelve months, the divorce is not valid. We can conclude from this that only if he died there is no divorce (because a dead person cannot divorce his wife), but if he became ill (and could not return within the twelve months), the divorce is valid (thus proving that an accident is not a valid claim in regards to a conditional divorce).

The Gemora rejects this proof: Perhaps I might say that even if he became ill, the divorce is not valid (because he may claim that an accident prevented him from returning) and the Mishna states the case where he died to teach us that there is no divorce after death.

The Gemora asks: That there is no divorce after death, we have learned in a previous Mishna?

The Gemora persists that the Mishna would still not be a proof: Perhaps the Mishna states the case where the husband died to exclude from that of our Rabbis, for it has been taught: Our Rabbis allowed her to marry again (even without chalitzah; she is regarded as being divorced).

Why do the Rabbis permit her to get married? It is because they hold like Rabbi Yosi who said that the date of the document indicates that the divorce is valid retroactively. (Even if the husband died, the divorce is still valid because the date written on the document was the date that the get was drawn up and delivered to the wife, and it is valid retroactively.) (2b)

[END]