Daf Yomi - Kesuvos 57 - Highlights

Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Yosi’s Dispute

When Rav Dimi came to Bavel from Eretz Yisroel, he said: Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who said in the name of Bar Kappara: The argument between Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Yehudah (whether one is allowed to make an oral stipulation reducing the amount of the kesuvah or not) is only applicable in the beginning; however, in the end, even Rabbi Yosi concedes that she cannot waive her right to the kesuvah (even to part of it).

Rabbi Yochanan said: The argument applies in the beginning and in the end.

Rabbi Avahu said: Rabbi Yochanan explained to me that he does not dispute Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. What did Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi mean when he said “in the beginning” and “in the end”? “In the beginning” meant the beginning of chupah (when she enters the chupah). “In the end” meant the end of cohabitation. When I (Rabbi Yochanan) said that the argument is “in the beginning” and “in the end,” what did I mean? “In the beginning” means the beginning of chupah. “In the end” means the end of chupah, which is also the beginning of cohabitation. (It emerges according to Rabbi Avahu that both Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi agree that the argument between Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Yehudah applies in the beginning of chupah and at the end of chupah. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi adds that there is no argument after cohabitation.)

When Ravin came to Bavel from Eretz Yisroel, he said: Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, who said in the name of Bar Kappara: The argument between Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Yehudah (whether one is allowed to make an oral stipulation reducing the amount of the kesuvah or not) is only applicable in the end; however, in the beginning, even Rabbi Yehudah concedes that she may waive her right to the kesuvah.

Rabbi Yochanan said: The argument applies in the beginning and in the end.

Rabbi Avahu said: Rabbi Yochanan explained to me that he does not dispute Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. What did Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi mean when he said “in the beginning” and “in the end”? “In the end” meant the end of chupah (when she leaves the chupah). “In the beginning” meant the beginning of chupah. When I (Rabbi Yochanan) said that the argument is “in the beginning” and “in the end,” what did I mean? “In the beginning” means the beginning of cohabitation. “In the end” means the end of cohabitation. (It emerges according to Rabbi Avahu in this version that both Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi agree that the argument between Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Yehudah applies in the beginning of cohabitation and at the end of cohabitation. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi adds that there is no argument in the beginning of chupah.)

Rav Pappa said: If Rabbi Avahu had not said that Rabbi Yochanan does not dispute Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, I would have thought to say that Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi disagree, but Rav Dimi and Ravin are in agreement with each other. What did Ravin mean when he said “in the end” (that there is the only time Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Yehudah argue)? He meant at the end of chupah. And what did Rav Dimi mean when he said “in the beginning” (that there is the only time Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Yehudah argue)? He meant in the beginning of cohabitation. (Accordingly, they would have both agreed that in the beginning of chupah, she may waive her right to the kesuvah and at the end of cohabitation, she may not waive her right; the dispute would only have been after chupah, prior to cohabitation.)

The Gemora asks: What is Rav Pappa teaching us?

The Gemora answers: It is this that he teaches us: It is preferable to assume (unless there is proof to the contrary) that two Amoraim differ in their own opinions (which is completely natural and legitimate; here is where the following dictum is applicable: These and those are the words of the living God, both viewpoints are regarded as Torah), rather than that two Amoraim should differ as to what was the view of another Amora (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 Rabbi Avahu's statement been authoritative, coming as it did from Rabbi Yochanan himself, Rav Papa's submission would have been preferred to his). (57a)

Mishna

The Mishna states: (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 chupah (bridal canopy) for the marriage ceremony. They grant a virgin twelve months, from when her husband requested of her (to prepare for the wedding), to provide for herself (she may postpone the nisuin up until twelve months; after that, she is regarded as a rebellious wife). And just as they grant the woman, so do they grant the man to provide for himself. And a widow is given thirty days. 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. Rabbi Tarfon says: They give her everything of terumah. Rabbi Akiva says: Half of her food must be chulin and the other half may be terumah.

The yavam does not entitle his yevamah to eat terumah. If she spent six months with her husband and six months with her yavam, and even if all of them were with her husband, less one day that she was with her yavam, or all of them were with her yavam, less one day that she was with her husband, she does not eat terumah.

This is the initial teaching of the Mishna. The Beis Din following them said: She does not eat terumah until she enters the bridal canopy. (57a – 57b)

Scriptural Source

The Gemora cites a Scriptural source which indicates that a bride requires twelve months for her preparations for nisuin. (57b)

Wedding Date for a Minor

Rabbi Zeira cites a braisa: Regarding a minor, both she and her father have the right to delay the wedding (until she becomes an adult, even after twelve months and they are not penalized).

The Gemora explains: Even if the minor consents, the father has a right to postpone the wedding, for he can say: Presently, she is unaware regarding the hardships of marriage; soon afterward, she will rebel against her husband and come back to rely on her father.

Rabbi Abba bar Levi says: We may not set a wedding date for a minor to be married while she is still a minor, but we may set the wedding date for a minor to be married when she becomes an adult.

The Gemora explains the novelty of this halacha: We might think that we shouldn’t set a wedding date for a minor at all, for perhaps she will become afraid (concerning the difficulties of marriage) and consequently become weak; Rabbi Abba teaches us that a date may be set even while she is still a minor. (57b)

Wedding Date for a Bogeres

Rav Huna says: If a woman was a bogeres for even one day and then becomes betrothed, we give her thirty days (for preparation for nisuin) just like a widow.

The Gemora asks on Rav Huna from the following Mishna: Concerning a bogeres who waited twelve months; Rabbi Eliezer says that since the husband is required to feed her, it is he (alone, and not together with her father like the Chachamim maintain) who annuls her vows. (It is evident from this Mishna that we wait twelve months for a bogeres.)

The Gemora answers: The Mishna should be emended to read as follows: Concerning a bogeres (who waited thirty days) and one (a na’arah) who waited twelve months; Rabbi Eliezer says that since the husband is required to feed her, it is he who annuls her vows.

The Gemora asks on Rav Huna from the following braisa: One who betroths a virgin, whether he asked her to marry him and she held back or whether she asked him and he held back, we give her twelve months for preparation from the time of the claim, but not from the time of the betrothal. However, if she is a bogeres, she is like one who has been claimed (she begins the preparations immediately without having to be asked). How is this to be understood? If she was a bogeres for one day and then she became betrothed, we give her twelve months (this statement refutes Rav Huna’s ruling); while we give an arusah thirty days.

The Gemora concludes: This braisa in indeed a refutation against Rav Huna!

The Gemora asks: What is the meaning of the braisa when it states that an arusah is given thirty days?

Rav Papa answers: It is referring to a woman who has been a bogeres for twelve months and then she became betrothed; she is given thirty days. (57b)

Decree Against Eating Terumah

The Mishna had stated: 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.

Ula explains: Concerning an arusah daughter of an Israelite, who had been betrothed by a Kohen, she was not allowed to eat terumah, although, Biblically, she is allowed to eat terumah, as it is written [Vayikra 22:11]: But if a Kohen buy any soul, the acquisition of his money, he may eat of it, 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 Rabbis 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.

The Gemora asks: If so, they should also be prohibited from eating terumah in a case when the time arrived and they were not married?

The Gemora answers: Since the groom is obligated to feed her, he designates a set place for her to eat (in order that she shouldn’t share it with her relatives; therefore, we are not concerned that she will feed her brothers and sisters terumah.

The Gemora asks: If so, a Kohen, who is a hired harvest gleaner working for a Yisroel should not be permitted to eat terumah, since the Yisroel’s family members will come and eat terumah with him?

The Gemora answers: Since it is the general practice for the employer to provide food for the worker, we are not concerned that the family members will eat from the worker’s food.

Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah explains the Rabbi’s enactment differently: It is 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.

The Gemora asks: If so, if she entered the chupah, but did not cohabit, she still should be prohibited from eating terumah?

The Gemora answers: He examines her and only then does he bring her into the chupah.

The Gemora asks: If so, a slave of a Kohen purchased from a Yisroel should be prohibited from eating terumah because perhaps a defect will be found, nullifying retroactively the sale to the Kohen?

The Gemora answers: A blemish does not nullify a sale by a slave, for if the defect is recognizable from the outside, the buyer has seen it (and he nevertheless purchased the slave). If the defect is on the inside, what difference does it make; a slave is meant to work and this type of blemish should not hinder the slave from working at all. If the slave is found to be a thief or kidnapper, the sale is valid anyway. What can there be that would nullify a sale? If he was found to be an armed bandit or a person sentenced to death by the government (which would nullify the sale), such characters are generally public knowledge. (Thus, there is no reason to prohibit a Kohen’s slave from eating terumah.)

The Gemora asks: What is the practical difference between the two reasons?

The Gemora answers: The difference between them is in the following cases: If her intended husband accepted the kiddushin even if she has defects, or where her father delivered her to the intended husband's agents or where the father’s agents went together with the groom’s agents to deliver her to him. (57b – 58a)

[END]