Previous Folio / Kethuboth Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site
Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Kethuboth
MISHNAH. A MAIDEN IS MARRIED1 ON THE FOURTH DAY [OF THE WEEK] AND A WIDOW ON THE FIFTH DAY, FOR TWICE IN THE WEEK THE COURTS OF JUSTICE2 SIT IN THE TOWNS, ON THE SECOND DAY [OF THE WEEK] AND ON THE FIFTH DAY, SO THAT IF HE [THE HUSBAND] HAD A CLAIM AS TO THE VIRGINITY [OF THE MAIDEN-BRIDE] HE COULD GO EARLY [ON THE MORNING OF THE FIFTH DAY OF THE WEEK] TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE.
GEMARA. R. Joseph said: Rab Judah said [that] Samuel said: Why did they [the Rabbis] Say. A MAIDEN IS MARRIED ON THE FOURTH DAY? Because we have learned:3 'If the time [appointed for the marriage] arrived and they4 were not married,5 they4 eat of his [food]6 and they eat7 of terumah'8 — you might think that if the time arrived on the first day in the week he would have to supply her with food, therefore have we learned, A MAIDEN IS MARRIED ON THE FOURTH DAY.9 Said R. Joseph: Lord of Abraham!10 He [Samuel] attaches a Mishnah which was taught, to a Mishnah which was not taught! Which was taught and which was not taught? This was taught and this was taught! — But [put it this way]: he attaches a Mishnah, the reason of which was explained,11 to a Mishnah, the reason of which was not explained.12 But if it was said,13 it was said thus; Rab Judah said [that] Samuel said: Why did they say, A MAIDEN IS MARRIED ON THE FOURTH DAY? Because IF HE HAD A Claim AS TO THE VIRGINITY HE COULD GO EARLY [NEXT MORNING] TO THE COURT OF JUSTICE — well, let her be married on the first day in the week, so that if he had a claim as to virginity he could go early [on the morning of the second day of the week] to the court of justice! [The answer is:] The Sages watched over the interests14 of the daughters of Israel so that [the bridegroom] should prepare for the [wedding.] feast three days, [namely] on the first day in the week, the second day in the week, and the third day in the week, and on the fourth day he marries her. And now that we have learned 'shakedu',15 that [Mishnah] which we have learned: If the time arrived and they were not married, they eat of his [food] and they eat of terumah, [is to be understood as implying that if] the time arrived on the first day in the week, since he cannot marry [her, on the first day of the week, on account of the ordinance], he does not give her food [on the three days, from the first day of the week to the fourth day]. Therefore16 [R. Joseph concludes], if he became ill or she became ill, or she became menstruous,17 he does not give her food.
Some [scholars] there are who put this as a question: If he became ill, what is [the law]?18 [Shall I say:] There.19 the reason [he need not support her,] is because he is forced,20 and here, he is also forced?21 Or shall I say] perhaps, there.22 he is forced23 by an ordinance which the Rabbis ordained,24 [but] here, [he is] not?25 And if you will say:26 If he became ill he supplies her with food, [then the question would still be:] if she became ill, what is [the law]? Can he say unto her, 'I am here ready to marry you'? Or, perhaps, she can say unto him, 'His field27 has been flooded'?28 And if you will say [that] she can say to him [when she falls ill], 'His field has been flooded.' [then the question is,] if she became menstrous, what is [the law]? During her regular time there is no question
that she cannot say to him, 'His field has been flooded'. When is the question asked? [If she became menstruous] not during her regular time, what is [the law]? Since it is not during her regular time, she can say unto him, 'His field has been flooded'? Or, perhaps, since there are women who change their periods. It is as if it was her regular time? R. Ahai explained:1 [We learnt:] When the time came and they were not married, they eat of his food and they eat of terumah.'2 It does not state. 'They [the men] did not marry them [the women]' but [it says] 'They [the women] were not married.' In what case? If they prevent,3 why do they eat of his food and eat of the terumah? Hence, you must say [must you not].4 that they were forced as in this case,5 and it states 'they eat of his food and they eat of terumah'? — R. Ashi said: Indeed I can say6 [that] in the case of an accident7 she does not eat [of his].8 And [here]9 they [the men] prevented.10 And by right he ought to have stated, 'they [the men] did not marry [the women].'11 But since the first clause12 speaks of them [the women] the latter clause also speaks of them [the women]?13
Raba said: And with regard to divorce14 it is not so.15 Accordingly Raba holds [that] accident is no plea in regard to divorce.16 Whence does Raba get this [rule]? Shall I say, from what we have learned: 'Behold this is thy bill of divorce if I come not [back] from now until twelve months,'17 and he died within the twelve months, there is no divorce.18 [And we would conclude from this that only if] he died there is no divorce,19 but if he became ill20 there is a divorce!21 But perhaps indeed I might say [that] if he became ill there would also he no divorce.22 and [the Mishnah]23 lets us hear just this [rule], that there is no divorce after death.24 [That] there is no divorce after death, a previous Mishnah25 teaches: 'Behold, this is thy bill of divorce if I die,' [or] 'behold, this is thy bill of divorce from this illness,'26 [or] 'behold, this is thy bill of divorce after [my] death,' he has not said anything.27 [But] perhaps [that28 is] to exclude from that29 of our teachers, for it has been taught: Our teachers allowed her to marry again.30 And we said: Who are 'our teachers'? Rab Judah said [that] Samuel said: The court that allowed the oil [of the heathen]:31 they32 hold like R. Jose who said, 'the date of the document shows it.'33 But from the later clause:34 '[This is thy bill of divorce]35 from now if I come not [back] from now [and] until twelve months', and he died within the twelve months, it is a divorce. [And we may deduce] 'if he died', and the same rule applies if he became ill.36 [But] perhaps [the divorce is effective] only when he died, because it was not pleasing to him that she should become subject to37 the yabam!38 — But [the deduction can be made] from this: There was a certain [man]39 who said unto them:40 'If I do not come [back] from now until thirty days it shall be a divorce.'41 He came [back] at the end of thirty days but the ferry stopped him.42 He said unto them,43 'Look, I have come [back]; look, I have come [back]!'44 Said Samuel: This is not regarded as having come back.45 But perhaps an accident which is frequent46 is different,47 for since he ought to have stipulated it48 and he did not stipulate it, he injured himself!49 — But [we must say] Raba expressed an opinion of his own:50 On account of the chaste women and on account of the loose women.51 On account of the chaste women,52 because if you will say that it should not be a divorce.53
- To Next Folio -