Ketubot 2aכתובות ב׳ א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
2aב׳ א

מתני׳ בתולה נשאת ליום הרביעי ואלמנה ליום החמישי שפעמים בשבת בתי דינין יושבין בעיירות ביום השני וביום החמישי שאם היה לו טענת בתולים היה משכים לבית דין:

MISHNA: A virgin is married on Wednesday and a widow on Thursday. The reason for the former is that twice a week courts convene in the towns, on Monday and Thursday, so that if the husband had a claim concerning the bride’s virginity when consummating the marriage on Wednesday night, he would go early the next day to court and make his claim.

גמ׳ אמר רב יוסף אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מפני מה אמרו בתולה נשאת ליום הרביעי לפי ששנינו הגיע זמן ולא נישאו אוכלות משלו ואוכלות בתרומה

GEMARA: Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Due to what reason did they say that a virgin is married on Wednesday? It is because we learned in a mishna elsewhere (57a): If the time that the groom designated for the wedding arrived, and the wedding was postponed, and they were not married, the brides are entitled to eat from his food and, if he is a priest, eat teruma.

יכול הגיע זמן באחד בשבת יהא מעלה לה מזונות לכך שנינו בתולה נשאת ליום הרביעי

One might think that if the designated time arrived on Sunday, and the wedding was postponed, he would provide her sustenance beginning on Sunday. Therefore, we learned: A virgin is married on Wednesday. Until Wednesday, the designated time is not considered to have arrived, even if the original date was earlier in the week.

אמר רב יוסף מריה דאברהם תלי תניא בדלא תניא הי תניא והי לא תניא הא תניא והא תניא אלא תלי תניא דמפרש טעמא בדתניא דלא מפרש טעמא

After citing the statements above, Rav Yosef said in astonishment: Lord of Abraham, Shmuel makes that which is taught dependent on that which is not taught, using the latter to explain the former. The Gemara asks: Which is taught and which is not taught? Both this mishna is taught and that mishna is taught. The Gemara answers: Rather, Shmuel makes the halakha that is taught in the mishna here, whose reason is explicit, dependent on a halakha that is taught in the later mishna, whose reason is not explicit. Citation of the later mishna contributed nothing to the understanding of the mishna here.

אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מפני מה אמרו בתולה נשאת ליום הרביעי שאם היה לו טענת בתולים היה משכים לב"ד ותינשא באחד בשבת שאם היה לו טענת בתולים היה משכים לבית דין שקדו חכמים על תקנת בנות ישראל שיהא טורח בסעודה שלשה ימים אחד בשבת ושני בשבת ושלישי בשבת וברביעי כונסה

Rather, if it was stated, this is how it was stated: Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Due to what reason did the Sages in the mishna say that a virgin is married on Wednesday? It is so that if the husband had a claim concerning the bride’s virginity, he would go early the next day to court and make his claim. The Gemara asks: But if that is the reason, let her marry on Sunday, as then too, if the husband had a claim concerning the bride’s virginity, he would go early the next day to court and make his claim. The Gemara answers: The Sages were assiduous in seeing to the well-being of Jewish women and instituted that the wedding take place on Wednesday, so that the groom would exert himself in arranging the wedding feast for three days: Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, and on Wednesday, he marries her.

ועכשיו ששנינו שקדו אותה ששנינו הגיע זמן ולא נישאו אוכלות משלו ואוכלות בתרומה הגיע זמן באחד בשבת מתוך שאינו יכול לכנוס אינו מעלה לה מזונות

The Gemara continues: And now that we learned that the reason for the ruling in the mishna that a woman is married on Wednesday is that the Sages were assiduous in this matter, then with regard to that halakha, which we learned in the later mishna: If the time arrived and they were not married, the brides are entitled to eat from his food and eat teruma, one may conclude: If the time arrived on Sunday, since he is unable to marry her because he is busy preparing the wedding feast, he is not obligated to provide her sustenance until Wednesday.

לפיכך חלה הוא או שחלתה היא או שפירסה נדה אינו מעלה לה מזונות

Therefore, according to the same line of reasoning, if the husband fell ill, or if the bride fell ill, or in a case where she began to menstruate [peirsa nidda] and the wedding had to be postponed, he similarly need not provide her sustenance from the designated time, as he did not initiate the delay.

ואיכא דבעי לה מיבעיא חלה הוא מהו התם טעמא מאי משום דאניס והכא נמי הא אניס או דלמא התם אניס בתקנתא דתקינו ליה רבנן הכא לא

And there are those who raised it as a dilemma: If the groom fell ill, what is the ruling with regard to his obligation to provide her sustenance? There, in the case where the designated time arrived on Sunday, what is the reason that he is exempt? It is due to the fact that he was forced to postpone the wedding by circumstances beyond his control. And here too, isn’t he forced by circumstances beyond his control, and he should therefore be exempt? Or, perhaps there is a distinction between the cases. There, he was forced by an ordinance that was instituted by the Sages that a virgin marries on Wednesday, and they exempted him from providing for her until then. However, here, that is not the case. Therefore, despite the existence of circumstances beyond his control, he is not exempt from providing her sustenance due to his illness.

ואם תמצי לומר חלה הוא מעלה לה מזונות חלתה היא מהו מצי אמר לה אנא הא קאימנא או דלמא מציא אמרה ליה נסתחפה שדהו

And if you say that if he fell ill, he provides her sustenance at the time designated for the wedding, then if she fell ill, what is the ruling? Can he say to her: I am standing here prepared to wed you, and if you are not prepared, it is not my fault? Or perhaps she can say to him that his field was inundated, i.e., her illness is tantamount to a natural disaster that befell him, and he must nevertheless provide for her.

ואם תמצי לומר אמרה ליה נסתחפה שדהו פירסה נדה מהו

And if you say that if she fell ill she can say to him that his field was inundated, if she became a menstruating woman and the wedding was postponed, what is the ruling? Is this too considered an unavoidable circumstance, like illness, and he must provide for her, or was this predictable?

בשעת ווסתה לא תיבעי לך

If she began menstruating at the time of her set period [vista], do not raise the dilemma,