בְּתוּלָה נִשֵּׂאת לַיּוֹם הָרְבִיעִי וְאַלְמָנָה לַיּוֹם הַחֲמִישִׁי שֶׁפְּעָמִים בְּשַׁבָּת בָּתֵּי דִינִין יוֹשְׁבִין בָּעֲיָירוֹת בַּיּוֹם הַשֵּׁנִי וּבַיּוֹם הַחֲמִישִׁי שֶׁאִם הָיָה לוֹ טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים הָיָה מַשְׁכִּים לְבֵית דִּין 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.
גְּמָ׳ אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ בְּתוּלָה נִשֵּׂאת לַיּוֹם הָרְבִיעִי לְפִי שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ הִגִּיעַ זְמַן וְלֹא נִישְּׂאוּ אוֹכְלוֹת מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וְאוֹכְלוֹת בִּתְרוּמָה 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.
יָכוֹל הִגִּיעַ זְמַן בְּאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת יְהֵא מַעֲלֶה לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת לְכָךְ שָׁנִינוּ בְּתוּלָה נִשֵּׂאת לַיּוֹם הָרְבִיעִי 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.
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף מָרֵיהּ דְּאַבְרָהָם תָּלֵי תַּנְיָא בִּדְלָא תַּנְיָא הֵי תַּנְיָא וְהֵי לָא תַּנְיָא הָא תַּנְיָא וְהָא תַּנְיָא אֶלָּא תָּלֵי תַּנְיָא דִּמְפָרֵשׁ טַעְמָא בִּדְתַנְיָא דְּלָא מְפָרֵשׁ טַעְמָא 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.
אֶלָּא אִי אִיתְּמַר הָכִי אִיתְּמַר אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ בְּתוּלָה נִשֵּׂאת לַיּוֹם הָרְבִיעִי שֶׁאִם הָיָה לוֹ טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים הָיָה מַשְׁכִּים לְבֵית דִּין וְתִינָּשֵׂא בְּאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת שֶׁאִם הָיָה לוֹ טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים הָיָה מַשְׁכִּים לְבֵית דִּין שָׁקְדוּ חֲכָמִים עַל תַּקָּנַת בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁיְּהֵא טוֹרֵחַ בִּסְעוּדָה שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים אֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת וְשֵׁנִי בַּשַּׁבָּת וּשְׁלִישִׁי בַּשַּׁבָּת וּבָרְבִיעִי כּוֹנְסָהּ 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.
וְעַכְשָׁו שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ שָׁקְדוּ אוֹתָהּ שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ הִגִּיעַ זְמַן וְלֹא נִישְּׂאוּ אוֹכְלוֹת מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וְאוֹכְלוֹת בִּתְרוּמָה הִגִּיעַ זְמַן בְּאֶחָד בְּשַׁבָּת מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִכְנוֹס אֵינוֹ מַעֲלֶה לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת 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.
לְפִיכָךְ חָלָה הוּא אוֹ שֶׁחָלְתָה הִיא אוֹ שֶׁפֵּירְסָה נִדָּה אֵינוֹ מַעֲלֶה לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת 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.
וְאִיכָּא דְּבָעֵי לַהּ מִיבַּעְיָא חָלָה הוּא מַהוּ הָתָם טַעְמָא מַאי מִשּׁוּם דַּאֲנִיס וְהָכָא נָמֵי הָא אֲנִיס אוֹ דִּלְמָא הָתָם אֲנִיס בְּתַקַּנְתָּא דְּתַקִּינוּ לֵיה רַבָּנַן הָכָא לָא 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.
וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר חָלָה הוּא מַעֲלֶה לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת חָלְתָה הִיא מַהוּ מָצֵי אָמַר לַהּ אֲנָא הָא קָאֵימְנָא אוֹ דִלְמָא מָצְיָא אָמְרָה לֵיהּ נִסְתַּחֲפָה שָׂדֵהוּ 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.
וְאִם תִּמְצֵי לוֹמַר אָמְרָה לֵיהּ נִסְתַּחֲפָה שָׂדֵהוּ פֵּירְסָה נִדָּה מַהוּ 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?
בִּשְׁעַת וִוסְתָּהּ לָא תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ If she began menstruating at the time of her set period [vista], do not raise the dilemma,