Ketubot 57a — the Talmud in English

Her marriage contract was lost [

she lost the document of her marriage contract]!

They came,

Rav Avya and his wife,

before Rav Yosef.

Rav Yosef said to them:

Rav Yosef:

Thus said Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel regarding

our Mishna:

This

which we learned in our Mishna: Whoever reduces for a virgin from two hundred [zuz], or for a widow from that amount, and even in a place where the condition is not in force—this is intercourse of licentiousness, because the woman’s mind is not settled:

These are the words of Rabbi Meir,

and according to his position, this is indeed the law even if the document of her marriage contract was lost, although she can collect without a document, since the marriage contract is a condition of the court; nevertheless, since her mind is not settled, for she is afraid that he may say, “I paid,” his intercourse is intercourse of licentiousness.

But the Sages say: When a man keeps his wife

even

two or three years

without

a document of

marriage contract, and

they do not concern themselves with the reasoning “her mind is not settled”; and the halakha is according to them.

Abaye said to him

to Rav Yosef:

But Rav Naḥman said in the name of Shmuel: The halakha is according to Rabbi Meir in his decrees!?

When Rav Yosef heard this, he said to Rav Avya:

If so,

that the halakha is according to Rabbi Meir,

go write for her,

go and write a new marriage contract for your wife.

When Rav Dimi came, he said that Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of Bar Kappara:

The dispute

between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei concerning one who reduces for a virgin from two hundred zuz and for a widow from that amount—in the baraita brought above, 56b, in which Rabbi Yehuda holds that if she did not write for him, “I have received,” and said orally, the condition is not in force, while Rabbi Yosei holds that even orally the condition is in force—is only

at the beginning.

at the beginning.

But at the end,

when she has already acquired the obligation of the marriage contract,

according to everyone—

and even according to Rabbi Yosei—

she does not waive it

orally unless she writes a receipt, and he proceeds to explain what “beginning” is and what “end” is.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Both in this and in that

both at the beginning and at the end

there is a dispute,

for even at the end Rabbi Yosei holds that she can waive it orally!

Rabbi Abbahu said: For me, it was explained to me by Rabbi Yoḥanan himself [

Rabbi Yoḥanan explained to me],

that I [

Rabbi Yoḥanan]

and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi do not disagree with one another [

we are not divided], for:

What is “at the beginning,” which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said,

in which alone they disputed? That is

the beginning of the bridal canopy.

And what is “at the end,”

which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, in which they did not dispute and according to everyone she does not waive it? That is

the end of intercourse.

That is to say: According to the position of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, their dispute is from the beginning of the bridal canopy until the end of the bridal canopy, but if he has already had intercourse with her—no.

And when I say: Both in this,

in “at the beginning,”

and in that, “

at the end,”

there is a dispute,

that is: “

At the beginning” means

the beginning of the bridal canopy, and “

at the end” means:

the end of the bridal canopy, which is the beginning of intercourse,

that is, when she is before intercourse, and they disputed both in this and in that; but regarding the “end” of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, which is the end of intercourse, they never disputed that she does not waive it, and [this is] like Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

When Ravin came, he said that Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of Bar Kappara,

in a different manner from the words of Rav Dimi:

The dispute

of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei is

at the end, but at the beginning, according to everyone—

and even Rabbi Yehuda agrees that she

waives it

even orally!

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Both in this and in that—

both “at the beginning” and “at the end”—

there is a dispute.

Rabbi Abbahu said: For me, it was explained to me by Rabbi Yoḥanan himself, that I [

Rabbi Yoḥanan]

and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi do not disagree with one another,

for:

What is “at the end,” which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said,

in which they disputed? That is

the end of the bridal canopy.

And what is “at the beginning,”

concerning which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that they did not dispute, but according to everyone she waives it?

The beginning of the bridal canopy.

And when I say, both in this and in that there is a dispute: “

At the beginning” means

the beginning of intercourse, and “

at the end” means

the end of intercourse.

Rav Pappa said:

Had Rabbi Abbahu not said [

if Rabbi Abbahu had not said]:

For me, it was explained to me by Rabbi Yoḥanan himself, that I and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi do not disagree with one another;

I would not be comfortable saying that Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua did not disagree, whereas Rav Dimi and Ravin disagreed in understanding the words of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi; rather:

I would have said [

I would say]:

Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi

indeed

disagree

in explaining the dispute of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, and not as Rabbi Abbahu said—

and

Rav Dimi and Ravin

are the ones who

do not disagree

concerning how Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, for:

What is “at the end,” which Ravin said

according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, concerning which Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei disputed? That is

the end of the bridal canopy,

which is the beginning of intercourse; but at the beginning of the bridal canopy, according to everyone she waives it, whereas according to Rabbi Yoḥanan there is a dispute both in this and in that.

And what is “at the beginning,” which Rav Dimi said

according to Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, concerning which Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei disputed? That is

the beginning of intercourse,

which is the end of the bridal canopy; but at the end of intercourse they did not dispute, that she does not waive it; whereas according to Rabbi Yoḥanan there is a dispute both in this and in that.

What does this teach us

Rav Pappa by his words? For in the end Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rabbi Yoḥanan did not disagree, and Rav Pappa did not come to disagree with him!?

And we explain:

This teaches us

Rav Pappa:

That two amoraim disagree according to their own reasoning [

it is preferable to say that two amoraim disagree in reasoning, this one saying that the law is thus and this one saying that the law is thus],

and not that two amoraim disagree according to one amora [

and not to say that two amoraim disagreed about the words of another amora, whether he said this or something else]!

That is to say: If you heard two formulations, according to one formulation two amoraim disputed a certain law, this one saying that the law is thus and this one saying that the law is thus [and as, according to Rav Pappa, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rabbi Yoḥanan disputed], and you also heard another formulation that amoraim did not dispute about a law, but one amora says, “So-and-so said thus,” and the other says, “So-and-so said thus,” [and as, according to Rabbi Abbahu, Rav Dimi and Ravin disputed Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s view of what he said], choose the first formulation, because according to the second formulation one of them is found to be lying, whereas according to the first formulation it is in reasoning that they disputed, and there is no lie here.

Mishna:

They give a virgin

a period of

twelve months

until she enters the bridal canopy,

from

the day

that the husband demanded her—

after he betrothed her and they did not establish a time for the marriage — to marry. And this is in order

to provide for herself

during this time with ornaments.

And for a widow,

from a marriage they give only

thirty days

alone, so that she may provide for herself with ornaments, since the widow does not trouble herself as much with ornaments, for she already has them from her previous marriage.

When the time arrives,

the twelve months from when the husband demanded her

and they did not marry

the women to them, the women

eat from his

from the husband’s property, and he likewise provides them clothing and sustenance.

And they eat

And they eat,

the women, when the time arrives,

teruma

if the husband was a kohen and she was an Israelite woman.

Rabbi Tarfon says:

If she was the daughter of a kohen betrothed to a kohen,

who is permitted to her in teruma

they give

the owners her

for her sustenance after the time arrives —if they wish—

the

entire

[

all their sustenance] from the teruma, and when the days of her impurity arrive, when she cannot eat teruma, she should go, trouble herself, and sell the teruma, and purchase non-sacred food with it.

of what he gives her should be

non-sacred food,

Rabbi Akiva says: Half

he gives her

non-sacred food

so that she will have food to eat during the days of her impurity,

and half

alone he gives her

teruma.

The yavam does not feed

the woman who is his yevama

with teruma.

She spent six months—

from the twelve months established for her—

in the presence of the husband,

that is, he was still alive,

and six months in the presence of the yavam

after the husband died—

And even

she spent

all of them in the presence of the husband,

and only

one day was lacking,

which she spent

in the presence of the yavam —

all of them in the presence of the levir, except for one day

Or

she spent

all of them in the presence of the yavam, one day lacking, which she spent in the presence of the husband—

In either case, she

does not eat teruma.

This—

In either case, this woman

does not eat teruma.

This—