Ketubot 57b — the Talmud in English

which we said, that after the time arrives, an Israelite woman betrothed to a kohen eats teruma—is the first Mishna!

: ![](pamud.bmp "

")

a woman may not eat teruma

,

.

Gemara:

:

:

From where are these words

?

Rabbi Ḥisda

explained:

:

As the verse says

:

“And her brother and her mother

,

" —

But

"?

mean? If you say: two days

, ?

This cannot be said, because would

,

!?

At first

they said to him,

Rebecca’s brother and mother said to Eliezer: Let her remain with us

,

and

he said to them,

:

,

And again

they said to him,

Rebecca’s brother and mother said to Eliezer: Let her remain with us

for ten days?!

!?

Rather,

certainly,

?

mean? It means

—

And as

it is written

:

",

.

.

:

"

“days” means

,

as

it is written

:

",

!?

The students of the academy said

:

We derive the meaning of the unqualified word “days”

" —

,

".

",

"!

:

A tannait,

a Sage of the Mishnaic era, taught in a

baraita, a tannaitic source not included in the Mishna:

.

:

Granted, she

the daughter herself

can delay

—

But her father

why can he prevent it? If

she

the daughter herself

is willing

,

The Gemara explains: The father

believes

:

now she does not understand

the daughter does not understand, but

tomorrow she may rebel

against her husband,

and leave

her husband by means of a bill of divorce,

and then return and fall upon me

.

:

One may not arrange a match for a minor

that is, one may not arrange

to marry her while she is a minor,

—

But one may arrange a match

.

And the Gemara asks: Surely

it is obvious

!?

And the Gemara answers: There is a novelty in this ruling, because

one might have thought: Let us be concerned that perhaps fear will enter her now and weaken her

—

It teaches us that this concern does not prevent arranging the match.

Rav Huna said: If she reached majority

even only

one day

,

and

,

she is

given

only

thirty days

,

.

They raise an objection from a source

:

baraita: A woman who has reached majority is considered as one who has been claimed

!

And

is it not the case

that the meaning of the baraita is that she is

,

!? :

No.

She is not like a virgin who has been claimed, who receives twelve months, but

,

.

Come and hear a proof

:

A woman who has reached majority who waited twelve months,

:

,

the husband

may annul

!

!? :

Say instead

:

.

A woman who has reached majority

.

.

And

a virgin

—

In the case of both of these women,

—

.

Come and hear a refutation

:

:

One who betroths a virgin, whether her husband claimed

her for marriage

and she delays, or whether she claimed

him for marriage

—

—

and if she reaches majority, she is considered as one who has been claimed,

.

How so?

If she reached majority for one day and was betrothed, she is given twelve months

.

And as for a betrothed woman,

that is, there is a betrothed woman who is given only

,

.

This explicitly shows that a woman who has reached majority is given twelve months.

This is a conclusive refutation of Rav Huna?!

And the Gemara concludes: Indeed,

this is a conclusive refutation

.

:

"?

:

There is a betrothed woman who is granted only thirty days. And who is she?

a woman who has reached majority and for whom twelve months passed

after reaching majority, and

only afterward

she was betrothed; she is given

from the time of betrothal

thirty days

,

like a widow,

.

:

When the time arrived and they were not married,

:

Ulla said: By Torah law,

the

betrothed Israelite woman

who is betrothed to a koen, a man with priestly status in the Temple,

,

—

As it is stated: “And when a koen acquires a person, the acquisition of his money

" —

And this

betrothed woman

,

!

And

for what reason did the Sages say

that a

betrothed woman may not eat

?

Because if you say that she may eat teruma, there is concern

that they might pour her a cup

of teruma

in the

house of her father,

,

and she might give it to drink

to her brother and sister,

.

:

If so,

even if

“the time arrived and they were not married,” they too

!?

:

—

—

designates a place for her

, .

:

But if that is so,

that you prohibit a koen’s wife from eating teruma when she is in an Israelite’s house, then

a laborer

a worker hired to gather produce, who is

a koen

and is hired

,

also

should not eat

at his employer’s home

teruma

,

lest they come to eat it with him

!?

And the Gemara rejects this: There is no concern that the employers will eat with the laborer, because

,

!?

Rav Shmuel bar

Yehuda said

another reason, other than Ulla’s reason, why the betrothed woman does not immediately eat teruma, as soon as she becomes betrothed:

Because

perhaps there will be found in her

a simpon

[a defect in the woman that annuls the betrothal], and her betrothal to the kohen will be annulled, and it will emerge that a non-kohen woman ate teruma.

And we raise an objection against the reason of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda:

If so,

since you are concerned lest a simpon be found in her, our Mishna should be difficult, for we taught according to the latter Mishna: “

A woman does not eat teruma until she enters the bridal canopy”; this implies that once she has entered the bridal canopy, she eats—and you have to say that even

if she entered the bridal canopy and did not have intercourse as well,

she should not eat teruma!?

That is to say: It is understandable that she eats teruma when she has married and has already had intercourse with him, for he recognizes the defects in her; but before she has had intercourse, there is still reason to be concerned lest a defect be found in her that annuls the betrothal, and how can she eat teruma!?

And we answer:

There,

when he brings her into the bridal canopy,

he examines her

first through the hands of his female relatives,

and then brings her in

[and afterward brings her in] to the bridal canopy.

And we continue to raise an objection against the concern of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda:

But from now on,

since you are concerned lest a simpon be found, it should be difficult:

Even

a slave

a Canaanite slave belonging to a

kohen whom he purchased

the kohen

from an Israelite,

who eats teruma by virtue of his master the kohen, since he is his property acquired with money—

should not eat teruma

[so that he should not eat teruma]—

and

because

perhaps a simpon will be found in the slave,

a simpon

[some defect that annuls the sale], and it will emerge that he is not a slave of a kohen, and he is forbidden to eat teruma!?

And we answer:

There is no simpon with slaves,

a defect found in slaves does not annul the sale, and he explains it further.

For if

a defect

that is external

[an external defect]—

this does not annul the sale, for

he sees it,

the master sees the defect at the time of his purchase of the slave, and he considered it and accepted it.

And if

a defect

that is internal

[an internal defect]—

behold,

he needs him for work

for him [the master needs the slave for work],

and

a defect

that is hidden does not matter to him—

lest you say: Perhaps it will be found that the slave is a thief of money or a kidnapper—