Ketubot 57b (נז:) — the Talmud in English

But

the court of the latter said:

the woman does not eat teruma

even after her appointed time has arrived,

until she enters the wedding canopy.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: “The time granted to a virgin is twelve months from the time that the husband sued her to prepare herself.”

The Gemara explains:

From where are these matters

that this is the time that must be granted to a virgin?

Said

and explained

Rav Ḥisda:

As the verse says

concerning Rebecca, when Eliezer, Abraham’s servant, wished to take her as a wife for Isaac:

“And her brother and her mother

of Rebecca

said: Let the maiden remain with us days or ten.”

But

what are “days”?

If you say: two days

two days, and “ten” means ten days?

This cannot be said, for: Would

a person speak in this manner

and is this the way people speak!?

At first

they said to him

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

two days,”

and

he said to them

Eliezer:

No;

and again

they said to him

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

ten days!?”

Surely it is impossible that if Eliezer refused two days, he would agree to ten days; and what reason would they have to say this!?

Rather,

certainly,

what are “days”?

It means

a year—

And as

it is written

with regard to the redemption of houses in walled cities:

“For days shall be its redemption.”

And “ten” means ten months, because once Eliezer refused an entire year, they returned and asked that she remain with them at least ten months.

Thus we learn that a virgin is granted one year, which is twelve months.

And we object:

But perhaps

“days” means

a month,

and as

it is written

with regard to quail:

“Until a month of days,”

and “ten” means ten days!?

They said

the members of the academy to resolve the difficulty:

We derive an unspecified “days”

as stated concerning Rebecca, “Let the maiden remain with us days”—from

an unspecified “days”,

namely, “For days shall be its redemption.”

But we do not derive an unspecified “days” from “days” concerning which “month” is mentioned,

namely, “Until a month of days”!

Rabbi Zeira said:

A tanna

taught in a beraita: A minor betrothed girl,

both she and her father may delay

the marriage until she reaches majority, and we do not penalize her ketuba as they penalized a “rebellious wife” against her husband.

The Gemara explains the reason for this matter:

Granted, she

the daughter herself

can delay

she can delay—

But her father,

why can he delay? After all,

if she

the daughter herself

is pleased

to marry immediately,

what difference does it make to her father!?

And we explain: The father

reasoned

as follows:

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 come and fall upon me

she may rebel against her husband, leave him by means of a bill of divorce, and come to me, leaving me responsible to provide her with other jewelry when she marries.

Rabbi Abba bar Levi said:

One does not arrange a match for a minor

that is, one does not arrange

to marry her while she is a minor

because this is burdensome for her—

But one may arrange a match

one may arrange a match

for a minor to marry her when she reaches majority.

And we object: Surely

it is obvious

that one may arrange a match for her while she is a minor with the intention of marrying her only once she reaches majority!?

And we answer: There is a novelty here, for

lest you say: Let us be concerned that perhaps fear will enter her already now and she will become weakened

perhaps fear of marriage will enter the minor already now and she will become physically weakened—

Therefore it teaches us!

Rav Huna said: If she reached majority

even for only

one day

alone,

and

afterward

she was betrothed,

she is

given

only

thirty days

from the time of betrothal

like a widow,

because once she reaches majority, she prepares her jewelry before reaching majority, as she does not wish to delay any longer from marrying.

A challenge was raised against Rav Huna from a beraita that we learned:

A woman who has reached majority

is considered as one who has been claimed

and stands ready; that is, she is considered as though her husband had already claimed that she prepare herself for marriage, and her time is counted immediately from the time of betrothal!

And

is it not so

that the meaning of the beraita is that she is

like a virgin who has been claimed,

and she is granted twelve months from the time of betrothal!? And we answer:

No,

she is not like a virgin who has been claimed, who receives twelve months; rather, she is

like a widow who has been claimed,

who is granted only thirty days.

Come and hear

a difficulty against Rav Huna from the Mishna in Nedarim [73b]:

A woman who has reached majority and remained twelve months

and a widow [who remained] thirty days:

Rabbi Eliezer says: Since her husband is obligated to provide her sustenance,

the husband

may annul

her vows, as is the law of a married woman, whose husband alone [without her father] annuls her vows!

Thus, a woman who has reached majority is granted twelve months until he becomes obligated to provide her sustenance!? And we answer:

Say

that two laws were stated in this beraita:

a.

A woman who has reached majority

at the end of thirty days.

b.

And

a virgin

who remained twelve months—

With regard to these two women,

Rabbi Eliezer says: Since her husband is obligated to provide her sustenance—

he may annul.

Come and hear

a refutation of Rav Huna’s statement:

As it is taught:

One who betroths a virgin, whether the husband claimed her

to marry

and she delayed, or whether she claimed

to marry

and the husband delayed —

she is granted twelve months from the time of the claim, but not from the time of betrothal—

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

and her time is counted from the time of betrothal.

How so?

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

from the time of betrothal, since she is already considered one who has been claimed.

And as for a betrothed woman

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

thirty days,

and the Gemara will explain this below.

Thus, it is explicitly stated that a woman who has reached majority is granted twelve months, and

this is a refutation of Rav Huna!?

And we conclude: Indeed,

it is a refutation

of Rav Huna.

The Gemara explains this beraita:

What is “and as for a betrothed woman, thirty days”?

Rav Pappa said: This is what it is saying:

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

A woman who reached majority and twelve months passed over her

after she reached majority, and

only afterward

she was betrothed; she is granted

from the time of betrothal

thirty days

alone,

like a widow,

who is granted thirty days.

We learned in the Mishna:

If the appointed time arrived and they did not marry,

they eat at his expense and eat teruma:

Ulla said: By Torah law,

the

Israelite woman betrothed

to a koen is

permitted to eat teruma,

even though she has not yet entered the wedding canopy—

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

he shall eat of it”—

And this one,

his betrothed,

is also an acquisition of his money,

since he acquired her with the money of betrothal!

And

for what reason did the Sages say

the Sages

that she does not eat

teruma while betrothed, until her appointed time arrives [according to the first Mishna], or until she enters the wedding canopy [according to the latter Mishna]?

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

that they may pour her a cup

of teruma

in the

house of her father,

where she still remains as long as she is betrothed,

and she may give it to drink

unwittingly

to her brother and sister,

who are non-ko hanim and forbidden to eat teruma.

And we object:

If so,

even if

“the appointed time arrived and they did not marry,” they should also

not eat teruma, for the same reason!?

And we explain:

There,

when the appointed time arrived, since he continually provides her with sustenance,

he designates a place for her

he designates a place for her outside her father’s house, so that she will not distribute his provisions to her relatives, and there is no longer concern that she will give it to drink to her brother and sister, who are not with her.

We still object to Ulla’s decree:

But if so,

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

a hired laborer

a worker hired to harvest grain, who is

a koen

and is hired

by an Israelite,

also

should not eat

at his employer’s home

teruma

that he brings with him,

lest they come to eat it with him

lest the owners come to eat teruma with him, although they are non-ko hanim!?

And we reject this: There is no concern that the owners will eat with the laborer, because

now, when they give him from their own, he eats from his own

if they give the laborer food from their own, all the more so will they not take from his to eat!?

Rav Shmuel bar

Yehuda said:

another reason, different from that of Ulla, why a betrothed woman does not immediately eat teruma upon becoming betrothed:

Because

perhaps there will be found in her

a defect

a physical defect in the woman that invalidates the betrothal, and her betrothal to the priest will thereby be annulled; it will then emerge that a non-priestly woman ate teruma.

The Gemara raises an objection to the reasoning of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda:

If so,

since you are concerned that a defect may be found in her, our Mishna is difficult, as we learned according to the later Mishna: "

A woman does not eat teruma until she enters the wedding canopy"; infer from this that once she has entered the wedding canopy, she does eat. Yet you should say that even

when she entered the wedding canopy but 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, since he recognizes her defects. But before she has had intercourse, there is still reason for concern that a defect may be found in her that invalidates the betrothal; so how can she eat teruma!?

The Gemara answers:

There,

when he brings her beneath the wedding canopy,

he examines her

first through his female relatives,

and afterward he brings her in

her [and then brings her] beneath the wedding canopy.

The Gemara nevertheless continues to challenge the concern of Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda:

If that is so,

since you are concerned that a defect may be found, the following is difficult:

Even

a slave,

a Canaanite slave belonging to

a priest who purchased him

the priest

from an Israelite,

who eats teruma by virtue of his priestly master, since he is the master's property—

he should not eat teruma

so that he will not eat teruma—

and

because

perhaps there will be found in the slave

a defect

some defect that invalidates the sale, in which case it will emerge that he is not a priest's slave and is prohibited from eating teruma!?

The Gemara answers:

There is no concern of a defect with slaves,

a defect found in slaves does not invalidate the sale, as the Gemara proceeds to explain.

For if

the defect is

external

an external defect—

this does not invalidate the sale,

for he sees it,

as the master sees the defect when he purchases the slave and nevertheless accepts him.

And if

the defect is

internal

an internal defect—

then

he needs him for labor,

[the master needs the slave for labor],

and

a defect

that is concealed does not matter to him—

Lest you say: Perhaps it will be discovered that the slave is a thief of property or a kidnapper—