(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Kesuvos 57



(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi in the name of bar Kapara establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah (who requires the condition in writing) and Rebbi Yossi (who does not) 'bi'Techilah', but 'be'Sof', both agree that she cannot be Mochel orally - because she has already acquired the Kesuvah, and what is then required is a document stating that she has already received payment.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan says - that they argue in both cases (both 'bi'Techilah' and 'be'Sof').

(c) If, as Rebbi Avahu quoting Rebbi Yochanan explains, Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi means 'Techilas Chupah' and 'Sof *Bi'ah*' - when Rebbi Yochanan states that Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi also argue 'be'Sof', he is referring to 'Sof *Chupah*' (which is equivalent to 'Techilas Bi'ah').

(d) The outcome of this dual explanation - is that Rebbi Yochanan does not argue with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi.

(a) That is how Rav Dimi explained the interchange between Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi when he came from Eretz Yisrael - Ravin however, arrived from Eretz Yisrael with a different interpretation of their interchange.

(b) According to Ravin, Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi in the name of bar Kapara establishes the Machlokes between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi 'be'Sof', but 'bi'Techilah', both agree that she can be Mochel. Rebbi Yochanan says - that they argue in both cases.

(c) If, as Rebbi Avahu quoting Rebbi Yochanan explained, Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi meant 'Techilas *Chupah*' and 'Sof Chupah', then when Rebbi Yochanan refer stated that Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi also argue 'bi'Techilah' - he is referring to 'Techilas *Bi'ah*'.

(d) The pair of Amora'im who argue - are Rav Dimi (who holds that in the opinion of Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rebbi Yochanan, Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi both agree that, at the end of Bi'ah, *she can no longer be Mochel verbally*) and Ravin (who maintains that in their opinion, Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi agree that at the beginning of Chupah, *she can*).

(a) Rav Papa commented on Rebbi Avahu Amar Rebbi Yochanan's explanation - that if Rebbi Avahu quoting Rebbi Yochanan himself had not interpreted Rebbi Yochanan in a way that left him agreeing with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi, he would have explained Rebbi Yochanan in a way that made him argue with Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi (that even by Sof Bi'ah they argue as well).

(b) He would have explained the 'bi'Techilah' of Rav Dimi (where Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi do argue) by Techilas *Bi'ah*, and the 'be'Sof' (where they don't) by Sof *Bi'ah*; and the 'be'Sof' of Ravin (where Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi do argue) by Sof *Chupah*, and the 'Techilah' (where they don't) by Techilas *Chupah* - in which case they would not be arguing.

(c) Rav Papa's Chidush is - that it is preferable to explain that two Amora'im (Rebbi Yochanan and Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi) argue in their own name than that two Amora'im (Rav Dimi and Ravin) argue over what two other Amora'im said.

(d) The advantage of this is - that if two Amora'im argue among themselves, it is always possible that both are right ('Zeh ve'Zeh Divrei Elokim Chayim'); whereas if two Amora'im argue over what two other Amora'im said, one of them must be wrong.

(a) We give a Besulah twelve months to prepare herself for the Chupah - from the time that the Chasan asks her to get married.

(b) She needs to prepare - ornaments (of which a Kalah used to wear twenty-four - See Rashi Sh'mos 31:18).

(c) An Almanah receives only thirty days - because basically, she already has the ornaments from the time of her first marriage.

(d) We give the man the same period of time as we give the woman (twelve months for a Bachur and thirty days for an Almon, see Tosfos Yom-Tov) - to prepare for the needs of the wedding-feast and other trivia for the Chupah.

(a) If the time expires and they do not get married - he becomes obligated to feed her, even Terumah if he is a Kohen.

(b) According to Rebbi Tarfon, if her Chasan is a Kohen, he may feed her entirely Terumah - Rebbi Akiva says half Terumah, half Chulin, so that she will have what to eat when she is Tamei.

(c) According to Rebbi Tarfon - when she is Tamei, she will have to sell the Terumah to Kohanim, and with the proceeds, she will buy Chulin.

(a) A Yavam Kohen - is not permitted to feed his Yevamah Yisre'eilis Terumah after twelve months.

(b) Even if she waited all of twelve months but for one day before her husband died, and then one day as a Shomeres Yavam - the prohibition stands.

(c) That is the Din according to the Mishnah Rishonah - according to the Mishnah Acharonah, a Yisre'eilis may not eat Terumah until she actually enters the Chupah.




(a) We learn the obligation to give a Besulah twelve months from none other than Lavan.

(b) Lavan and his mother said to Eliezer "Teishev ha'Na'arah Itanu Yamim O Asor". "Yamim" cannot mean two days - because they continued "O Asor", and a person would not say 'Give me two days, and if not, ten'.

(c) We learn from the Pasuk (concerning the redeeming of sold property in a walled city) "Yamim Tihyeh Ge'ulaso" - that "Yamim" (by Kidushin) means a year, like it does there.

(d) It cannot mean a month (from the Pasuk in Beha'aloscha (in connecting with the quails) "ad Chodesh Yamim") - because since we can learn it from "Yamim" alone (as we just saw), we will not learn it from "Chodesh Yamim".

(a) Rebbi Zeira cites a Beraisa regarding postponing the wedding date of a Ketanah until she grows up. In fact - both she and her father have the power to do so.

(b) She can postpone it because she is afraid of Bi'ah - whereas her father can postpone it on the grounds that his daughter might take a dislike to her new husband, and rebel against him, causing him to divorce her, in which case she will return to him until she grows up, when she will require new ornaments. (This is unclear, seeing as she still has the ornaments from her first marriage, as Rashi himself explained in our Mishnah. Why did Rashi not explain that she will return to her father's home and, with the stigma of being divorced, will find difficulty in remarrying, and become a burden on her father?).

(c) In keeping with this Beraisa, Rebbi Aba bar Levi rules that one cannot fix a date to marry a Ketanah whilst she is still a Ketanah, but one can fix a date whilst she is still a Ketanah to marry her when she is a Gedolah - although we might have thought that even fixing a wedding-date for later will frighten her, and that one should not do so against her will.

(a) Rav Huna says that a girl who becomes a Bogeres and is betrothed the following day, has thirty days like an Almanah - but from the time of the time of betrothal, to prepare for her wedding,.

(b) Rav Huna's reason is - because she will already have prepared her ornaments before she became a Bogeres.

(c) When the Tana of the Beraisa says 'Bagrah, Nosnin Lah Sh'losim Yom ki'Tevu'ah' - he means 'ki'Tevu'ah de'Almanah'.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer says in a Beraisa that 'Bagrah she'Shahasah Sh'neim-Asar Chodesh - Yafer' (he may nullify her vows without her father, as if they were already married).

(b) Rav Huna explains 'Bagrah she'Shahasah Sh'neim-Asar Chodesh' - to mean 'Bagrah *O* Shahasah Sh'neim-Asar Chodesh' (seeing as a Bogeres, according to him, never needs to wait twelve months.

(c) We prove Rav Huna wrong from a Beraisa - where the Tana says that a Bogeres who became betrothed the following day has twelve months to prepare.

(d) A Bogeres is nevertheless different than a Na'arah regarding the waiting period - inasmuch as the twelve months begin from the Eirusin and not from the time that her Chasan tells her that he wants to get married.

(a) We give a Bogeres thirty days to prepare for her wedding - if twelve months already elapsed from the time that she became a Bogeres until the betrothal.

(b) The Tana makes no distinction between a case where the Chasan asks the Kalah to get married, or vice-versa - both are given twelve months or thirty days depending on their respective statuses as we explained earlier.

(a) Ula learns from the Pasuk "ve'Kohen ki Yikneh Nefesh *Kinyan Kaspo*" - that an Arusah, who also falls under the heading of 'Kinyan Kaspo', may eat Terumah.

(b) Chazal issued a decree forbidding her to do so - for fear that she may hand her siblings a cup of Terumah-wine.

(c) They nevertheless permitted her to eat Terumah when the waiting period expires - because from that time on, her Chasan feeds her and designates a spot in his house for her to eat.

(d) Chazal did not issue a decree forbidding a hired worker who is a Kohen to eat Terumah, in case he feeds his employer's family Terumah - because it is generally the employer who feeds his employees, and not the reverse.

(a) Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah disagrees with Ula. According to him, Chazal's decree forbidding an Arusah to eat Terumah is due to Simpon - meaning the possibility that she has a blemish, which he will discover, causing a retroactive cancellation of the betrothal.

(b) She is permitted to eat Terumah immediately after the Chupah (even before the first Bi'ah) - because before entering the Chupah, he will have had her examined by her relatives.

(c) An Eved Kena'ani whom a Kohen bought from a Yisrael is permitted to eat Terumah - because there is no Simpon by Avadim. This is because, if the blemishes are visible, he can see them, and if they are not, what does the master care about the hidden blemishes of his slave?

(d) We are not worried that he may be ...

1. ... a thief or a kidnapper - because that is what most Avadim Kena'anim are, in which case the sale will be valid even if that turns out to be the case.
2. ... a robber or wanted by the government - because that is generally public knowledge, and the buyer would have known about it too.
14) One of the two basic differences between whether the reason that she is forbidden to eat is because of Simpon or because we are afraid that she may feed her siblings Terumah is when the husband previously accepted any blemishes, in which case she will be permitted to eat according to Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, but not according to Ula. The other difference between them is - if the girl's father handed her to the Sh'luchei ha'Ba'al or if his Sh'luchim accompanied the Sh'luchei ha'Ba'al, where she will be permitted to eat according to Ula, since her siblings are not with her, but not according to Rav Shmuel bar Yehudah, since the fear of Simpon is still applicable.

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,