## Ketubot Daf 2b

###### Ketubot 2b:1
[Ketubot 2b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/2b:1)

דְּלָא מָצְיָא אָמְרָה לֵיהּ ״נִסְתַּחֲפָה שָׂדֵהוּ״. כִּי תִּיבְּעֵי לָךְ שֶׁלֹּא בִּשְׁעַת וִוסְתָּהּ, מַאי? כֵּיוָן דְּלָא בִּשְׁעַת וִוסְתָּהּ הָוְיָא, מָצְיָא אָמְרָה לֵיהּ ״נִסְתַּחֲפָה שָׂדֵהוּ״, אוֹ דִלְמָא כֵּיוָן דְּאִיכָּא נְשֵׁי דְּקָא מְשַׁנְּיָיא וִוסְתַּיְיהוּ — כִּשְׁעַת וִוסְתָּהּ דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**as** it is clear that **she cannot say to him** that **his field was inundated.** Here, the circumstances were avoidable, and postponement of the wedding is attributable to her. **When you** should **raise a dilemma** is in a case where menstruation began **not at the time of her set period. What** is the ruling there? **Since it is not the time of her set period,** it is comparable to the case of her illness, and **she can say to him that his field was inundated. Or, perhaps since there are some women whose set period changes,** it is avoidable, and its legal status **is like** menstruation at **the time of her set period,** and postponement of the wedding is attributable to her.


###### Ketubot 2b:2
[Ketubot 2b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/2b:2)

פָּשֵׁיט רַב אַחַאי: הִגִּיעַ זְמַן וְלֹא נִישְּׂאוּ — אוֹכְלוֹת מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וְאוֹכְלוֹת בִּתְרוּמָה. ״לֹא נָשְׂאוּ״ לָא קָתָנֵי, אֶלָּא ״לֹא נִישְּׂאוּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Aḥai resolved** these dilemmas through a careful reading of the mishna: **If the time arrived and they were not married,** the brides are entitled to **eat from his** food **and eat *teruma*. It doesn’t teach: And** the grooms **didn’t marry,** in the active form. **Rather,** it teaches: **And** the brides **were not married,** in the passive form.


###### Ketubot 2b:3
[Ketubot 2b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/2b:3)

הֵיכִי דָמֵי: אִי דְּקָא מְעַכְּבָן אִינְהִי — אַמַּאי אוֹכְלוֹת מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וְאוֹכְלוֹת בִּתְרוּמָה? אֶלָּא לָאו, דְּאִיתְּנִיס כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא, וְקָתָנֵי: אוֹכְלוֹת מִשֶּׁלּוֹ וְאוֹכְלוֹת בִּתְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What are the circumstances** described in the phrase: They were not married? **If the** brides **postpone** the marriage, **why do they eat from his** food **and eat *teruma*? Rather, is it not** referring to a case **where they were compelled** by circumstances beyond their control **in that manner,** e.g., the bride falling ill or beginning to menstruate, **and it teaches:** The brides **eat from his** food **and eat *teruma*,** and his bad fortune is responsible for his situation.


###### Ketubot 2b:4
[Ketubot 2b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/2b:4)

אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ כׇּל אוּנְסָא, לָא אָכְלָה, וּדְקָא מְעַכְּבִי אִינְהוּ. וּבְדִין הוּא דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְמִיתְנֵי ״לֹא נָשְׂאוּ״, וְאַיְּידֵי דִּתְנָא רֵישָׁא בְּדִידְהִי, תְּנָא נָמֵי סֵיפָא בְּדִידְהִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ashi said: Actually, I will say to you: In any** case **of unavoidable circumstances,** whether they affect him or they affect her, **she doesn’t eat** from his food, **and** the mishna is referring to a case **where** grooms **postpone the wedding. And by right,** the *tanna* **should have taught: They didn’t marry,** which would have established that grooms caused the postponement. **And since** the *tanna* taught **the first clause** of the mishna cited above **in** terms of a bride: The Sages give a virgin twelve months, **it taught the latter clause in** terms of a bride. Therefore, no inference may be drawn from the formulation of the latter clause. Only if the groom postpones the wedding is he obligated to provide sustenance for the women when the time designated for the wedding arrives.


###### Ketubot 2b:5
[Ketubot 2b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/2b:5)

אָמַר רָבָא: וּלְעִנְיַן גִּיטִּין אֵינוֹ כֵּן. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר רָבָא אֵין אוֹנֶס בְּגִיטִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: And** although delays caused by circumstances beyond his control exempt the groom from providing support to his betrothed at the time originally designated for the wedding, with regard **to bills of divorce that is not so. Apparently, Rava maintains that unavoidable circumstances** have **no** legal standing with regard **to bills of divorce.** If one stipulated that the bill of divorce will take effect only with the fulfillment of a condition, even if that condition was fulfilled due to circumstances beyond his control, the bill of divorce takes effect.


###### Ketubot 2b:6
[Ketubot 2b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/2b:6)

מְנָא לֵיהּ לְרָבָא הָא? אִילֵּימָא מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטֵּיךְ אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״, וּמֵת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ — אֵינוֹ גֵּט. מֵת הוּא דְּאֵינוֹ גֵּט, הָא חָלָה — הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **From where does Rava** learn **this** principle? **If we say it is from that which we learned** in a mishna (*Gittin* 76b) with regard to one who said to his wife: **This is your bill of divorce, if I do not return from now until** the conclusion of **twelve months, and he died within** those **twelve months,** the document **is not a bill of divorce.** Therefore, if she has no children from her deceased husband, the *halakhot* of levirate marriage would apply to her. The Gemara infers: If **he died,** that **is when it is not a bill of divorce,** since a divorce cannot take effect posthumously. By inference, in cases involving other circumstances beyond his control, e.g., if **he fell ill,** and therefore did not return, **it is a bill of divorce** and it takes effect. Apparently, if the reason for his failure to arrive is a circumstance beyond his control, the divorce takes effect.


###### Ketubot 2b:7
[Ketubot 2b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/2b:7)

וְדִלְמָא לְעוֹלָם אֵימָא לָךְ חָלָה נָמֵי אֵינוֹ גֵּט, וְהִיא גּוּפָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דְּאֵין גֵּט לְאַחַר מִיתָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes that proof. **And perhaps, actually I will say to you** that in the case where **he falls ill it is also not a bill of divorce,** and the mishna cited the case of death merely as an example of circumstances beyond his control. **And** the reason **that** example **itself** was chosen is **to teach us that there is no bill of divorce posthumously.** Even if the divorce is not conditional, and the husband simply states that it will take effect after he dies, it is not a valid bill of divorce.


###### Ketubot 2b:8
[Ketubot 2b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/2b:8)

אֵין גֵּט לְאַחַר מִיתָה — הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ רֵישָׁא: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטֵּיךְ אִם מַתִּי״, ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטֵּיךְ מֵחוֹלִי זֶה״, ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטֵּיךְ לְאַחַר מִיתָה״ — לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Does it come to teach that **there is no bill of divorce posthumously? Wasn’t it** already **taught in the first clause** of the mishna (*Gittin* 72a) that if one on his deathbed said to his wife: **This is your bill of divorce if I die,** or: **This is your bill of divorce** if I die **from this illness,** or: **This is your bill of divorce after I die, he said nothing.** The bill of divorce does not take effect after his death.


###### Ketubot 2b:9
[Ketubot 2b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/2b:9)

דִּלְמָא לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבּוֹתֵינוּ. דְּתַנְיָא: וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ הִתִּירוּהָ לְהִנָּשֵׂא, וְאָמְרִינַן: מַאן רַבּוֹתֵינוּ? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בֵּי דִינָא דִּשְׁרוֹ מִשְׁחָא. סָבְרִי לַהּ כְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי, דְּאָמַר: זְמַנּוֹ שֶׁל שְׁטָר מוֹכִיחַ עָלָיו.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Perhaps** it was necessary for the first clause to mention specifically the case of death, **to exclude that which our Rabbis** said and not to exclude the case of one who fell ill, **as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **And our Rabbis permitted her to remarry,** in a case where he died within the twelve months that he stipulated. **And we said: Who are our Rabbis** mentioned here? **Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said:** It is **the court that permitted** the **oil** of gentiles for consumption. In this regard, **they hold in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yosei, who said: The time** written **in a document proves** when **it** takes effect. The fact that a certain date is written in the bill of divorce indicates that one’s intention was that the divorce take effect from the day that it was written and delivered, not after his death. In any event, there is proof neither for nor against Rava’s opinion from this *baraita*.


###### Ketubot 2b:10
[Ketubot 2b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/2b:10)

וְאֶלָּא מִסֵּיפָא: ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״, וּמֵת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ — הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט. מֵת, וְהוּא הַדִּין לְחָלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And rather,** proof may be cited from the **latter clause** of the mishna. If a man says to his wife: This is your bill of divorce **from now if I do not return from now until** the conclusion of **twelve months, and he died within** those **twelve months, this** document **is a bill of divorce.** This is the *halakha* in a case where **he dies,** and **the same is true** if **he fell ill.** If the divorce takes effect when his failure to return is attributable to death, the ultimate circumstance beyond his control, all the more so should it take effect if it is attributable to a less extreme circumstance.


###### Ketubot 2b:11
[Ketubot 2b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/2b:11)

דִּלְמָא מֵת דַּוְקָא, דְּלָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּתִפּוֹל קַמֵּי יָבָם!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that proof: **Perhaps** the divorce takes effect **specifically** in the case where **he died,** because **he is not amenable** to have his wife **happen before** her ***yavam*,** his brother, if he had no children. However, if other circumstances beyond his control caused the condition to be fulfilled, where levirate marriage is not a consideration, his intention is that the bill of divorce will not take effect.


###### Ketubot 2b:12
[Ketubot 2b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/2b:12)

אֶלָּא מֵהָא: דְּהָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ ״אִי לָא אָתֵינָא מִיכָּן וְעַד תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא״, אֲתָא בְּסוֹף תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין וּפַסְקֵיהּ מַבָּרָא. אֲמַר לְהוּ: חֲזוֹ דַּאֲתַאי, חֲזוֹ דַּאֲתַאי. אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לָאו שְׁמֵיהּ מַתְיָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** proof may be cited **from this** case, **where a certain** man **who said to** the agents with whom he entrusted the bill of divorce: **If I do not return from now until after thirty days** have passed, **let this be a bill of divorce. He came at the end of thirty days,** before the deadline passed, **but was prevented** from crossing the river **by the ferry** that was located on the other side of the river, so he did not come within the designated time. **He said to the** people across the river: **See that I have come, see that I have come. Shmuel said:** This **is not considered** to be **a return.** Apparently, even if the condition was fulfilled due to circumstances beyond his control, the condition is considered fulfilled.


###### Ketubot 2b:13
[Ketubot 2b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/2b:13)

וְדִלְמָא אוּנְסָא דִּשְׁכִיחַ שָׁאנֵי. דְּכֵיוָן דְּאִיבְּעִי לֵיהּ לְאַתְנוֹיֵי וְלָא אַתְנִי — אִיהוּ דְּאַפְסֵיד אַנַּפְשֵׁיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that proof: **And perhaps unavoidable circumstances that are common** and could be anticipated, e.g., the ferry is located at the other side of the river, **are different, since he should have stipulated** that exception when establishing the condition, **and he did not stipulate** it, **he brought the failure** to arrive **upon himself.** Although he regrets it now, at the time his intent was that even if the condition were fulfilled due to that circumstance, the divorce would take effect. In contrast, however, if the condition is fulfilled due to an uncommon circumstance that could not have been anticipated, the divorce would not take effect.


###### Ketubot 2b:14
[Ketubot 2b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/2b:14)

אֶלָּא רָבָא סְבָרָא דְנַפְשֵׁיהּ קָאָמַר: מִשּׁוּם צְנוּעוֹת וּמִשּׁוּם פְּרוּצוֹת. מִשּׁוּם צְנוּעוֹת — דְּאִי אָמְרַתְּ לָא לֶהֱוֵי גֵּט,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, Rava is stating** a *halakha* based on **his own reasoning.** Circumstances beyond one’s control are not a factor in determining whether or not a condition is fulfilled, and this is **due to virtuous women and due to licentious women.** The Gemara articulates: There is concern **due to virtuous women**, **as, if you said: Let it not be a bill of divorce,** if the reason that the condition was not fulfilled was due to circumstances beyond his control,