## Ketubot Daf 3a

###### Ketubot 3a:1
[Ketubot 3a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/3a:1)

זִימְנִין דְּלָא אֲנִיס וְסָבְרָה דַּאֲנִיס, וּמִיעַגְּנָא וְיָתְבָה. וּמִשּׁוּם פְּרוּצוֹת — דְּאִי אָמְרַתְּ לָא לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא, זִימְנִין דַּאֲנִיס וְאָמְרָה לָא אֲנִיס, וְאָזְלָא וּמִינַּסְבָא, וְנִמְצָא גֵּט בָּטֵל וּבָנֶיהָ מַמְזֵרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
then **sometimes, where he was not** detained **unavoidably** but he fulfilled the condition willingly to effect the divorce, **and** the wife **thinks** that he was detained **unavoidably, she will sit deserted,** forever unable to remarry. **And** the concern **due to licentious women** is, **as, if you said: Let it not be a bill of divorce,** then **sometimes, when he was** detained **unavoidably and she thinks** that he was **not** detained **unavoidably,** she goes **and remarries. And** the result will be **that the bill of divorce is void, and her children** from the second marriage will be ***mamzerim*,** products of an adulterous relationship.


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

וּמִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּמִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא לֶהֱוֵי גֵּט, וּמִשּׁוּם צְנוּעוֹת וּמִשּׁוּם פְּרוּצוֹת שָׁרִינַן אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ לְעָלְמָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara questions the following premise: By Torah law, a condition that is unfulfilled due to circumstances beyond one’s control is considered fulfilled, and it is merely by rabbinic ordinance that it is deemed unfulfilled: **And is there a matter where by Torah** law **it is not a bill of divorce, but due to virtuous women and due to licentious women we permit a married woman to others?**


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

אִין, כׇּל דִּמְקַדֵּשׁ אַדַּעְתָּא דְּרַבָּנַן מְקַדֵּשׁ, וְאַפְקְעִינְהוּ רַבָּנַן לְקִידּוּשֵׁי מִינֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Yes,** it is within the authority of the Sages to institute an ordinance freeing the woman from the marriage, as **anyone who betroths** a woman, **betroths** her contingent **upon the agreement of the Sages,** and in certain cases, such as those mentioned above, **the Sages invalidated his betrothal** retroactively.


###### Ketubot 3a:4
[Ketubot 3a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/3a:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: תִּינַח קַדֵּישׁ בְּכַסְפָּא. קַדֵּישׁ בְּבִיאָה מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? שַׁוְּיוּהּ רַבָּנַן לִבְעִילָתוֹ בְּעִילַת זְנוּת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said to Rav Ashi:** That **works out well** if **he betrothed** her **with money,** as in that case, the courts could declare the money ownerless, and one cannot betroth a woman with money that is not his. However, if **he betrothed** her **with intercourse, what can be said?** Rav Ashi answered: **The Sages rendered his intercourse licentious intercourse.**


###### Ketubot 3a:5
[Ketubot 3a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/3a:5)

אִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אָמַר רָבָא, וְכֵן לְעִנְיַן גִּיטִּין. אַלְמָא קָסָבַר רָבָא יֵשׁ אוֹנֶס בְּגִיטִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Some say,** to the contrary, that **Rava said:** Just as with regard to postponement of a wedding due to circumstances beyond his control, the groom is not obligated to provide sustenance for his betrothed, **the same is true with regard to the matter of bills of divorce.** The Gemara concludes that **apparently Rava maintains: Unavoidable circumstances** have legal standing **with regard to bills of divorce.**


###### Ketubot 3a:6
[Ketubot 3a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/3a:6)

מֵיתִיבִי: ״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 raises an objection** from 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.** The Gemara infers: If **he died,** that **is when it is not a bill of divorce,** since a divorce cannot take effect posthumously. However, 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 does take effect.


###### Ketubot 3a:7
[Ketubot 3a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/3a:7)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Actually, I will say to you** that in the case where **one falls ill it is also not a bill of divorce,** and death is merely an example of circumstances beyond one’s control. **And** the fact that the mishna cited **that** example **itself teaches us that there is no bill of divorce posthumously.**


###### Ketubot 3a:8
[Ketubot 3a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/3a:8)

אֵין גֵּט לְאַחַר מִיתָה הָא תְּנָא לֵיהּ רֵישָׁא! דִּלְמָא לְאַפּוֹקֵי מִדְּרַבּוֹתֵינוּ.

**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 that mishna? The Gemara answers: **Perhaps** it was necessary for the first clause to mention specifically the case of death, **to exclude** the opinion **of our Rabbis.**


###### Ketubot 3a:9
[Ketubot 3a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/3a:9)

תָּא שְׁמַע: ״מֵעַכְשָׁיו אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״, וּמֵת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ — הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט. מַאי לָאו, הוּא הַדִּין לְחָלָה! לָא, מֵת דַּוְקָא, דְּלָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ דְּתִפּוֹל קַמֵּי יָבָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come and hear** an additional proof from the latter clause of that mishna: If one said: This is your bill of divorce **from now if I have not returned from now until** the conclusion of **twelve months, and he died within** those **twelve months,** then **this** document **is a bill of divorce. What, is it not that the same is true** if his failure to return is due to the fact that **he fell ill?** The Gemara rejects that proof. The divorce takes effect **specifically** in the case where **he died,** and he wrote the bill of divorce because **he was not amenable** to have his wife **happen before** her ***yavam*,** his brother, for levirate marriage if he had no children. However, in cases where that is not a consideration, if other circumstances beyond his control caused the condition to be fulfilled, his intention is that the bill of divorce will not take effect.


###### Ketubot 3a:10
[Ketubot 3a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/3a:10)

תָּא שְׁמַע מֵהָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לְהוּ ״אִי לָא אָתֵינָא מִכָּאן וְעַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם לֶיהֱוֵי גִּיטָּא״, אֲתָא בְּסוֹף תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין וּפַסְקֵיהּ מַבָּרָא, וַאֲמַר לְהוּ: ״חֲזוֹ דַּאֲתַאי! חֲזוֹ דַּאֲתַאי!״ וַאֲמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: לָא שְׁמֵיהּ מַתְיָא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Come and hear** an additional proof **from** the case of **a certain** man **who said to** the agents with whom he entrusted the bill of divorce: **If I do not return from now until 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:** It **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 3a:11
[Ketubot 3a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/3a:11)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects that proof: **Perhaps unavoidable circumstances that are common** and could be anticipated, e.g., the ferry being located at the other side of the river, **are different, since he should have stipulated** that exception when giving his wife the bill of divorce. **And** since he did not **stipulate** it, **he brought the failure upon himself.**


###### Ketubot 3a:12
[Ketubot 3a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/3a:12)

אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יִצְחָק: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מִתַּקָּנַת עֶזְרָא וְאֵילָךְ, שֶׁאֵין בָּתֵּי דִינִין קְבוּעִין אֶלָּא בְּשֵׁנִי וּבַחֲמִישִׁי. אֲבָל קוֹדֶם תַּקָּנַת עֶזְרָא, שֶׁבָּתֵּי דִינִין קְבוּעִין בְּכׇל יוֹם — אִשָּׁה נִשֵּׂאת בְּכׇל יוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said:** The Sages **teach** that this *halakha* that a virgin is married on Wednesday is in effect **only from** the institution of **the ordinance of Ezra that courts are in regular session only on Monday and Thursday. However, prior to** the institution of **the ordinance of Ezra, when courts** were in **regular** session **every day, a woman was married on any day** of the week.


###### Ketubot 3a:13
[Ketubot 3a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/3a:13)

קוֹדֶם תַּקָּנַת עֶזְרָא? מַאי דַהֲוָה הֲוָה! הָכִי קָאָמַר: אִי אִיכָּא בָּתֵּי דִינִין דִּקְבוּעִין הָאִידָּנָא כְּקוֹדֶם תַּקָּנַת עֶזְרָא — אִשָּׁה נִשֵּׂאת בְּכׇל יוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Prior to** the institution of **the ordinance of Ezra? What was** in the past **was** in the past. There are no halakhic ramifications to that statement. The Gemara answers: **This is what** Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak **is saying: If there are courts** in **regular** daily session **today, as** they were **prior to** the institution of **the ordinance of Ezra, a woman is married on any day** of the week.


###### Ketubot 3a:14
[Ketubot 3a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/3a:14)

הָא בָּעִינַן שָׁקְדוּ! דִּטְרִיחַ לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Don’t we require** the additional reason that a virgin is married on Wednesday because the Sages **were assiduous** in seeing to the well-being of Jewish women and made certain that the groom would have several days to prepare for the wedding feast prior to the wedding? The Gemara answers: This is referring to a case **where he** already **exerted himself** and prepared everything before Shabbat, so the feast will be prepared even if the wedding is Sunday or Monday.