## Ketubot Daf 57a

###### Ketubot 57a:1
[Ketubot 57a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/57a:1)

אִירְכַס כְּתוּבְּתַהּ. אֲתוֹ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף, אֲמַר לְהוּ: הָכִי אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Her marriage contract was lost,** and the woman and her husband **came before Rav Yosef** to ask what they should do. **He said to them: This is** what **Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said: That** ruling, that if someone reduces his wife’s marriage contract by even a small amount, their marriage amounts to licentious sexual intercourse, **is the statement of Rabbi Meir.** According to that opinion, the husband and wife were forbidden to each other because she was not in possession of a valid marriage contract.


###### Ketubot 57a:2
[Ketubot 57a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/57a:2)

אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מְשַׁהֶא אָדָם אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ שְׁתַּיִם וְשָׁלֹשׁ שָׁנִים בְּלֹא כְּתוּבָּה. אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר בִּגְזֵירוֹתָיו! אִי הָכִי, זִיל כְּתוֹב לַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But the Rabbis say:** Since the woman relies on the fact that she will eventually collect payment for her marriage contract, **a man may maintain his wife for** as long as **two or three years without** a written **marriage contract.** There is no urgent need to write a new one, since the husband’s obligation remains intact. **Abaye said to him:** But **didn’t Rav Naḥman say** that **Shmuel said** that the ***halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Meir** with regard to all of **his decrees?** Since Rabbi Meir’s statement about marriage contracts was a form of decree, the *halakha* should be in accordance with his opinion. Rav Yosef responded: **If so, go and write her** a new marriage contract.


###### Ketubot 57a:3
[Ketubot 57a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/57a:3)

כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי מִשּׁוּם בַּר קַפָּרָא: מַחְלוֹקֶת בַּתְּחִלָּה, אֲבָל בַּסּוֹף — לְדִבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵינָהּ מוֹחֶלֶת. וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בֵּין בָּזוֹ וּבֵין בָּזוֹ מַחְלוֹקֶת. אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: לְדִידִי מִיפָּרְשָׁא לִי מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דַּאֲנָא וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי לָא פְּלִיגִינַן אַהֲדָדֵי:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara relates that **when Rav Dimi came** from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, **he said** that **Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said** that **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi** said **in the name of bar Kappara:** This **dispute** between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei concerning whether one may make a verbal stipulation with a woman to reduce her marriage contract is referring only **to the beginning** of the process. **But** with regard **to the end, all agree** that **she cannot waive** her rights by verbal confirmation alone, and she must instead write a receipt. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Both in this** case **and in that** case there is **a dispute. Rabbi Abbahu said:** This **was explained to me** personally **by Rabbi Yoḥanan himself,** who said: **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and I do not** actually **disagree with one another.** We merely used different language to express the same *halakha*.


###### Ketubot 57a:4
[Ketubot 57a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/57a:4)

מַאי ״בַּתְּחִלָּה״ דְּקָאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי — תְּחִלַּת חוּפָּה, וּמַאי ״סוֹף״ — סוֹף בִּיאָה. וְכִי קָאָמֵינָא אֲנָא בֵּין בָּזוֹ וּבֵין בָּזוֹ מַחְלוֹקֶת, תְּחִלַּת חוּפָּה וְסוֹף חוּפָּה, דְּהִיא תְּחִילַּת בִּיאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is** the meaning of the term: **To the beginning, which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said?** It is referring to **the beginning of the wedding** ceremony. **And what is** meant by the **end?** It is referring to the **end of intercourse;** Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s opinion is that after the marriage has been consummated, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei agree that the wife cannot relinquish her rights verbally. **And when I said** that **both in this** case **and in that** case there is **a dispute,** I was referring to **the beginning** of the **wedding** ceremony **and the end** of the **wedding** ceremony, **which is** also **the beginning of** the time designated for **intercourse.** Consequently, according to Rav Dimi, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rabbi Yoḥanan agree that the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei applies only until the consummation of the marriage. After that point, all agree that she cannot waive her rights verbally.


###### Ketubot 57a:5
[Ketubot 57a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/57a:5)

כִּי אֲתָא רָבִין, אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן פַּזִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי מִשּׁוּם בַּר קַפָּרָא: מַחְלוֹקֶת לְבַסּוֹף, אֲבָל בַּתְּחִלָּה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מוֹחֶלֶת, וְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר: בֵּין בָּזוֹ וּבֵין בָּזוֹ מַחְלוֹקֶת. אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ: לְדִידִי מִיפָּרְשָׁא לִי מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דַּאֲנָא וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי לָא פְּלִיגִינַן אַהֲדָדֵי: מַאי ״לְבַסּוֹף״ דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי — סוֹף חוּפָּה, וּמַאי ״תְּחִלָּה״ — תְּחִלַּת חוּפָּה. וְכִי קָאָמֵינָא אֲנָא בֵּין בָּזוֹ בֵּין בָּזוֹ מַחְלוֹקֶת — תְּחִלַּת בִּיאָה וְסוֹף בִּיאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**When Ravin came** from Eretz Yisrael, he reported this matter differently than Rav Dimi did: **Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said** that **Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara:** This **dispute** is referring only to **the end** of the process, **but** with regard **to the beginning, all agree** that **she can waive** her rights verbally. **And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Both in this** case **and in that** case there is **a dispute. Rabbi Abbahu said:** This **was explained to me** personally **by Rabbi Yoḥanan himself,** who said: **I and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi do not disagree with one another. What is** the meaning of: **The end, which Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said?** The **end of the wedding** ceremony. **And what is** the meaning of the **beginning?** The **beginning of the wedding** ceremony. **And when I said** that **both in this** case **and in that** case there is a **dispute,** I was referring to the **beginning of intercourse and** the **end of intercourse.**


###### Ketubot 57a:6
[Ketubot 57a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/57a:6)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: אִי לָאו דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ ״לְדִידִי מִיפָּרְשָׁא לִי מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דַּאֲנָא וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי לָא פְּלִיגִינַן אַהֲדָדֵי״, הֲוָה אָמֵינָא: רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי פְּלִיגִי, רַב דִּימִי וְרָבִין לָא פְּלִיגִי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Consequently, according to Ravin, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rabbi Yoḥanan agree that at the time of the wedding ceremony the wife can verbally waive her rights, and the dispute of the *tanna’im* is referring to the time after the ceremony, which is also the beginning of the time for consummation of the marriage. **Rav Pappa said: Had Rabbi Abbahu not said:** This **was explained to me** personally **by Rabbi Yoḥanan himself, that I,** i.e. Rabbi Yoḥanan, **and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi do not disagree with one another, I,** i.e., Rav Pappa, **would have said** that the way to understand the various texts is that **Rabbi Yoḥanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi** do **disagree** with one another, whereas **Rav Dimi** and **Ravin do not disagree** with one another, but rather they both cited the same tradition from Eretz Yisrael.


###### Ketubot 57a:7
[Ketubot 57a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/57a:7)

מַאי ״סוֹף״ דְּקָאָמַר רָבִין — סוֹף חוּפָּה, וּמַאי ״תְּחִלָּה״ דְּקָאָמַר רַב דִּימִי — תְּחִלַּת בִּיאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
I would have explained it in the following manner: **What is** the meaning of the word **end, which Ravin said?** It is referring to the **end** of the **wedding** ceremony. **And what is** the meaning of the word **beginning, which Rav Dimi said?** It is referring to the **beginning of** the time designated for **intercourse,** which begins at the end of the wedding ceremony. It would then follow that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rabbi Yoḥanan disagreed about the explanation of the dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei, whereas Rav Dimi and Ravin both said the same thing.


###### Ketubot 57a:8
[Ketubot 57a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/57a:8)

מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**What is** Rav Pappa **teaching us?** Since he accepts Rabbi Abbahu’s statement, he acknowledges that his alternate way of reading the sources is not correct. What, then, is the point of telling us that he would have explained Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi’s and Rabbi Yoḥanan’s words differently?


###### Ketubot 57a:9
[Ketubot 57a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/57a:9)

הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן, דִּפְלִיגִי תְּרֵי אָמוֹרָאֵי אַטַּעְמָא דְנַפְשַׁיְיהוּ, וְלָא פְּלִיגִי תְּרֵי אָמוֹרָאֵי אַלִּיבָּא דְּחַד אָמוֹרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: It **teaches us this:** If we were discussing the meaning of an amoraic dispute about which we have different traditions, it is better to explain **that two *amora’im* disagree with regard to their own reasons** and not that **two *amora’im* disagree according to** the opinion of **another *amora*,** as it is more plausible to say that there is a dispute about logical reasoning than that there is a dispute about the correct transmission of a *halakhic* tradition. Consequently, had Rabbi Abbahu not declared that he was told otherwise by Rabbi Yoḥanan, it would have been preferable to explain that there is a logical dispute between Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi and Rabbi Yoḥanan, rather than saying that the dispute is about the details of the tradition received by Rav Dimi and Ravin.


###### Ketubot 57a:10
[Ketubot 57a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/57a:10)

**מַתְנִי׳** נוֹתְנִין לַבְּתוּלָה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חוֹדֶשׁ מִשֶּׁתְּבָעָהּ הַבַּעַל, לְפַרְנֵס אֶת עַצְמָהּ. וּכְשֵׁם שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין לָאִשָּׁה — כָּךְ נוֹתְנִין לָאִישׁ לְפַרְנֵס אֶת עַצְמוֹ. וּלְאַלְמָנָה שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. הִגִּיעַ זְמַן וְלֹא נִישְּׂאוּ — אוֹכְלוֹת מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְאוֹכְלוֹת בִּתְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** One **gives a virgin twelve months from** the time **the husband asked** to marry **her** after having betrothed her, in order **to prepare herself** with clothes and jewelry for the marriage. **And just as** one **gives a woman** this amount of time, **so too** does one **give a man** an equivalent period of time **to prepare himself,** as he too needs time to prepare for the marriage. **However, in** the case of **a widow,** who already has items available from her previous marriage, she is given only **thirty days** to prepare. If **the** appointed **time** for the wedding **arrived and they did not get married** due to some delay on the part of the husband, then the woman **may partake of his** food. **And** if her husband is a priest, **she may partake of *teruma*,** even if she is an Israelite woman.


###### Ketubot 57a:11
[Ketubot 57a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/57a:11)

רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: נוֹתְנִין לָהּ הַכֹּל תְּרוּמָה. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מֶחֱצָה חוּלִּין וּמֶחֱצָה תְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *tanna’im* disagree about the permission granted to a priest to sustain his betrothed with *teruma* before she is married to him. **Rabbi Tarfon says: He may give her all** of her required sustenance from ***teruma*.** During her periods of impurity, e.g., menstruation, when she cannot partake of *teruma*, she may sell the *teruma* to a priest and use the proceeds to buy non-sacred food. **Rabbi Akiva says:** He must give her **half** of her needs from **non-sacred** food **and half** may be from ***teruma*,** so that she can eat from the non-sacred food when she is ritually impure.


###### Ketubot 57a:12
[Ketubot 57a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/57a:12)

הַיָּבָם אֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל בִּתְרוּמָה. עָשְׂתָה שִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים בִּפְנֵי הַבַּעַל וְשִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים בִּפְנֵי הַיָּבָם, וַאֲפִילּוּ כּוּלָּן בִּפְנֵי הַבַּעַל חָסֵר יוֹם אֶחָד בִּפְנֵי הַיָּבָם, אוֹ כּוּלָּן בִּפְנֵי הַיָּבָם חָסֵר יוֹם אֶחָד בִּפְנֵי הַבַּעַל — אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת בִּתְרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna continues: A priest who is a ***yavam*,** i.e., his brother died childless after betrothing a woman, **does not enable** his *yevama* **to partake of *teruma*** by virtue of her relationship with him. **If she** had **completed six months** of the twelve-month wait for marriage **under the aegis of the husband,** and then he died, **and** she waited **six** more **months under the aegis of the *yavam*; or even** if she completed **all of** the necessary time **under the aegis of the husband except for one day** that she was **under the aegis of the *yavam*; or** if she completed **all of** the necessary time **under the aegis of the *yavam* except for one day** that she was **under the aegis of the husband,** she still **may not partake of *teruma*.**


###### Ketubot 57a:13
[Ketubot 57a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/57a:13)

זוֹ מִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל אַחֲרֵיהֶן אָמְרוּ:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This** set of rulings, concerning the permission granted a betrothed woman whose wedding date has arrived to partake of *teruma*, is in accordance with **the initial** version of the **mishna.** However, **a court** that convened **after them,** in a later generation, **said:**