## Ketubot Daf 58a

###### Ketubot 58a:1
[Ketubot 58a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/58a:1)

קוּבְיוּסְטוּס — הִגִּיעוֹ. מַאי אִיכָּא — לִסְטִים מְזוּיָּין אוֹ מוּכְתָּב לַמַּלְכוּת, הָנְהוּ קָלָא אִית לְהוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**a gambler [*kuvyustus*], it has come to him,** meaning that the seller has caught the buyer in a binding transaction, and he cannot annul the sale due to this kind of defect, as these characteristics are common in slaves. **What is** the *halakha* if it was discovered that the slave was **an armed bandit or** that **the king** had **signed** his death warrant, and there is a danger that the government will catch him and execute him? These are serious and uncommon defects that in principle could invalidate a sale. However, **these** defects **generate publicity.** In such unusual and severe circumstances, everyone is aware of them. Therefore, it is assumed that the buyer knew about them as well and nevertheless acquiesced to buy the slave. Consequently, there is no reason to revoke the sale of a slave.


###### Ketubot 58a:2
[Ketubot 58a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/58a:2)

מִכְּדִי, בֵּין לְמָר וּבֵין לְמָר לָא אָכְלָה, מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ קִבֵּל, מָסַר, וְהָלַךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **After all, according to this Sage,** Ulla, **and according to that Sage,** Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yehuda, **she may not partake** of *teruma*, so **what is** the difference **between them?** The Gemara answers: The practical difference **between them is** in cases where **he accepted,** or **he transferred or went.** If the husband explicitly accepted her blemishes, there is no concern with regard to abrogation, but there is still a concern that she will give her family members *teruma* wine. Conversely, if the father transferred his daughter to the agents of the husband and entrusted her to their care, or if the father’s own agents went with the girl and the agents of the husband, there is no longer concern that she might give her family members *teruma*, as she is not with them, but there is still a concern about abrogation.


###### Ketubot 58a:3
[Ketubot 58a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/58a:3)

רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: נוֹתְנִין לָהּ הַכֹּל תְּרוּמָה וְכוּ׳. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּבַת כֹּהֵן לְכֹהֵן, אֲבָל בְּבַת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מֶחֱצָה חוּלִּין וּמֶחֱצָה תְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states that there is a dispute with regard to how a priest must provide for the sustenance of his betrothed once the appointed time for the marriage arrives. **Rabbi Tarfon says: He may give her everything** from ***teruma*.** Rabbi Akiva says: He must give her half non-sacred food and half may be *teruma*. **Abaye said:** This **dispute** is referring **to a daughter** of **a priest** betrothed **to a priest. But** with regard to **an Israelite woman** who was betrothed **to a priest, all agree** that he must give her **half non-sacred** food **and half** may be ***teruma*.** A priest’s daughter is familiar with the *halakhot* of *teruma* and knows how to handle it when she is ritually impure, but when an Israelite woman is not yet familiar with these procedures, there is concern that she might defile the *teruma*. Consequently, she is given some non-sacred food to use as well.


###### Ketubot 58a:4
[Ketubot 58a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/58a:4)

וְאָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מַחְלוֹקֶת בַּאֲרוּסָה, אֲבָל בִּנְשׂוּאָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מֶחֱצָה חוּלִּין וּמֶחֱצָה תְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Abaye** also **said** that this **dispute** is referring only to **a betrothed woman** whose wedding date has arrived, **but** with regard to **a married woman, all agree** that her husband must give her **half** of her needs from **non-sacred** food **and half** may be ***teruma*,** as it is not appropriate for his wife to have to go to the trouble of selling *teruma* in order to obtain non-sacred food.


###### Ketubot 58a:5
[Ketubot 58a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/58a:5)

תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי, רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: נוֹתְנִין לָהּ הַכֹּל תְּרוּמָה. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: מֶחֱצָה חוּלִּין וּמֶחֱצָה תְּרוּמָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּבַת כֹּהֵן לְכֹהֵן, אֲבָל בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְכֹהֵן — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מֶחֱצָה חוּלִּין וּמֶחֱצָה תְּרוּמָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בַּאֲרוּסָה, אֲבָל בִּנְשׂוּאָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מֶחֱצָה חוּלִּין וּמֶחֱצָה תְּרוּמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**This is also taught** in a *baraita*: **Rabbi Tarfon says: He may give her everything** from ***teruma*,** and **Rabbi Akiva says: Half** must be **non-sacred** food **and half** may be ***teruma*. In what** case **is this statement said?** With regard to **a daughter** of **a priest** betrothed **to a priest. But** with regard to **an Israelite woman** betrothed **to a priest, all agree** that she gets **half non-sacred** food **and half** may be ***teruma*. In what** case **is this statement said? With regard to a betrothed woman, but with regard to a married woman, all agree** that he must give **half non-sacred** food **and half** may be ***teruma*.**


###### Ketubot 58a:6
[Ketubot 58a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/58a:6)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָא אוֹמֵר: נוֹתְנִין לָהּ שְׁתֵּי יָדוֹת שֶׁל תְּרוּמָה, וְאַחַת שֶׁל חוּלִּין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: נוֹתֵן לָהּ הַכֹּל תְּרוּמָה, וְהִיא מוֹכֶרֶת וְלוֹקַחַת בַּדָּמִים חוּלִּין. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁהוּזְכְּרָה תְּרוּמָה — נוֹתְנִין לָהּ כִּפְלַיִם בְּחוּלִּין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says:** He need not give half and half, but rather **he may give her two parts *teruma* and one** part **non-sacred** food. **Rabbi Yehuda says: He may give her all** of it **in *teruma*, but** as the value of *teruma* is lower than that of non-sacred food, the amount must suffice so that when **she sells** *teruma* during the days when she is ritually impure, **she can buy** a sufficient quantity of **non-sacred** food **with the money. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Wherever *teruma* is mentioned, he** must **give her double** the amount that she would receive **of non-sacred food,** so that she will not have difficulty locating buyers for her *teruma*. *Teruma* is less popular and its price is significantly lower, since its use is restricted. But if she receives a large amount of *teruma*, she will be able to sell it at an even lower price and locate a buyer more easily.


###### Ketubot 58a:7
[Ketubot 58a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/58a:7)

מַאי בֵּינַיְיהוּ? אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ טִירְחָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **What is** the difference **between** the opinions of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? The Gemara answers: **The** practical difference **between them** is with regard to **effort.** According to Rabbi Yehuda, she must make an effort to find buyers who will provide her with enough non-sacred food for her needs, and consequently, according to him the husband must provide an amount of *teruma* that is equal in value to the amount of non-sacred food to which she is entitled. In contrast, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel adds additional *teruma* to her allotment beyond this amount, so that she will not be forced to go to as much trouble to sell it.


###### Ketubot 58a:8
[Ketubot 58a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/58a:8)

הַיָּבָם אֵינוֹ מַאֲכִיל בִּתְרוּמָה. מַאי טַעְמָא? ״קִנְיַן כַּסְפּוֹ״ אָמַר רַחֲמָנָא, וְהַאי קִנְיָן דְּאָחִיו הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states that **a *yavam* does not enable** the *yevama* **to partake of *teruma*.** The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this? **The Merciful One states** in the Torah: **“The acquisition of his money”** (Leviticus 22:11) may partake of *teruma*, **but this** woman **is his brother’s acquisition** and not his, since a *yavam* does not complete his marriage to the *yevama* until he consummates the marriage.


###### Ketubot 58a:9
[Ketubot 58a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/58a:9)

עָשְׂתָה שִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים בִּפְנֵי הַבַּעַל. הַשְׁתָּא בִּפְנֵי הַבַּעַל אָמְרַתְּ לָא, בִּפְנֵי הַיָּבָם מִיבַּעְיָא?! ״זוֹ וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר זוֹ״ קָתָנֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna said that if **she completed six months** from the time of the request for marriage **under the aegis of the husband** and another six months under the aegis of the *yavam*, she may not partake of *teruma*. It then says that this is also true if she completed most of the year under the aegis of the husband, and then it says that this is also true if she completed most of the time under the aegis of the *yavam*. The Gemara asks: **Now** that **you say** that if she completed most of the time **under the aegis of the husband** this does **not** enable her to partake of *teruma*, **is** it **necessary** to say that the same is true if she spent most of the time **under the aegis of the *yavam*?** The Gemara answers: The *tanna* **teaches** the mishna employing the style: **This, and it is unnecessary to say that,** meaning that the cases are organized from the less obvious to the more obvious.


###### Ketubot 58a:10
[Ketubot 58a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/58a:10)

זוֹ מִשְׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה כּוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא? אָמַר עוּלָּא, וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר יְהוּדָה: מִשּׁוּם סִימְפּוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna states that **this** ruling, that a woman betrothed to a priest may partake of *teruma* while she is still in her father’s house if the time for her wedding has arrived, is according to the **initial** version of the **mishna.** But that according to the final version, she may not partake of *teruma* until she has actually entered the wedding canopy. The Gemara asks: **What is the reason** for this later ruling? **Ulla said, and some say** that **Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda** said, that it is **due to** concern about **abrogation,** as the woman may have some blemish that will cause the annulment of the marriage, and it will then be clear that she consumed *teruma* unlawfully.


###### Ketubot 58a:11
[Ketubot 58a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/58a:11)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְעוּלָּא, קַמַּיְיתָא שֶׁמָּא יִמְזְגוּ לָהּ כּוֹס בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ, וּבָתְרָיְיתָא מִשּׁוּם סִימְפּוֹן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: **Granted, according to** the opinion of **Ulla, the first** ruling that the Sages taught in the initial version of the mishna, namely that she may not partake of *teruma* in her father’s house immediately after betrothal, is because Ulla was concerned **lest** someone **pour her a cup** of *teruma* wine while she would be **in her father’s house. And the latter** ruling, that she may not partake of *teruma* until she actually enters the wedding canopy, even after the time for marriage arrives, is **due to** concern about **abrogation.** Consequently, there are two different reasons for the two different rulings.