I could think of little better in traveling to Brooklyn on Thursday late afternoon to join in the Siyum than to leave early enough to afford some time browsing in Eichler’s Judaica store. There my travels were rewarded with a sumptuous volume of R’ Adin Steinsaltz’s Koren Bavli Tamud Noé edition of כתובות. From its introduction:
“The relationship between husband and wife within the framework of marriage is founded upon a system of mutual commitments fashioned on the basis of provisions and arrangements agreed upon by the parties. This system of arrangements in set out in a contract formulated by the husband and wife or their representatives, the marriage contract (כְּתוּבָה). This כְּתוּבָה is fundamentally a written (כתוב) contract, and is characterized in that manner because it is, for all intents and purposes, the only written document that every person requires. Since the provisions between husband and wife are articulated in the marriage contract, it is clear that the discussion in the tractate כתובות is fundamentally a comprehensive analysis of the marital rights and obligations …
… The sum of the marriage contract of a virgin is two hundred dinars, and of a non-virgin, one hundred dinars. A fundamental question relates to the definition of a virgin for these purposes. Is this a medical-biological definition or is it merely a legal definition? Is a virgin a woman whose hymen is intact, a woman who has never engaged in intercourse, or a woman who never married? One a related note, who are the women with the presumptive status of a virgin, and who are the women who have lost that presumptive status?”
With that introduction, we begin our first Mishnah:
בְּתוּלָה נִשֵּׂאת לַיּוֹם הָרְבִיעִי וְאַלְמָנָה לַיּוֹם הַחֲמִישִׁי. שֶׁפַּעֲמַיִם בְּשַׁבָּת בָּתֵּי דִינִין יוֹשְׁבִין בָּעֲיָירוֹת: בַּיּוֹם הַשֵּׁנִי וּבַיּוֹם הַחֲמִישִׁי, שֶׁאִם הָיָה לוֹ טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים, הָיָה מַשְׁכִּים לְבֵית דִּין
A virgin is married on Wednesday and a widow on Thursday. The reason for the former is that twice a week courts convene in the towns, on Monday and Thursday, so that if the husband had a claim concerning the bride’s virginity when consummating the marriage on Wednesday night, he would go early the next day to court and make his claim.
Rabbi Stern interjected an interesting etymological speculation here (via his son, Simcah, through Rav Meir Shapiro) about the origin of the word “Wednesday”. English as a language is comprised of words imported from older languages, most notably Latin and Greek. But some are from Hebrew such as ash derived from אֵשׁ; or camel from גָמָל. An even more interesting example is the word “fruit” which stems from פֵּרֹות, and can be transliterated as “פְרוּתּ”. It might therefore be that the name “Wednesday” derived from couples being wed on that day. If you search online, you’ll find that many people think that Wednesday may actually derive from the Old English Wōdnesdæg and Middle English Wednesdei, meaning “day of Woden”.
While contemporary wedding planners urge a return to Wednesday weddings due to considerations of budget and hall availability, that was the norm in the time of the Talmud. The ריטב״א points out the language of our Mishnah that בְּתוּלָה נִשֵּׂאת “לְיּוֹם” הָרְבִיעִי, that a virgin is married “to” the fourth day of the week (Wednesday) rather than “בְּיּוֹם”, “on” the fourth day. He notes that this alludes to the fact cited later in the Gemara that the wedding is postponed to Wednesday even if the time was originally designated for the marriage earlier in the week. Interestingly, as the Steinsaltz notes point out, the Yerushalmi edition of כתובות begins with the variant of בְּתוּלָה נִשֵּׂאת בְּיּוֹם הָרְבִיעִי.
Regarding the last phrase in the Mishnah, שֶׁאִם הָיָה לוֹ טַעֲנַת בְּתוּלִים, הָיָה מַשְׁכִּים לְבֵית דִּין, ArtScroll comments that the Rabbis instituted marriage on Wednesday so that in the event the groom discovers on the wedding night that his wife is not a virgin, he will go to court first thing in the morning before his anger has a chance to cool. ArtScroll further comments that his appearance in court may prompt witnesses to step forward and testify that the bride had an adulterous affair in the time interval between קִידוּשִׁין and נִישׂוּאִין which, in those days, was often up to a year’s time.
In the absence of witnesses, however, there is a “סְפֶק סְפֵיקָא” or double doubt. One doubt is whether she engaged in relations with another man willingly, and the second is whether the relations occurred prior to קִידוּשִׁין. Therefore in the absence of witnesses
The Gemara expounds on the Mishnah:
אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מִפְּנֵי מָה אָמְרוּ בְּתוּלָה נִשֵּׂאת לַיּוֹם הָרְבִיעִי? לְפִי שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: הִגִּיעַ זְמַן וְלֹא נִישְּׂאוּ — אוֹכְלוֹת מִשֶּׁלּוֹ, וְאוֹכְלוֹת בִּתְרוּמָה
Rav Yosef said that Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Due to what reason did they say that a virgin is married on Wednesday? It is because we learned in a mishnah elsewhere (57a): If the time that the groom designated for the wedding arrived, and the wedding was postponed, and they were not married, the brides are entitled to eat from his food and, if he is a כֹּהֵן, eat teruma.
What do we mean specifically by “הִגִּיעַ זְמַן וְלֹא נִישְּׂאוּ”? Rashi explains that the default time period between קִידוּשִׁין and נִישׂוּאִין that the first time bride has to prepare herself and her belongings to move in with the groom, in the event that he did not specify a נִישׂוּאִין date, is 12 months after קִידוּשִׁין:
לקמן בפרק אע”פ תנן נותנין לבתולה שנים עשר חדש משתבעה הבעל והזהיר על הנישואין לפרנס עצמה בתכשיטין
When blogging on Mo’ed Katan, Megillah, and Chagigah, prior to Yevamos, I cited Rabbi Daniel Friedman liberally from his Transformative Daf series. If you’re wondering why there were no citations from him on Yevamos, there’s a simple explanation. Thus far, understandably, he has taken a pass on writing a Transformative Daf volume or series on Yevamos. And I can’t say I blame him! He did do a podcast with several entries on Yevamos, and quickly switched over to a 38 part series on Shulchan Aruch, and has continued that now with his podcast series on Kesubos. His first podcast on Kesubos is a reading of the first entry in his print edition of The Transformative Daf. It features the following passage from דף ב עמוּד ב:
הָהוּא 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
There was once a man who prepared a גֶט with the instructions: If I do not return from now until after 30 days have passed, let this גֶט take effect. He came at the end of 30 days, but was prevented from crossing the river because the ferry was running late. He shouted to them: “See, I’ve arrived! See, I’ve arrived! Shmuel said: This is not considered to be an on-time arrival.
Rabbi Friedman writes: Picture the scene. A couple is on the verge of getting divorced. They decide on a trial separation period of 30 days. Not knowing where he’s off to, she wants his guarantee that she won’t be left an aguanah. He agrees to write a conditional גֶט that states that if by the end of 30 days matters aren’t resolved, the divorce will be finalized. Day 30 arrives and there’s no sign of the husband. Suddenly, at the eleventh hour, they hear shouting coming from the other side of the river. “I’m here! I’m here!” he cries. “I’ve decided to make it up to you and the kids. I’ll be there for you. I’ve seen the error of my ways!” But alas, he’s missed the last ferry across the river. And now it’s too late. Time’s up. The divorce is finalized.
On that note, I turn you over to Rabbi Stern’s video for the opening of כְּתוּבוֹת.
Pressvision's Blog 