Study Ketubot folio 2B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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?
Rav Aḥai resolved these dilemmas through a careful reading of the Mishnah: 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 mar
The Talmud 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.,
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 Mishnah is referring to a case where grooms postpone the wedding. And by right, the tanna should have taught: They didn’t marry,
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 lega