Ketubot 4 - July 10, 11 Tamuz

Today's daf is sponsored by Rebecca Samson in loving memory of her father, Shea Berger, Yehoshua Heschel ben Ephraim Yisroel HaLevi, on his second yahrzeit. Yihei Zichro Baruch.  Today’s daf is sponsored by Tamara Katz in memory of the yahrzeit of "my great grandmother Chaya bat Kayla Bracha and in appreciation of my mother who listened to my regular yevamot updates with patience - even when I wasn't always clear." A braita had mentioned that in a case of "oness"one can marry even on Monday. One possibility brought to explain what the case was, suggested it was when the father of the groom or mother of the bride died just before the wedding. If the food was already prepared they would allow the couple to get married and have conjugal relations and then bury the parents, have seven days of celebration, followed by seven days of mourning. The couple would sleep separately during that time. Why did it specifically mention the father of the groom and not the mother, the mother of the bride and not the father? Rav Chisda limits it to a case of when the water was already poured on the meat, as it will be a loss as it cannot be sold. Others limit Rav Chisda's statement: in the city, even if they put water, it can still be sold, in the villages even if they didn't put water, it can't be sold. If so, in what type of place was Rav Chisda's limitation meant for? A braita is brought in support of Rav Chisda. The braita states as we saw earlier that the couple separated after consummating the marriage and also in a case where a woman was in nidda at the wedding, and this supports Rabbi Yochanan who held that aveilut in private is practiced even in a case like this where aveilut is pushed off because of the wedding celebrations. Rav Yosef quoted Rava as saying the couple separates only if they didn't have relations. How does that make sense if the braita stated that they had relations? They distinguish between the case of aveilut (they separate in any case) and if the bride is a nidda (they separate only if they did not have conjugal relations). The reason is that the couple will very careful if she is a nidda not to have relations, but if it is aveilut, they may not. A braita is brought to raise a difficulty against that distinction, but it is resolved in two different ways.