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.

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.

§ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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: