Please note that unless otherwise indicated, we follow the explanation of Rashi. Our notes and comments do not necessarily have a bearing on the practical Halachah.

1)

(a) The Chachamim instituted that a Besulah should marry on Wednesday - because Beis-Din would sit on Mondays and Thursdays. Consequently, marrying on Wednesday will give the husband the opportunity of immediately taking his wife to Beis-Din, should he have a Ta'anas Besulim (a claim that she was not really a Besulah - that she had committed adultery between the betrothal and the marriage).

(b) It is essential to take her to Beis-Din immediately if he has a Ta'anas Besulim - because we are afraid that otherwise, his anger might cool down, and he will forgive her; whereas, if she is guilty of having committed adultery whilst they were betrothed, he is forbidden to live with her (as we see in Sotah 28a.).

(c) An Almanah gets married - on Thursday.

(a) We learned in a Mishnah in Af-al-Pi that a Besulah is given twelve months from the time of the betrothal to prepare for the wedding. The equivalent period given to an Almanah - is thirty days.

(b) If the twelve month period terminates and the Chasan postpones the wedding - he is obligated to feed his Kalah, and, if he is a Kohen, she is permitted to eat Terumah.

(c) Rav Yosef quoting Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel tried to give that as a reason for 'Besulah Niseis le'Yom ha'Revi'i ... ' - in a case when the twelve-month period terminated on a Monday, in which case, due to the fact that the postponement of the wedding is now the result of the Takanas Chachamim to marry on Wednesday (and not to his delaying it), he will not be obligated to feed her until Wednesday.

(d) He queried this however, because of the argument 'Marei de'Avraham, Tali Tanya be'de'Lo Tanya!' Rav Yosef might have been querying his Rebbe. However, he might also have been querying his own version of his Rebbe's statement - because at one stage, Rav Yosef became ill and forgot all his learning.

(a) The statement of Rav Yosef 'Tali Tanya be'de'Lo Tanya!' is incorrect - because both the statement in our Mishnah and that in the Mishnah in Af-al-Pi are explicit.

(b) What he really meant to ask was - how can Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel give a new reason for our Mishnah when the reason is clearly stated.

(c) In fact, Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel was coming to answer why the Chachamim fixed Wednesday for wedding of a Besulah, and not Sunday - because based on the fact that, in those days it was the Chasan who organized the wedding, they made sure that the Kalah received a fair deal by giving the Chasan three days (Sunday, Monday and Tuesday) to prepare the wedding-feast (known as Takanas 'Shakdu'). Note: We are dealing with an era that was both pre-fridge and pre-catering.

(d) Now we can extrapolate from the Takanah of 'Shakdu' - that if the twelve-month period terminates in Sunday or Monday, then, due to the fact that the postponement of the wedding is the result of the Takanas Chachamim to marry on Wednesday (and not to the Chasan's delaying it), he will not be obligated to feed the Kalah until Wednesday.

(a) Rav Yosef extrapolates from the above Din of O'nes - that if Wednesday arrives and he or she is sick or she becomes a Nidah - he is not obligated to feed her, since here too, the delay is beyond their control.

(b) Others are not so sure about this. His illness on the Wednesday might be different than the twelve months falling on Monday - since the latter can be ascribed to the Chachamim, whereas the former, when all's said and done, is *his* fault (as far as the Kalah is concerned).

(c) And even assuming that if ...

1. ... the Chasan is ill on the due date, he still has to sustain her, he might be exempt if *she* were to be ill. Yet he might well remain obligated to sustain her even then - because she can tell him that it's his tough luck.
2. ... she can say that her illness is tough luck on him, she cannot say this if she becomes a Nidah in her fixed time - because it is clearly predestined and 'her fault'.

(d) This might not apply however, if she becomes a Nidah outside of her fixed time, seeing as it is then unforseeable. She might nevertheless not be able to claim that it is his tough luck - because it is common for a woman to have a sighting outside her regular period, so here too, the blame is on her. (See Tosfos DH 'Matzya', as to why we might ascribe her sighting to his tough luck and not to her's).

5)

(a) Rav Acha tries to resolve this She'eilah from the Mishnah in Af-al-Pi that we quoted earlier 'Hi'gi'a Z'man *ve'Lo Nis'u*, Ochlos mi'she'Lo ve'Ochlos bi'Terumah' - implying that it was the women who postponed the marriage and not the men.

(b) The Tana cannot be referring to a case where the women deliberately postponed the wedding - because then, why should the Chasanim become obligated to feed them? So it can only be referring to a case when they fell ill or became Nidos.

(c) Rav Ashi refutes the proof. He explains - that the Tana is referring to a case when it is the Chasan who postponed the wedding, and that really, he ought to have written 'Lo Nas'u'. Only because in the Reisha, he referred to the woman (Besulah Niseis ... ), he said 'Lo Nis'u' in the Seifa, too.

(a) When Rava says that Gitin is different - he means that although we just learned that if circumstances beyond the Chasan's control prevent him from marrying his betrothed at the appointed time, he is exempt from feeding her from then on, we will not say this by Gitin (and if a man gives his wife a Get to take effect should he not return by a certain date, the Get comes into effect even if he is deterred by unforeseen circumstances from returning.

(b) We try to infer Rava's principle from the Mishnah in Gitin 'Harei Zeh Gitech im Lo Ba'si mi'Kahn ve'ad Sh'neim-Asar Chodesh u'Meis be'Toch Sh'neim-Asar Chodesh, Eino Get' - 'Meis Eino Get, Ha Chalah, Harei Zeh Get'.

(c) The Get is not valid when the husband dies during the twelve month period - because of the principle 'Ein Get le'Achar Misah'.

(d) We refute this proof - on the grounds that the Tana may be coming to teach us the this very principle 'Ein Get le'Achar Misah' (in which case, we cannot make any inferences from it), and Chalah will have the same Din as Meis.

(a) The Reisha of the above Mishnah says (with regard to a dying man who gives a Get to his wife and says 'This is your Get should I die' or 'This is your Get from after this illness', and then dies) - the Get is invalid, because of 'Ein Get le'Achar Misah'. In that case, we do not need to learn it from the Seifa (which will then be open to the inference that we made earlier to prove Rava's principle 'Ein O'nes be'Gitin').

(b) We conclude however, that there is still no proof from the (Reisha de') Seifa however (that 'Ein O'nes be'Gitin'), because maybe the Tana comes to preclude from Raboseinu who hold in turn, like Rebbi Yossi - who says 'Z'mano shel Sh'tar Mochi'ach Alav'. This is because, seeing as the document was dated proves that the person who wrote the document wanted it to be effective from the time it was written. Our case too, speaks when the Get is dated, and the Chidush is that, in spite of this, the get is not valid when the husband stipulated that it should be valid after his death, because the Get is only valid when it is given to the woman and not retroactively from the time that it is written.

(c) Neither can the (Seifa de') Seifa of the Mishnah 'me'Achshav, im Lo Ba'si mi'Kahn ve'ad Sh'neim-Asar Chodesh, u'Meis be'Toch Sh'neim-Asar Chodesh, Harei Zeh Get' be Rava's source - because that ruling is confined to when the Chasan died, where the purpose of the Get was to exempt his wife from Yibum, and where he obviously wants the get to be valid retroactively, should he die, but not necessarily to when he is prevented from returning because of illness.

(a) The man who said that if he did not return within thirty days then the Get that he gave his wife would become valid - arrived at the end of the thirty-day period, but was prevented from arriving on time by the fact that there was no ferry to take him across the river. He shouted that he was coming, but to no avail.

(b) There is no proof for Rava (that 'Ein O'nes be'Gitin') from Shmuel, who ruled there that the Get was valid - because that was an O'nes that was foreseeable, and he had only himself to blame for not making the necessary stipulation in advance, but perhaps by an unpredictable O'nes, we will say 'Yesh O'nes be'Gitin'.

(c) We therefore conclude - that Rava did not base his statement on any source, and that 'Ein O'nes be'Gitin' is his own Chidush.

(d) His reason is because of P'rutzos and because of Tz'nu'os.

1. P'rutzos - refers to women who will exploit the Halachah (that 'Yesh O'nes be'Gitin'), and, when really, an O'nes did occur (in which case, they are not divorced), they will claim that it was not an O'nes, in order to becomes permitted to remarry.
2. ... Tz'nu'os - that sometimes, no O'nes occurred to prevent the Get from being valid, and really the woman is divorced, but she will think that really, an O'nes did occur, and she will be afraid to remarry, and remain an Agunah.