In the two lashonos of Shmuel dealing with the nafkemina of yom rishon not being a zman nesuin, it quotes a later mishna "ochlos mishelo, v'ochlos btrumah." However when it states what we might have thought without the din of our mishna, it omits the din of trumah. This occurs in both versions of Shmuel's memra.
Is there some other reason to think that he anyway would not (or anyway must) supply trumah. I have noticed that Rashi points out that the din of mezonos is drabonon, while her zechuyos in trumah are, generally, mdoraysa. Also, the gemara states in the later mishna that we have other concerns about truma, such as that she may give it to her sister. Could either of these be related to the answer why Shmuel doesn't seem to hav a hava amina regarding truma under the case of hagaas zman in our mishna?
Martin Epstein, New York, NY
It is pretty clear that there is no reason for Shmuel to discuss Achilas Terumah (i.e. from Sunday at the end of 12 months and on). This is true for a number of reasons:
1. Shmuel is discussing the obligations of the husband, and whether the Takanah d'Rabanan excuses him from delaying the wedding and therefore exempts him from his obligations. Eating Terumah has nothing to do with this; it is simply a right of the Arusah after her husband starts feeding her. (That is, she can eat anyone's Terumah; it is her prerogative.)
2. Although the "Mishnah Rishonah" allows her to eat Terumah after 12 months, that is not the case l'Halachah. The Mishnah concludes that a later Beis Din instituted that an Arusah may not eat Terumah until she enters the Chupah.
3. Eating Terumah is just a result of the fact that he is obligated to feed his wife after 12 months (according to the Mishnah Rishonah). It is not a Halachah that is connected to the end of 12 months in its own right (Gemara Kesuvos 57b and Rashi 58b DH Shemah Bedikah). Thus there is no point in discussing it here; the focus is on whether he feeds her or not, and it is obvious that the other effects of feeding her, such the Halachah that she may start eating Terumah from that time, follow.
If so, there is nothing unexpected about the fact that Shmuel does not discuss eating Terumah. What is strange, is why the Gemara quotes those words from the Mishnah (57a) here at all. Let it just say, "That which we learned that afer 12 months he must support his wife" without concluding "and she may eat Terumah." If you are asking why the Gemara cited that part of the Mishnah, you have a very good question indeed!
The oversimplistic answer is that Gemara "wasn't careful" to stop the quote in the right place. It concluded the entire phrase since it was used to quoting that entire phrase elsewhere (e.g. Kesuvos 48b). Although this does seem to be the only explanation for why the Gemara quotes "v'Ochlos b'Terumah" on Daf 70b, it is not a very satisfactory answer.
I think that the Gemara wants to clarify that feeding the wife after 12 months is not a penalty (a Kenas). Rather, it is a monetary obligation that he subjected himself to from the time of the Erusin. This it proves from the fact that she may eat Terumah after 12 months. Had it just been a penalty, there would be no point in being lenient for her (as a penalty to him) and allowing her to eat Terumah. Besides, the reasons the Gemara gives for allowing her to eat Terumah then would not be valid if it were a Kenas (see Rashi 58b Shemah Bedikah, and Gemara 57b "he sets aside a place for her...").
The reason the Gemara has to prove that it is not a Kenas is in order to make its point that the Takanah of SHakdu is what exempts the husband from paying for Mezonos from Sunday.
As we explained in the Insights, the Gemara implies that had the reason not to get married on Sunday been due to Berachah d'Dagim, it would not have excused him from the monetary obligation to his wife to support her. (See copy of Insights below.) However, if the only reason he had to support her after 12 months was because of a Kenas, it is obvious that even the excuse of Berachah d'Dagim would be enough to exempt him from warranting a Kenas. Any excuse will do, even if it does not involve the woman's benefit as opposed to the man's. The same would apply to Chalah Hu etc. -- he would clearly not get a Kenas if he didn't marry due to lack of health.
Let me know what you think of this. Be well,
Copy of Insights to Kesuvos 2:1
1) THE "TAKANAH" OF "SHAKDU"
QUESTION: Rav Yosef quotes Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel, who teaches that the reason one must get married on Wednesday and not on Sunday is because of the enactment of "Shakdu." The Rabanan were concerned for the honor of Jewish women and they enacted that a man must get married on Wednesday, in order that he spend three days (Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday) preparing a respectable Se'udah for the wedding. Since one is required to get married on Wednesday because of the enactment of "Shakdu," if an engaged couple's twelve-month period of Erusin ends on a Sunday, the man is not obligated to pay for his bride's support ("Mezonos"), since he can justifiably claim that he is not required to marry her until Wednesday due to the Takanah d'Rabanan.
It seems from the wording of the statement of Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel that our Mishnah (which states that the reason for delaying the wedding until Wednesday is in order to provide the opportunity to go to Beis Din on Thursday if the man has a Ta'anas Besulim) does not provide sufficient reason for why the husband is justified in not paying the wife when the twelve-month period of Erusin ends on a Sunday, and he delays marrying until Wednesday. It is only the additional reason of "Shakdu" which the Beraisa introduces that justifies not paying the wife "Mezonos" in such a situation.
Why is this the only reason for not having to pay support for the woman? Why do we need the reason of "Shakdu" in order to exempt him from Mezonos? Our Mishnah teaches that there is a Takanah d'Rabanan that one must get married on Wednesday; that Takanah should be sufficient reason to exempt him from paying Mezonos!
(a) TOSFOS (DH v'Tinasei), as explained by the SHITAH MEKUBETZES and the MAHARSHA, explains that there is another factor which requires that a person get married on Wednesday. The Gemara (5a) tells us that one should get married on Wednesday in order to perform the Be'ilas Mitzvah at the beginning of Thursday (Wednesday night), because it was on the original Thursday that Hash-m gave a Berachah to the fish to multiply. Therefore, it is a good omen if one performs the Be'ilas Mitzvah on Thursday (Wednesday night).
Had we not learned in a Beraisa the reason of "Shakdu" for marrying on Wednesday, we might have thought that the Mishnah instructs that one should get married on Wednesday (and not Sunday) simply because of the Berachah that Hash-m gave to the fish. If that would be the reason to get married on Wednesday (as opposed to Sunday), though, then it would not suffice to exempt the husband from paying Mezonos to his wife when the twelve-month period of Erusin ends on Sunday. The good omen of the Berachah of the fish does not obligate one to get married on Wednesday. It is merely recommended that he do so, as good advice. Since the Berachah of the fish does not obligate him to get married on Wednesday, he cannot claim that he is unable to get married on Sunday, and thus he would have to pay Mezonos to his wife. Furthermore, the reason of Berachah does not exempt him from paying Mezonos because it benefits him and not her, since he is the one who is obligated to fulfill the Mitzvah of "Piryah v'Rivyah." Therefore he cannot exempt himself from paying Mezonos until Wednesday comes, because his delay until Wednesday is for his benefit and not hers.
However, now that the reason for getting married on Wednesday is "Shakdu," it is an established enactment of the Rabanan that one is obligated to get married on Wednesday and is not permitted to get married on any other day. Furthermore, the enactment of "Shakdu" is for her benefit and not for his benefit, and therefore he can claim that he cannot marry her until Wednesday and exempt himself from paying Mezonos until then.
(b) The TOSFOS HA'ROSH (quoting his Rebbi, the MAHARAM) suggests a different explanation for the Gemara, according to which our question is also answered differently.
From the words of the Mishnah it is not clear that a person must get married on Wednesday, Perhaps the Mishnah means that one must perform the Be'ilas Mitzvah on Wednesday night, but he may get married on any day of the week as long as he waits to do the Be'ilas Mitzvah until Wednesday night (either because of the Berachah to fish, or because of Ta'anas Besulim). Even though the Mishnah says that "a Besulah must get married on Wednesday," perhaps the Mishnah means that the Be'ilah must be done on Wednesday night and it is merely expressing this in a nicer way. Alternatively, the Mishnah is saying that since the Be'ilas Mitzvah cannot be done until Wednesday night, it is advisable to get married then and not earlier.
Accordingly, if the twelve-month period ends on a Sunday, then she should be able to insist on getting married then (and just waiting until Wednesday night for the Be'ilah), and if he does not agree to get married he must pay her the Mezonos. Now, however, that the Beraisa teaches that the Rabanan instituted getting married on Wednesday because of "Shakdu," it is clear that the Mishnah is not just discussing the Be'ilas Mitzvah, but it is discussing the date of the actual marriage. The Rabanan instituted that the marriage itself must be on Wednesday (so that he can prepare the wedding banquet starting three days in advance). Since the enactment was that he get married Wednesday, he may exempt himself from paying Mezonos, if the twelve month period ends on a Sunday, because the Rabanan did not permit him to get married until Wednesday.