1)

(a)A Ta'anas Besulim is - a claim that the Besulah that he married on the previous day was not really a Besulah, and that she must have therefore committed adultery between the betrothal and the marriage.

(b)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 against her.

(c)It is essential for a husband to take her to Beis-Din immediately if he has a Ta'anas Besulim - because we are afraid that otherwise, his anger might abate, 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 learn in Sotah).

(d)An Almanah gets married - on Thursday.

2)

(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 time 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 tries to give this as a reason for 'Besulah Niseis l'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 d'Avraham, Tali Tanya b'de'Lo Tanya!' Rav Yosef might have been querying his Rebbe (we will elaborate shortly). However, he might have been querying his own version of his Rebbe's statement - because at one stage, Rav Yosef became ill and forgot all his learning.

3)

(a)Rav Yosef's exclamation 'Tali Tanya b'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 means to ask is - 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 is coming to answer why the Chachamim fixed Wednesday for wedding of a Besulah, and not Sunday. It is - 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 on 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.

4)

(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 his control.

(b)Others are not so sure about this. His illness on 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), and not that of Beis-Din.

(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 is the one to be ill. Yet he might be 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 that 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 unforeseeable. 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, in which case, the blame is on her in this case, too. (See Tosfos DH 'Matzya').

5)

(a)Rav Acha tries to resolve this She'eilah from the Mishnah in Af-al-Pi that we quoted earlier 'Higia Zman v'Lo Nis'u, Ochlos mi'she'Lo v'Ochlos bi'Terumah' - implying that it was the woman who postponed the marriage and not the man.

(b)The Tana cannot be referring to a case where the woman 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 she fell ill or became a Nidah.

(c)Rav Ashi refutes Rav Acha's proof. In his opinion - 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 Nises ... ), he said 'Lo Nis'u' in the Seifa, too.

6)

(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)The principle that serves as the basis of Rava's ruling is - 'Ein Ones b'Gitin'.

(c)We try to learn Rava's principle from the Mishnah in Gitin 'Harei Zeh Gitech im Lo Ba'si mi'Kan v'ad ShneimAsar Chodesh u'Mes b'Toch Shneim-Asar Chodesh, Eino Get' - by making the inference that in the event that she becomes ill, the get is nevertheless effective.

(d)The Get is not valid if the husband dies during the twelve month period - due to the principle 'Ein Get l'Achar Misah' (There is no Get after death).

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

7)

(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) - that the Get is invalid, because of 'Ein Get l'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 b'Gitin').

(b)We conclude however, that there is still no proof from the Reisha of the Seifa however (that 'Ein O'nes b'Gitin'), because maybe the Tana comes to preclude from Raboseinu who hold in turn, like Rebbi Yosi - who says 'Zmano shel Shtar Mochi'ach Alav'. This is because, seeing as the document was dated proves that the person who wrote it 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 of the Seifa of the Mishnah ('me'Achshav, im Lo Ba'si mi'Kan v'ad Shneim Asar Chodesh, u'Mes b'Toch Shneim Asar Chodesh, Harei Zeh Get') serve as 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.

8)

(a)The man who said that if he did not return within thirty days, 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 Oneis b'Gitin') from Shmuel, who ruled there that the Get was valid - because that was an Oneis that was foreseeable, and he had only himself to blame for not making the necessary stipulation in advance, but perhaps by an unpredictable Onei, we will say 'Yesh Ones b'Gitin'.

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

(d)His reason is because of Prutzos ...

1. ... Prutzos - women who will exploit the Halachah (that 'Yesh Ones b'Gitin'), and, when really, an Ones did occur (in which case, they are not divorced), they will claim that it was not an Ones at all, in order to become permitted to remarry.

2. ... Tzenu'os - which means that sometimes, no Ones occurred to prevent the Get from being valid, and really the woman is divorced, but she will think that an O'nes did occur, and she will be afraid to remarry, thereby remaining an Agunah.