Ketubot

and her kethubah  was lost. When they came before R. Joseph  he said to them, Thus said Rab Judah in the name of Samuel: This  is the opinion of R. Meir,  but the Sages ruled that a man may live with his wife without a kethubah for two or three years.  Said Abaye to him:  But did not R. Nahman state in the name of Samuel that the halachah is in agreement with R. Meir in his preventive measures?  — If so, [the other replied] go and write one  for her. When R. Dimi came  he stated in the name of R. Simeon b. Pazzi in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi who had it from Bar Kappara: The dispute  refers to the beginning,  but at the end  she cannot, according to the opinion of all, surrender  [any portion of her kethubah].  R. Johanan, however stated that their dispute extended to both cases.  Said R. Abbahu: [The following] was explained to me by R. Johanan: 'I and R. Joshua b. Levi do not dispute with one another. The "beginning" of which R. Joshua b. Levi spoke means  the beginning of [the meeting in] the bridal chamber, and by the "end" was meant  the termination of the intercourse;  and when I stated that the dispute extended to both cases [I meant] the beginning [of the meeting in] the bridal chamber and the end of that meeting which is the beginning of the intercourse.' When Rabin came  he stated in the name of R. Simeon b. Pazzi in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi who had it from Bar Kappara. The dispute refers only to the end, but at the beginning she may, so is the opinion of all, renounce  [any portion of her kethubah].  R. Johanan, however, stated that their dispute extended to both cases. Said R. Abbahu: This was explained to me by R. Johanan: 'I and R. Joshua b. Levi do not dispute with one another. The "end" of which R. Joshua b. Levi spoke meant the end of [the meeting in] the bridal chamber, and by the "beginning" was meant the beginning of [the meeting in] the bridal chamber; and when I stated that the dispute extended to both cases [I meant] the beginning,  and the termination of the intercourse.' Said R. Papa: Had not R. Abbahu stated, 'This was explained to me by R. Johanan: "I and R. Joshua b. Levi do not dispute with one another"' I would have submitted that R. Johanan and R. Joshua b. Levi were in dispute while R. Dimi and Rabin  were not in dispute. The 'end' of which Rabin spoke might mean  the end of [the meeting in] the bridal chamber, and the 'beginning' of which R. Dimi spoke might mean  the beginning of the intercourse.  What does he  teach us thereby?  — It is this that he teaches us: [It is preferable to assume]  that two Amoraim differ in their own opinions  rather than that two Amoraim should differ as to what was the view of another Amora. MISHNAH. A VIRGIN IS ALLOWED TWELVE MONTHS FROM THE [TIME HER INTENDED] HUSBAND CLAIMED HER,  [IN WHICH] TO PREPARE HER MARRIAGE OUTFIT.  AND, AS [SUCH A PERIOD] IS ALLOWED FOR THE WOMAN, SO IS IT ALLOWED FOR THE MAN FOR HIS OUTFIT.  FOR A WIDOW  THIRTY DAYS [ARE ALLOWED]. IF THE RESPECTIVE PERIODS EXPIRED  AND THEY WERE NOT MARRIED  THEY  ARE ENTITLED TO MAINTENANCE OUT OF THE MAN'S ESTATE  AND [IF HE IS A PRIEST] MAY ALSO EAT TERUMAH. R. TARFON SAID: ALL [THE SUSTENANCE] FOR SUCH A WOMAN MAY BE GIVEN OF TERUMAH.  R. AKIBA SAID: ONE HALF OF UNCONSECRATED FOOD  AND ONE HALF OF TERUMAH. A LEVIR  [WHO IS A PRIEST] DOES NOT CONFER [UPON HIS SISTER-IN-LAW]  THE RIGHT OF EATING TERUMAH.  IF SHE  HAD SPENT SIX MONTHS  WITH  HER HUSBAND AND SIX MONTHS WITH  THE LEVIR,  OR EVEN [IF SHE SPENT] ALL OF THEM  WITH HER HUSBAND LESS ONE DAY WITH  THE LEVIR,  OR ALL OF THEM  WITH  THE LEVIR  LESS ONE DAY WITH HER HUSBAND,  SHE IS NOT PERMITTED TO EAT TERUMAH.  THIS  [WAS THE RULING ACCORDING TO] AN EARLIER MISHNAH.  THE COURT, HOWEVER, THAT SUCCEEDED  RULED: