Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

April 14, 2015 | 讻状讛 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Ketubot 71

诪注砖讛 讚讘讬转 讞讜专讜谉

the incident of Beit 岣ron, where an individual had vowed to prohibit his father from deriving benefit from him, and then in order to allow his father to come to the celebration of his son鈥檚 wedding, he gave all of his property to someone else as a gift. The recipient of the property was concerned that the vow would be transgressed by the father, so he consecrated the son鈥檚 property and declared that if he was not empowered to do so, then the original transfer of property as a gift would not be valid. Consequently, in the present case, the Sages are unconcerned by the artifice performed, while Rabbi Yosei is concerned with such artifice and therefore prohibits it.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬砖专讗诇 讞讚砖 讗讞讚 讜讻讜壮 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讛谞转 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 讞讚砖 诪诇讗 讜讞讚砖 讞住专 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

搂 It was taught in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: If the husband is an Israelite, then if his vow will remain in effect for up to one month, he may maintain her as his wife; and if it will be two months, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. But if he is a priest, then he is given extra time: If the vow will remain in effect for up to two months, he may maintain her, and if it will be three months, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. The Gemara is puzzled by Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement with regard to an Israelite: This is the same as the opinion of the first tanna. Abaye said: Concerning an Israelite, Rabbi Yehuda in fact does not disagree with the first tanna, but he comes to teach us that the halakha is different for the wife of a priest. Rava said: The practical difference between them is a full thirty-day month and a deficient month with twenty-nine days: The first tanna requires exactly thirty days, while Rabbi Yehuda requires one month, whether it is a full month or a deficient one.

讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诪驻专砖 讗讘诇 讘住转诐 讬讜爪讬讗 诇讗诇转专 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘住转诐 诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 驻转讞 诇谞讚专讜

Rav said: With regard to the thirty-day time frame, where the Sages established that a husband supports his wife through a trustee, they taught this only with regard to a case where he specifies a limited time during which the vow will be in effect. But if he vows without specification of an end point, he must divorce her immediately and give her the payment of her marriage contract. And Shmuel said: Even if he vowed without specification, he should not divorce her immediately, as perhaps he will discover an opening enabling the dissolution of his vow.

讜讛讗 讗讬驻诇讙讜 讘讬讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚转谞谉 讛诪讚讬专 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪转砖诪讬砖 讛诪讟讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬 砖讘转讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讘转 讗讞转 讜讗诪专 专讘 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪驻专砖 讗讘诇 讘住转诐 讬讜爪讬讗 诇讗诇转专 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘住转诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 驻转讞 诇谞讚专讜

The Gemara asks: But they have already disagreed about this issue one time with regard to a similar situation, as we learned in a mishna (61b): With regard to one who vows and obligates his wife, prohibiting her from engaging in marital relations with him, Beit Shammai say: If the vow will remain in effect for up to two weeks, he may maintain her as a wife, and Beit Hillel say the limit is one week. And with regard to this dispute, Rav said: The dispute is in a case where he specifies, but in the case of an unspecified vow, he must divorce her immediately and give her the payment of her marriage contract. And Shmuel said: Even in the case of an unspecified vow he also should not divorce her immediately, as perhaps he will discover an opening enabling the dissolution of his vow. If so, why does this dispute need to be repeated?

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讛讬讗 讘讛讛讬讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讘驻专谞住 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讚讗驻砖专 讘驻专谞住 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗讬 讗转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讚讗驻砖专 讘驻专谞住 讗讘诇 讘讛讛讬讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: It is necessary to state it twice, as, if it was stated only in that case, i.e., that of a vow rendering it prohibited for her to engage in sexual intercourse with him, then one may have said that in that case Rav says he must divorce her immediately, because it is impossible to compensate for the vow through a trustee. But in this case, where the vow rendered it prohibited for her to benefit from his property, for which it is possible to compensate through a trustee, we would say that he concedes to Shmuel that he should not divorce her immediately. And conversely, if it were stated in this case, i.e., that of a vow concerning sustenance, then one may have said in this case that Shmuel says he should not divorce her because it is possible to compensate for the vow through a trustee, but in that case, where he vows to prohibit her from engaging in marital relations with him, one would say he concedes to Rav that he must divorce her immediately. Therefore, it is necessary to record the dispute twice.

转谞谉 讛诪讚讬专 讗转 讗砖转讜 砖诇讗 转讟注讜诐 讗讞讚 诪讻诇 讛驻讬专讜转 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讻讗谉 讘住转诐 讻讗谉 讘诪驻专砖 讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 拽砖讬讗

We learned in the continuation of the mishna: One who vows and obligates his wife, requiring her not to taste a particular type of produce, must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. Granted that according to Rav, there is no contradiction between the two clauses of the mishna. It can be said that here it is referring to an unspecified vow, so he must divorce her immediately, and there, in the first clause, it is referring to a case where he specifies a time limit. But according to Shmuel, it is difficult.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讚专讛 讛讬讗 讜拽讬讬诐 诇讛 讗讬讛讜 讜拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讗爪讘注 讘讬谉 砖讬谞讬讛

The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where she vowed to prohibit herself from tasting the produce, and he ratified it for her and did not dissolve the vow. Since she made the vow, she certainly will not search for a way to dissolve it. Therefore, he must divorce her immediately. And Rabbi Meir, who is presumed to be the author of an unattributed opinion in a mishna, holds that when he ratifies her vow, he is putting his finger between her teeth, causing her to bite him, i.e., he is causing the vow to be in effect. If so, it is his responsibility, and he therefore must give her the payment of her marriage contract when he divorces her.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讗爪讘注 讘讬谉 砖讬谞讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讗砖讛 砖谞讚专讛 讘谞讝讬专 讜砖诪注 讘注诇讛 讜诇讗 讛驻专 诇讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讬讗 谞转谞讛 讗爪讘注 讘讬谉 砖讬谞讬讛 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 专爪讛 讛讘注诇 诇讛驻专 讬驻专 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘讗砖讛 谞讚专谞讬转 转爪讗 砖诇讗 讘讻转讜讘讛

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Meir hold that in this case he is putting his finger between her teeth, i.e., he is causing the vow to be in effect? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: A woman who vowed, prohibiting herself from benefiting from items that are prohibited to a nazirite, and her husband heard and did not nullify it, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda say: She already put her finger between her own teeth, i.e., she caused the vow to remain in effect. Therefore, if the husband wishes to nullify this vow, he may nullify it. And if he said: I do not want a vowing wife, she can be divorced without the payment of the marriage contract.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讗爪讘注 讘讬谉 砖讬谞讬讛 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 专爪讛 讛讘注诇 诇讛驻专 讬驻专 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘讗砖讛 谞讚专谞讬转 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛 讗讬驻讜讱 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讬讗 谞转谞讛

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Elazar say: By deciding not to nullify the vow, he is putting his finger between her teeth, i.e., he is causing the vow to be in effect, and therefore if the husband wishes to nullify the vow, he may nullify it. And if he said: I do not want a vowing wife, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. The Gemara answers: Reverse the opinions. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda say: He is putting his finger between her teeth. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Elazar say: She put her finger between her own teeth.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 谞转谞讛 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘注谞讬讜转 砖诇讗 谞转谉 拽爪讘讛

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei hold that she put her finger between her own teeth? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: One who vows and obligates his wife, requiring her not to adorn herself with a particular type of perfume, and Rabbi Yosei says: For poor women, when he did not establish a set amount of time for the vow, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract? According to the final explanation given by Shmuel, the mishna is referring to a case where the wife vowed and the husband ratified it, indicating that Rabbi Yosei also agrees that it is the husband鈥檚 responsibility, and therefore he must give her the payment of her marriage contract.

讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讬讗 谞转谞讛 讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 谞转谞讛 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬砖专讗诇 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讬拽讬讬诐

The Gemara answers: Say that the text of the baraita should read as follows: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei say: He is putting his finger between her teeth; Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar say: She put her finger between her own teeth. This way, there is no contradiction between statements attributed to either Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara asks further: And does Rabbi Yehuda hold that she put her finger between her own teeth? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: For an Israelite, if the vow is in effect for one day he may maintain her as his wife, but if the vow is in effect for two days he must divorce her and give her the payment of the marriage contract? According to the explanation that the mishna is referring to a case where she vowed and he ratified it, it would appear that Rabbi Yehuda also agrees that he is putting his finger between her teeth.

讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讬讗 谞转谞讛 讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讝讜讙讬 讝讜讙讬 拽转谞讬 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讬讗 谞转谞讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讜讛讗 住转诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara answers: Say the text of the dispute should read as follows: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei say he is putting his finger between her teeth, and Rabbi Elazar says she put her finger between her own teeth. And if you say the opinions of the tanna鈥檌m listed in the baraita are taught in pairs, and therefore it cannot be that three of them share the same opinion, say: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Elazar say she put her finger between her own teeth, while Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei say he is putting his finger between her teeth. And this particular unattributed opinion is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘注谞讬讜转 砖诇讗 谞转谉 拽爪讘讛 讗诇诪讗 讘注诇 诪爪讬 诪讬驻专 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讛讘注诇 诪讬驻专 讚讘专讬诐 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讗诐 讗专讞抓 讗诐 诇讗 讗专讞抓 讗诐 讗转拽砖讟 讗诐 诇讗 讗转拽砖讟 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬谉 讗诇讜 谞讚专讬 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 谞讚专讬 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讘砖专 讜砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讬讬谉 讜砖诇讗 讗转拽砖讟

Since the mishna has been explained as a case where the wife vowed and her husband ratified it, the Gemara asks about a different issue: And does Rabbi Yosei hold, for poor women, that when he did not establish a set amount of time for the vow he must divorce her? This means that apparently, a husband can nullify a wife鈥檚 vow not to adorn herself. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a different mishna (Nedarim 79a): These are the cases of a wife鈥檚 vow that the husband may nullify: Cases of vows that involve affliction, such as when the woman says: If I bathe, I forbid myself to benefit from it; or if she says: If I do not bathe, i.e., she vows not to bathe at all; or she vows: If I adorn myself; or vows: If I do not adorn myself, all of which cause her to suffer. Rabbi Yosei said: These are not vows of affliction, which the husband may nullify, but rather, these, i.e., the following, are vows of affliction: Such as when she vows that I will not eat meat, or that I will not drink wine, or even that I will not adorn myself

讘讘讙讚讬 爪讘注讜谞讬谉 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛

with colored garments, as not wearing colored garments can cause shame to her as well as to her husband. But vows that affect her alone are not considered vows of affliction. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where she vowed not to adorn herself with regard to matters that are between him and her, meaning that she vowed not to use a substance that removes her pubic hair. This is considered a matter between him and her, since the hair could interfere with sexual intercourse.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 讛讘注诇 诪讬驻专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 诪讬驻专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚讗转诪专 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讛讘注诇 诪讬驻专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 诪讬驻专 砖诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 砖讜注诇 砖诪转 讘注驻专 驻讬专

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said the husband can nullify his wife鈥檚 vow if it relates to matters that are between him and her, i.e., that disrupt normal, intimate relations between them. But according to the one who said the husband cannot nullify such vows, what can be said? The amora鈥檌m had a dispute concerning this question, as it is stated: With regard to vows related to matters that are between him and her, such as the example above, Rav Huna said that the husband can nullify his wife鈥檚 vow, while Rav Adda bar Ahava said the husband cannot nullify his wife鈥檚 vow, since it does not interfere with sexual intercourse between them. Rav Adda bar Ahava explains his opinion with an analogy: Since we have not found a fox that died in the dirt of a hole where it lives, so too here, although she grows her pubic hair, he will not be harmed by it, since he is familiar with her body.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚转诇讬谞讛讜 诇拽讬砖讜讟讬讛 讘转砖诪讬砖 讛诪讟讛 讚讗诪专讛 讬讗住专 讛谞讗转 转砖诪讬砖讱 注诇讬 讗诐 讗转拽砖讟 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗

Rather, with what are we dealing here? With a case where through her vow she made sexual intercourse contingent upon her adornment, as she said: The pleasure of intercourse with you is forbidden to me if I adorn myself, as Rav Kahana said that such language qualifies as matters between him and her, and a husband can nullify such a vow.

讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛谞讗转 转砖诪讬砖讬 注诇讬讱 讻讜驻讛 讜诪砖诪砖转讜 讛谞讗转 转砖诪讬砖讱 注诇讬 讬驻专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讚讘专 讛讗住讜专 诇讜

As Rav Kahana said: If the woman says to her husband: The pleasure of intercourse with me is forbidden to you, he may nevertheless compel her through legal and financial measures to fulfill her marital obligations and have sexual intercourse with him, since she does not have the power to render herself forbidden to him by a vow, due to her prior marital obligations. But if she says: The pleasure of intercourse with you is forbidden to me, this vow is valid but he may nullify it. Although she is obligated by the terms of the marriage to cohabit with him, she does not directly contravene her obligation but rather prohibits herself from deriving pleasure from sexual intercourse. Therefore, her husband may not compel her to engage in intercourse in violation of her vow, since one cannot feed a person an object which is forbidden to him. Instead, he may nullify it if he wishes.

讜诇讗 转转拽砖讟 讜诇讗 转讗住专 讗诐 讻谉 拽专讜 诇讛 诪谞讜讜诇转

The Gemara asks: And even if she creates this contingency by vowing that the pleasure of sexual intercourse will be forbidden to her if she adorns herself, let her not adorn herself and she will not be forbidden. Since the prohibition against intercourse created through her vow may never go into effect, the husband should not be able to nullify the vow, because a vow against adornment alone is not subject to the husband鈥檚 nullification. The Gemara answers: If so, they will call her repulsive when she does not adorn herself, and she cannot endure the embarrassment of such a situation. Therefore, it is assumed that she will eventually adorn herself at some point.

讜转转拽砖讟 讜转讗住专 讗讬 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 砖转讬 砖讘转讜转 讗讬 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 砖讘转 讗讞转 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讚专讛 讗讬讛讜 讚住讘专讛 诪讬专转讞 专转讞 注讬诇讜讗讬 讜讛砖转讗 诪讜转讬讘 讚注转讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚谞讚专讛 讗讬讛讬 讜砖转讬拽 诇讛 住讘专讛 诪讚讗讬砖转拽 诪讬住谞讗 讛讜讗 讚住谞讬 诇讬

The Gemara asks: And let her adorn herself and be prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse, and he can still maintain her. As was stated concerning one who prohibits himself from cohabiting with his wife, if according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, he may maintain her for two weeks; if according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, for one week. Why then did they require him to divorce her immediately? The Gemara answers: This applies only where he took a vow to render intercourse with her prohibited, as she thinks: He vowed because he is angry with me, but now he will calm down and dissolve the vow. But here, as the mishna is explained as a case where she vows and he is silent and does not nullify it, she thinks: Since he is silent, this means he despises me, and consequently she desires a divorce.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘注谞讬讜转 砖诇讗 谞转谉 拽爪讘讛 讜讻诪讛 拽爪讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注砖专 砖谞讬诐 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 专讙诇 砖讻谉 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 诪转拽砖讟讜转 讘专讙诇

搂 The mishna states that Rabbi Yosei says: For poor women, he must divorce her when he did not establish a set amount of time for the vow to remain in effect. The Gemara asks: And how long is this set amount of time? He is allowed to maintain her as a wife if he did set a time, but certainly there is a limit. This halakha would not apply in a case of a long period of time. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Twelve months. Rabba bar bar 岣nna said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Ten years. Rav 岣sda said that Avimi said: A pilgrim Festival, meaning until the next one of the three Festivals, since Jewish women adorn themselves on the pilgrim Festival. If his vow remains in effect beyond the Festival, it is considered as if he did not set a time limit, and he must divorce her.

讜讘注砖讬专讜转 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讻谉 讗砖讛 讞砖讜讘讛 谞讛谞讬转 诪专讬讞 拽砖讜讟讬讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

And for wealthy women, Rabbi Yosei said the limit is thirty days. The Gemara asks: What is different about thirty days specifically? Abaye said: Because an important and wealthy woman enjoys the scent of her adornments that she put on previously for up to thirty days, and after that time she feels that she is repulsive.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讚讬专 讗转 讗砖转讜 砖诇讗 转诇讱 诇讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 注诪讛 讘注讬专 讞讜讚砖 讗讞讚 讬拽讬讬诐 砖谞讬诐 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讘注讬专 讗讞专转 专讙诇 讗讞讚 讬拽讬讬诐 砖诇砖讛 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛

MISHNA: With regard to one who vows and obligates his wife not to go to her father鈥檚 house, when her father is with her in the same city, if the vow is to be in effect up to one month, he may maintain her as his wife. If the vow is for two months, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. And when her father is in a different city, if the vow is to be in effect until at most one pilgrim Festival, i.e., until the next pilgrim Festival, he may maintain her as his wife. Although the wife often visits her parents during the Festival, she is capable of refraining one time. For three Festivals, however, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract.

讛诪讚讬专 讗转 讗砖转讜 砖诇讗 转诇讱 诇讘讬转 讛讗讘诇 讗讜 诇讘讬转 讛诪砖转讛 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖谞讜注诇 讘驻谞讬讛 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讟讜注谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专 讗讞专 专砖讗讬

Additionally, one who vows and obligates his wife not to go to a house of mourning to console the mourners, or to a house of feasting for a wedding, must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. Why is this so? Because it is as if he were locking a door in front of her. And if he claimed he did so due to something else, meaning he is concerned about inappropriate conduct there, he is permitted to do so.

讗诪专 诇讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖转讗诪专讬 诇驻诇讜谞讬 诪讛 砖讗诪专转 诇讬 讗讜 诪讛 砖讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讗讜 砖转讛讗 诪诪诇讗讛 讜诪注专讛 诇讗砖驻讛 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛

If he said to her: The vow will be void on condition that you tell so-and-so what you told me, or what I told you, or on condition that she fill something up and pour it into the refuse, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. The Gemara will explain all of these cases thoroughly.

讙诪壮 讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 专讙诇 讗讞讚 讬拽讬讬诐 讛讗 砖谞讬诐 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 砖诇砖讛 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛 讛讗 砖谞讬诐 讬拽讬讬诐

GEMARA: Concerning the first clause in the mishna, the Gemara asks: This mishna itself is difficult: You said on one hand that if the vow will be in effect for one pilgrim Festival he may maintain her as his wife, from which it may be deduced that if he forbade her from going to her father鈥檚 house for two Festivals, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. But say the latter clause: For three Festivals he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract, from which it may be deduced that if the vow will be in effect for two Festivals, he may maintain her as his wife. Thus, the inferences from the first and latter clauses are contradictory.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇讻讛谞转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘专讚讜驻讛 讻讗谉 讘砖讗讬谞讛 专讚讜驻讛

Abaye said: In the latter clause, we have come to a case concerning the wife of a priest, with regard to whom more time is allowed before a divorce is required, since her husband may not remarry her afterward. And this is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who distinguished in the previous mishna between the wives of an Israelite and those of a priest. Rabba bar Ulla said: It is not difficult, and can be explained in a different way: Here, in the first clause, it is referring to a woman who is eager and enthusiastic to return regularly to her father鈥檚 home, and if her husband prohibits her from doing so for more than one Festival it will cause her significant distress; while there, in the latter clause, it is referring to a woman who is not eager. Consequently, he must divorce her only if the vow will last for three Festivals.

讗讝 讛讬讬转讬 讘注讬谞讬讜 讻诪讜爪讗转 砖诇讜诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讻诇讛 砖谞诪爪讗转 砖诇诪讛 讘讘讬转 讞诪讬讛 讜专讚讜驻讛 诇讬诇讱 讜诇讛讙讬讚 砖讘讞讛 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛

Once the Gemara has mentioned the idea of a woman who is eager to return to her father鈥檚 house, it discusses another context where a similar idea is mentioned. Concerning the verse 鈥淭hen I was in his eyes as one that found peace鈥 (Song of Songs 8:10), Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The meaning is: Like a bride who is considered perfect in her father-in-law鈥檚 house, and is eager to go and relate her praise in her father鈥檚 house, to tell how many complimentary things were said about her by her husband鈥檚 family.

讜讛讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 谞讗讜诐 讛壮 转拽专讗讬 讗讬砖讬 讜诇讗 转拽专讗讬 诇讬 注讜讚 讘注诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讻诇讛 讘讘讬转 讞诪讬讛 讜诇讗 讻讻诇讛 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛

Similarly, concerning the verse 鈥淎nd it shall be on that day, says the Lord, that you will call Me: My Husband [Ishi], and you will no longer call Me: My Master [Ba鈥檃li]鈥 (Hosea 2:18), Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The meaning is: Like a bride in her father-in-law鈥檚 house after she has already lived with her husband, whom she is consequently not ashamed to call her marriage partner, and not like a betrothed bride still in her father鈥檚 house, who simply refers to her groom as: My master.

讛诪讚讬专 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜讻讜壮 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讘讬转 讛诪砖转讛

搂 The mishna states: One who vows and obligates his wife not to go to a house of mourning or to a house of feasting for a wedding, must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract, because it is as if he were locking a door in front of her. The Gemara asks: Granted, when he forbids her from going to a house of feasting,

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

  • Masechet Ketubot is sponsored by Erica and Rob Schwartz in honor of the 50th wedding anniversary of Erica's parents Sheira and Steve Schacter.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Ketubot: 70-76 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn about a husband or wife that takes vows that affect their spouse and the consequences...
talking talmud_square

Ketubot 71: “Place a Finger between Her Teeth”

A puzzle of language. In the context of a discussion about the husband who vows in such a way that...
jewelry bet alfa

All That Glitters

Ketubot continues with obligations that husbands and wives owe each other. Among other restrictions, a husband cannot forbid his wife...

Ketubot 71

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 71

诪注砖讛 讚讘讬转 讞讜专讜谉

the incident of Beit 岣ron, where an individual had vowed to prohibit his father from deriving benefit from him, and then in order to allow his father to come to the celebration of his son鈥檚 wedding, he gave all of his property to someone else as a gift. The recipient of the property was concerned that the vow would be transgressed by the father, so he consecrated the son鈥檚 property and declared that if he was not empowered to do so, then the original transfer of property as a gift would not be valid. Consequently, in the present case, the Sages are unconcerned by the artifice performed, while Rabbi Yosei is concerned with such artifice and therefore prohibits it.

专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬砖专讗诇 讞讚砖 讗讞讚 讜讻讜壮 讛讬讬谞讜 转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讻讛谞转 讗转讗 诇讗砖诪讜注讬谞谉 专讘讗 讗诪专 讞讚砖 诪诇讗 讜讞讚砖 讞住专 讗讬讻讗 讘讬谞讬讬讛讜

搂 It was taught in the mishna: Rabbi Yehuda says: If the husband is an Israelite, then if his vow will remain in effect for up to one month, he may maintain her as his wife; and if it will be two months, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. But if he is a priest, then he is given extra time: If the vow will remain in effect for up to two months, he may maintain her, and if it will be three months, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. The Gemara is puzzled by Rabbi Yehuda鈥檚 statement with regard to an Israelite: This is the same as the opinion of the first tanna. Abaye said: Concerning an Israelite, Rabbi Yehuda in fact does not disagree with the first tanna, but he comes to teach us that the halakha is different for the wife of a priest. Rava said: The practical difference between them is a full thirty-day month and a deficient month with twenty-nine days: The first tanna requires exactly thirty days, while Rabbi Yehuda requires one month, whether it is a full month or a deficient one.

讗诪专 专讘 诇讗 砖谞讜 讗诇讗 讘诪驻专砖 讗讘诇 讘住转诐 讬讜爪讬讗 诇讗诇转专 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘住转诐 诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 驻转讞 诇谞讚专讜

Rav said: With regard to the thirty-day time frame, where the Sages established that a husband supports his wife through a trustee, they taught this only with regard to a case where he specifies a limited time during which the vow will be in effect. But if he vows without specification of an end point, he must divorce her immediately and give her the payment of her marriage contract. And Shmuel said: Even if he vowed without specification, he should not divorce her immediately, as perhaps he will discover an opening enabling the dissolution of his vow.

讜讛讗 讗讬驻诇讙讜 讘讬讛 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讚转谞谉 讛诪讚讬专 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪转砖诪讬砖 讛诪讟讛 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖转讬 砖讘转讜转 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 砖讘转 讗讞转 讜讗诪专 专讘 诪讞诇讜拽转 讘诪驻专砖 讗讘诇 讘住转诐 讬讜爪讬讗 诇讗诇转专 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘住转诐 谞诪讬 诇讗 讬讜爪讬讗 砖诪讗 讬诪爪讗 驻转讞 诇谞讚专讜

The Gemara asks: But they have already disagreed about this issue one time with regard to a similar situation, as we learned in a mishna (61b): With regard to one who vows and obligates his wife, prohibiting her from engaging in marital relations with him, Beit Shammai say: If the vow will remain in effect for up to two weeks, he may maintain her as a wife, and Beit Hillel say the limit is one week. And with regard to this dispute, Rav said: The dispute is in a case where he specifies, but in the case of an unspecified vow, he must divorce her immediately and give her the payment of her marriage contract. And Shmuel said: Even in the case of an unspecified vow he also should not divorce her immediately, as perhaps he will discover an opening enabling the dissolution of his vow. If so, why does this dispute need to be repeated?

爪专讬讻讗 讚讗讬 讗讬转诪专 讘讛讛讬讗 讘讛讛讬讗 拽讗诪专 专讘 诪砖讜诐 讚诇讗 讗驻砖专 讘驻专谞住 讗讘诇 讘讛讗 讚讗驻砖专 讘驻专谞住 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讜讗讬 讗转诪专 讘讛讗 讘讛讗 拽讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讚讗驻砖专 讘驻专谞住 讗讘诇 讘讛讛讬讗 讗讬诪讗 诪讜讚讛 诇讬讛 诇专讘 爪专讬讻讗

The Gemara answers: It is necessary to state it twice, as, if it was stated only in that case, i.e., that of a vow rendering it prohibited for her to engage in sexual intercourse with him, then one may have said that in that case Rav says he must divorce her immediately, because it is impossible to compensate for the vow through a trustee. But in this case, where the vow rendered it prohibited for her to benefit from his property, for which it is possible to compensate through a trustee, we would say that he concedes to Shmuel that he should not divorce her immediately. And conversely, if it were stated in this case, i.e., that of a vow concerning sustenance, then one may have said in this case that Shmuel says he should not divorce her because it is possible to compensate for the vow through a trustee, but in that case, where he vows to prohibit her from engaging in marital relations with him, one would say he concedes to Rav that he must divorce her immediately. Therefore, it is necessary to record the dispute twice.

转谞谉 讛诪讚讬专 讗转 讗砖转讜 砖诇讗 转讟注讜诐 讗讞讚 诪讻诇 讛驻讬专讜转 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛 讘砖诇诪讗 诇专讘 讻讗谉 讘住转诐 讻讗谉 讘诪驻专砖 讗诇讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 拽砖讬讗

We learned in the continuation of the mishna: One who vows and obligates his wife, requiring her not to taste a particular type of produce, must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. Granted that according to Rav, there is no contradiction between the two clauses of the mishna. It can be said that here it is referring to an unspecified vow, so he must divorce her immediately, and there, in the first clause, it is referring to a case where he specifies a time limit. But according to Shmuel, it is difficult.

讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讚专讛 讛讬讗 讜拽讬讬诐 诇讛 讗讬讛讜 讜拽住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讗爪讘注 讘讬谉 砖讬谞讬讛

The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where she vowed to prohibit herself from tasting the produce, and he ratified it for her and did not dissolve the vow. Since she made the vow, she certainly will not search for a way to dissolve it. Therefore, he must divorce her immediately. And Rabbi Meir, who is presumed to be the author of an unattributed opinion in a mishna, holds that when he ratifies her vow, he is putting his finger between her teeth, causing her to bite him, i.e., he is causing the vow to be in effect. If so, it is his responsibility, and he therefore must give her the payment of her marriage contract when he divorces her.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讗爪讘注 讘讬谉 砖讬谞讬讛 讜讛转谞讬讗 讛讗砖讛 砖谞讚专讛 讘谞讝讬专 讜砖诪注 讘注诇讛 讜诇讗 讛驻专 诇讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讬讗 谞转谞讛 讗爪讘注 讘讬谉 砖讬谞讬讛 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 专爪讛 讛讘注诇 诇讛驻专 讬驻专 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘讗砖讛 谞讚专谞讬转 转爪讗 砖诇讗 讘讻转讜讘讛

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Meir hold that in this case he is putting his finger between her teeth, i.e., he is causing the vow to be in effect? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: A woman who vowed, prohibiting herself from benefiting from items that are prohibited to a nazirite, and her husband heard and did not nullify it, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda say: She already put her finger between her own teeth, i.e., she caused the vow to remain in effect. Therefore, if the husband wishes to nullify this vow, he may nullify it. And if he said: I do not want a vowing wife, she can be divorced without the payment of the marriage contract.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讗爪讘注 讘讬谉 砖讬谞讬讛 诇驻讬讻讱 讗诐 专爪讛 讛讘注诇 诇讛驻专 讬驻专 讜讗诐 讗诪专 讗讬 讗驻砖讬 讘讗砖讛 谞讚专谞讬转 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛 讗讬驻讜讱 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讬讗 谞转谞讛

Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Elazar say: By deciding not to nullify the vow, he is putting his finger between her teeth, i.e., he is causing the vow to be in effect, and therefore if the husband wishes to nullify the vow, he may nullify it. And if he said: I do not want a vowing wife, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. The Gemara answers: Reverse the opinions. Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda say: He is putting his finger between her teeth. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Elazar say: She put her finger between her own teeth.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 谞转谞讛 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘注谞讬讜转 砖诇讗 谞转谉 拽爪讘讛

The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Yosei hold that she put her finger between her own teeth? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna: One who vows and obligates his wife, requiring her not to adorn herself with a particular type of perfume, and Rabbi Yosei says: For poor women, when he did not establish a set amount of time for the vow, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract? According to the final explanation given by Shmuel, the mishna is referring to a case where the wife vowed and the husband ratified it, indicating that Rabbi Yosei also agrees that it is the husband鈥檚 responsibility, and therefore he must give her the payment of her marriage contract.

讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讬讗 谞转谞讛 讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 谞转谞讛 讜讛转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讘讬砖专讗诇 讬讜诐 讗讞讚 讬拽讬讬诐

The Gemara answers: Say that the text of the baraita should read as follows: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei say: He is putting his finger between her teeth; Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar say: She put her finger between her own teeth. This way, there is no contradiction between statements attributed to either Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara asks further: And does Rabbi Yehuda hold that she put her finger between her own teeth? But didn鈥檛 we learn in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says: For an Israelite, if the vow is in effect for one day he may maintain her as his wife, but if the vow is in effect for two days he must divorce her and give her the payment of the marriage contract? According to the explanation that the mishna is referring to a case where she vowed and he ratified it, it would appear that Rabbi Yehuda also agrees that he is putting his finger between her teeth.

讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专 讛讬讗 谞转谞讛 讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讝讜讙讬 讝讜讙讬 拽转谞讬 讗讬诪讗 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讬讗 谞转谞讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛讜讗 谞讜转谉 讜讛讗 住转诪讗 讚诇讗 讻专讘讬 诪讗讬专

The Gemara answers: Say the text of the dispute should read as follows: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei say he is putting his finger between her teeth, and Rabbi Elazar says she put her finger between her own teeth. And if you say the opinions of the tanna鈥檌m listed in the baraita are taught in pairs, and therefore it cannot be that three of them share the same opinion, say: Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Elazar say she put her finger between her own teeth, while Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei say he is putting his finger between her teeth. And this particular unattributed opinion is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.

讜住讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘注谞讬讜转 砖诇讗 谞转谉 拽爪讘讛 讗诇诪讗 讘注诇 诪爪讬 诪讬驻专 讜专诪讬谞讛讜 讗诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讛讘注诇 诪讬驻专 讚讘专讬诐 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讗诐 讗专讞抓 讗诐 诇讗 讗专讞抓 讗诐 讗转拽砖讟 讗诐 诇讗 讗转拽砖讟 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬谉 讗诇讜 谞讚专讬 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 谞讚专讬 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 砖诇讗 讗讜讻诇 讘砖专 讜砖诇讗 讗砖转讛 讬讬谉 讜砖诇讗 讗转拽砖讟

Since the mishna has been explained as a case where the wife vowed and her husband ratified it, the Gemara asks about a different issue: And does Rabbi Yosei hold, for poor women, that when he did not establish a set amount of time for the vow he must divorce her? This means that apparently, a husband can nullify a wife鈥檚 vow not to adorn herself. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a different mishna (Nedarim 79a): These are the cases of a wife鈥檚 vow that the husband may nullify: Cases of vows that involve affliction, such as when the woman says: If I bathe, I forbid myself to benefit from it; or if she says: If I do not bathe, i.e., she vows not to bathe at all; or she vows: If I adorn myself; or vows: If I do not adorn myself, all of which cause her to suffer. Rabbi Yosei said: These are not vows of affliction, which the husband may nullify, but rather, these, i.e., the following, are vows of affliction: Such as when she vows that I will not eat meat, or that I will not drink wine, or even that I will not adorn myself

讘讘讙讚讬 爪讘注讜谞讬谉 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讘讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛

with colored garments, as not wearing colored garments can cause shame to her as well as to her husband. But vows that affect her alone are not considered vows of affliction. The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where she vowed not to adorn herself with regard to matters that are between him and her, meaning that she vowed not to use a substance that removes her pubic hair. This is considered a matter between him and her, since the hair could interfere with sexual intercourse.

讛谞讬讞讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 讛讘注诇 诪讬驻专 讗诇讗 诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 诪讬驻专 诪讗讬 讗讬讻讗 诇诪讬诪专 讚讗转诪专 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗诪专 讛讘注诇 诪讬驻专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗诪专 讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 诪讬驻专 砖诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 砖讜注诇 砖诪转 讘注驻专 驻讬专

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who said the husband can nullify his wife鈥檚 vow if it relates to matters that are between him and her, i.e., that disrupt normal, intimate relations between them. But according to the one who said the husband cannot nullify such vows, what can be said? The amora鈥檌m had a dispute concerning this question, as it is stated: With regard to vows related to matters that are between him and her, such as the example above, Rav Huna said that the husband can nullify his wife鈥檚 vow, while Rav Adda bar Ahava said the husband cannot nullify his wife鈥檚 vow, since it does not interfere with sexual intercourse between them. Rav Adda bar Ahava explains his opinion with an analogy: Since we have not found a fox that died in the dirt of a hole where it lives, so too here, although she grows her pubic hair, he will not be harmed by it, since he is familiar with her body.

讗诇讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 讚转诇讬谞讛讜 诇拽讬砖讜讟讬讛 讘转砖诪讬砖 讛诪讟讛 讚讗诪专讛 讬讗住专 讛谞讗转 转砖诪讬砖讱 注诇讬 讗诐 讗转拽砖讟 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗

Rather, with what are we dealing here? With a case where through her vow she made sexual intercourse contingent upon her adornment, as she said: The pleasure of intercourse with you is forbidden to me if I adorn myself, as Rav Kahana said that such language qualifies as matters between him and her, and a husband can nullify such a vow.

讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛谞讗转 转砖诪讬砖讬 注诇讬讱 讻讜驻讛 讜诪砖诪砖转讜 讛谞讗转 转砖诪讬砖讱 注诇讬 讬驻专 诇驻讬 砖讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讚讘专 讛讗住讜专 诇讜

As Rav Kahana said: If the woman says to her husband: The pleasure of intercourse with me is forbidden to you, he may nevertheless compel her through legal and financial measures to fulfill her marital obligations and have sexual intercourse with him, since she does not have the power to render herself forbidden to him by a vow, due to her prior marital obligations. But if she says: The pleasure of intercourse with you is forbidden to me, this vow is valid but he may nullify it. Although she is obligated by the terms of the marriage to cohabit with him, she does not directly contravene her obligation but rather prohibits herself from deriving pleasure from sexual intercourse. Therefore, her husband may not compel her to engage in intercourse in violation of her vow, since one cannot feed a person an object which is forbidden to him. Instead, he may nullify it if he wishes.

讜诇讗 转转拽砖讟 讜诇讗 转讗住专 讗诐 讻谉 拽专讜 诇讛 诪谞讜讜诇转

The Gemara asks: And even if she creates this contingency by vowing that the pleasure of sexual intercourse will be forbidden to her if she adorns herself, let her not adorn herself and she will not be forbidden. Since the prohibition against intercourse created through her vow may never go into effect, the husband should not be able to nullify the vow, because a vow against adornment alone is not subject to the husband鈥檚 nullification. The Gemara answers: If so, they will call her repulsive when she does not adorn herself, and she cannot endure the embarrassment of such a situation. Therefore, it is assumed that she will eventually adorn herself at some point.

讜转转拽砖讟 讜转讗住专 讗讬 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 砖转讬 砖讘转讜转 讗讬 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 砖讘转 讗讞转 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讛讬讻讗 讚讗讚专讛 讗讬讛讜 讚住讘专讛 诪讬专转讞 专转讞 注讬诇讜讗讬 讜讛砖转讗 诪讜转讬讘 讚注转讬讛 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚谞讚专讛 讗讬讛讬 讜砖转讬拽 诇讛 住讘专讛 诪讚讗讬砖转拽 诪讬住谞讗 讛讜讗 讚住谞讬 诇讬

The Gemara asks: And let her adorn herself and be prohibited from engaging in sexual intercourse, and he can still maintain her. As was stated concerning one who prohibits himself from cohabiting with his wife, if according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, he may maintain her for two weeks; if according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, for one week. Why then did they require him to divorce her immediately? The Gemara answers: This applies only where he took a vow to render intercourse with her prohibited, as she thinks: He vowed because he is angry with me, but now he will calm down and dissolve the vow. But here, as the mishna is explained as a case where she vows and he is silent and does not nullify it, she thinks: Since he is silent, this means he despises me, and consequently she desires a divorce.

专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讘注谞讬讜转 砖诇讗 谞转谉 拽爪讘讛 讜讻诪讛 拽爪讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 注砖专 砖谞讬诐 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 专讙诇 砖讻谉 讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 诪转拽砖讟讜转 讘专讙诇

搂 The mishna states that Rabbi Yosei says: For poor women, he must divorce her when he did not establish a set amount of time for the vow to remain in effect. The Gemara asks: And how long is this set amount of time? He is allowed to maintain her as a wife if he did set a time, but certainly there is a limit. This halakha would not apply in a case of a long period of time. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Twelve months. Rabba bar bar 岣nna said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Ten years. Rav 岣sda said that Avimi said: A pilgrim Festival, meaning until the next one of the three Festivals, since Jewish women adorn themselves on the pilgrim Festival. If his vow remains in effect beyond the Festival, it is considered as if he did not set a time limit, and he must divorce her.

讜讘注砖讬专讜转 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 诪讗讬 砖谞讗 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 砖讻谉 讗砖讛 讞砖讜讘讛 谞讛谞讬转 诪专讬讞 拽砖讜讟讬讛 砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐

And for wealthy women, Rabbi Yosei said the limit is thirty days. The Gemara asks: What is different about thirty days specifically? Abaye said: Because an important and wealthy woman enjoys the scent of her adornments that she put on previously for up to thirty days, and after that time she feels that she is repulsive.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪讚讬专 讗转 讗砖转讜 砖诇讗 转诇讱 诇讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 注诪讛 讘注讬专 讞讜讚砖 讗讞讚 讬拽讬讬诐 砖谞讬诐 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛 讜讘讝诪谉 砖讛讜讗 讘注讬专 讗讞专转 专讙诇 讗讞讚 讬拽讬讬诐 砖诇砖讛 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛

MISHNA: With regard to one who vows and obligates his wife not to go to her father鈥檚 house, when her father is with her in the same city, if the vow is to be in effect up to one month, he may maintain her as his wife. If the vow is for two months, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. And when her father is in a different city, if the vow is to be in effect until at most one pilgrim Festival, i.e., until the next pilgrim Festival, he may maintain her as his wife. Although the wife often visits her parents during the Festival, she is capable of refraining one time. For three Festivals, however, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract.

讛诪讚讬专 讗转 讗砖转讜 砖诇讗 转诇讱 诇讘讬转 讛讗讘诇 讗讜 诇讘讬转 讛诪砖转讛 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖谞讜注诇 讘驻谞讬讛 讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讟讜注谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专 讗讞专 专砖讗讬

Additionally, one who vows and obligates his wife not to go to a house of mourning to console the mourners, or to a house of feasting for a wedding, must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. Why is this so? Because it is as if he were locking a door in front of her. And if he claimed he did so due to something else, meaning he is concerned about inappropriate conduct there, he is permitted to do so.

讗诪专 诇讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖转讗诪专讬 诇驻诇讜谞讬 诪讛 砖讗诪专转 诇讬 讗讜 诪讛 砖讗诪专转讬 诇讱 讗讜 砖转讛讗 诪诪诇讗讛 讜诪注专讛 诇讗砖驻讛 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛

If he said to her: The vow will be void on condition that you tell so-and-so what you told me, or what I told you, or on condition that she fill something up and pour it into the refuse, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. The Gemara will explain all of these cases thoroughly.

讙诪壮 讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 专讙诇 讗讞讚 讬拽讬讬诐 讛讗 砖谞讬诐 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 砖诇砖讛 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛 讛讗 砖谞讬诐 讬拽讬讬诐

GEMARA: Concerning the first clause in the mishna, the Gemara asks: This mishna itself is difficult: You said on one hand that if the vow will be in effect for one pilgrim Festival he may maintain her as his wife, from which it may be deduced that if he forbade her from going to her father鈥檚 house for two Festivals, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. But say the latter clause: For three Festivals he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract, from which it may be deduced that if the vow will be in effect for two Festivals, he may maintain her as his wife. Thus, the inferences from the first and latter clauses are contradictory.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 住讬驻讗 讗转讗谉 诇讻讛谞转 讜专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讬讗 专讘讛 讘专 注讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讗 拽砖讬讗 讻讗谉 讘专讚讜驻讛 讻讗谉 讘砖讗讬谞讛 专讚讜驻讛

Abaye said: In the latter clause, we have come to a case concerning the wife of a priest, with regard to whom more time is allowed before a divorce is required, since her husband may not remarry her afterward. And this is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who distinguished in the previous mishna between the wives of an Israelite and those of a priest. Rabba bar Ulla said: It is not difficult, and can be explained in a different way: Here, in the first clause, it is referring to a woman who is eager and enthusiastic to return regularly to her father鈥檚 home, and if her husband prohibits her from doing so for more than one Festival it will cause her significant distress; while there, in the latter clause, it is referring to a woman who is not eager. Consequently, he must divorce her only if the vow will last for three Festivals.

讗讝 讛讬讬转讬 讘注讬谞讬讜 讻诪讜爪讗转 砖诇讜诐 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讻诇讛 砖谞诪爪讗转 砖诇诪讛 讘讘讬转 讞诪讬讛 讜专讚讜驻讛 诇讬诇讱 讜诇讛讙讬讚 砖讘讞讛 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛

Once the Gemara has mentioned the idea of a woman who is eager to return to her father鈥檚 house, it discusses another context where a similar idea is mentioned. Concerning the verse 鈥淭hen I was in his eyes as one that found peace鈥 (Song of Songs 8:10), Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The meaning is: Like a bride who is considered perfect in her father-in-law鈥檚 house, and is eager to go and relate her praise in her father鈥檚 house, to tell how many complimentary things were said about her by her husband鈥檚 family.

讜讛讬讛 讘讬讜诐 讛讛讜讗 谞讗讜诐 讛壮 转拽专讗讬 讗讬砖讬 讜诇讗 转拽专讗讬 诇讬 注讜讚 讘注诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讻讻诇讛 讘讘讬转 讞诪讬讛 讜诇讗 讻讻诇讛 讘讘讬转 讗讘讬讛

Similarly, concerning the verse 鈥淎nd it shall be on that day, says the Lord, that you will call Me: My Husband [Ishi], and you will no longer call Me: My Master [Ba鈥檃li]鈥 (Hosea 2:18), Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The meaning is: Like a bride in her father-in-law鈥檚 house after she has already lived with her husband, whom she is consequently not ashamed to call her marriage partner, and not like a betrothed bride still in her father鈥檚 house, who simply refers to her groom as: My master.

讛诪讚讬专 讗转 讗砖转讜 讜讻讜壮 讘砖诇诪讗 诇讘讬转 讛诪砖转讛

搂 The mishna states: One who vows and obligates his wife not to go to a house of mourning or to a house of feasting for a wedding, must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract, because it is as if he were locking a door in front of her. The Gemara asks: Granted, when he forbids her from going to a house of feasting,

Scroll To Top