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

Today's Daf Yomi

April 15, 2015 | 讻状讜 讘谞讬住谉 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 72

讗讬讻讗 谞讜注诇 讘驻谞讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讘讬转 讛讗讘诇 诪讗讬 谞讜注诇 讘驻谞讬讛 讗讬讻讗 转谞讗 诇诪讞专 讛讬讗 诪转讛 讜讗讬谉 讻诇 讘专讬讛 住讜驻讚讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讻诇 讘专讬讛 住讜驻谞讛

there is effectively an act of locking a door in front of her by withholding from her any possibility of rejoicing, but when he forbids her from going to a house of mourning, what locking of a door in front of her is there? He taught: In the future she too will die, and no person will eulogize her or take care of her, just as she did not do so for others. And some say: No person will value her or pay attention to her, since a person who does not visit the sick or console mourners cuts himself off from others.

转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讟讜讘 诇诇讻转 讗诇 讘讬转 讗讘诇 诪诇讻转 讗诇 讘讬转 诪砖转讛 讘讗砖专 讛讜讗 住讜祝 讻诇 讛讗讚诐 讜讛讞讬 讬转谉 讗诇 诇讘讜 诪讗讬 讜讛讞讬 讬转谉 讗诇 诇讘讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖诇 诪讬转讛 讚住驻讚 讬住驻讚讜谞讬讛 讚拽讘专 讬拽讘专讜谞讬讛 讚讬讚诇 讬讚诇讜谞讬讛 讚诇讜讗讬 讬诇讜讜谞讬讛 讚讟注谉 讬讟注谞讜谞讬讛

Similarly, it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir used to say: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淚t is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting, since that is the end of all men, and the living will take it to heart鈥 (Ecclesiastes 7:2)? What does 鈥渁nd the living will take it to heart鈥 mean? It means that they will take matters relating to death to heart, realizing that they too will eventually die. He who eulogizes others, people will eulogize him; he who buries someone, people will bury him; he who lifts others to bring them to burial, people will similarly lift him to bring him to burial; he who escorts others out for burial, people will similarly escort him; he who carries others, others will carry him. Therefore, one who does not come to a house of mourning to comfort the bereaved will himself not be treated with proper dignity when he dies.

讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讟讜注谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专 讗讞专 专砖讗讬 诪讗讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 驻专讜爪讬谉 砖诪爪讜讬讬谉 砖诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚讗讬转讞讝拽 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗讬转讞讝拽 诇讗 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讬讛

搂 The mishna stated: And if he claimed he forbade her due to something else, he is permitted to do so. The Gemara asks: What is meant by something else? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: He claims he did so due to promiscuous individuals that are commonly found there, and he does not want his wife to be among them. Rav Ashi said: We said that he may forbid her only with regard to a case where a presumption has been established that promiscuous people frequent this location, but if no such presumption has been established, it is not in his power to say he is concerned about it.

讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖转讗诪专讬 讜转讬诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讘专讬诐 砖诇 拽诇讜谉

搂 The mishna stated: And 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, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. The Gemara asks: And let her say it. Why shouldn鈥檛 she simply comply with his wishes? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is referring to degrading matters, meaning intimate conversations between husband and wife, which she is ashamed to relate in the presence of others.

讗讜 砖转讛讗 诪诪诇讗讛 讜诪注专讛 诇讗砖驻讛 讜转讬注讘讬讚 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖转诪诇讗 讜谞讜驻爪转 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 砖转诪诇讗 注砖专讛 讻讚讬 诪讬诐 讜转注专讛 诇讗砖驻讛

The mishna stated: Or he said the vow will be void on condition that she fill something up and pour it into the refuse. The Gemara asks: And let her do it. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The mishna鈥檚 intention is that he demanded that she fill herself up and then shake herself out. This is a euphemistic way of saying that the husband wants her to take measures to prevent herself from becoming pregnant, and she is permitted to protest this. It was taught in a baraita: The case is that he told her to fill up ten jugs of water and pour them into the refuse, a task that involves pointless effort and appears foolish.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛 讗诇讗 诇诪转谞讬转讗 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讛 诪讬谞讛 转讬注讘讬讚 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讬转 讻砖讜讟讛

The Gemara asks: Granted that according to Shmuel, who explains that the mishna is referring to a case where the husband insists that she not become pregnant, due to that reason he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. But according to the baraita, which explains that he simply wants her to engage in pointless work, what difference does it make to her? Let her do it. Rabba bar bar 岣nna said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Because she would appear insane if she were to perform pointless actions, she may therefore demand a divorce.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛诪讚讬专 讗转 讗砖转讜 砖诇讗 转砖讗诇 讜砖诇讗 转砖讗讬诇 谞驻讛 讜讻讘专讛 讜专讬讞讬诐 讜转谞讜专 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛 砖诪砖讬讗讛 砖诐 专注 讘砖讻讬谞讜转讬讛

Rav Kahana said: One who vows and obligates his wife not to borrow or not to lend utensils that people generally lend, such as a sifter, or a sieve, or a mill, or an oven, must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract, since by making such rules he causes her to develop a bad reputation among her neighbors, who will suspect her of stinginess or haughtiness.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛诪讚讬专 讗转 讗砖转讜 砖诇讗 转砖讗诇 讜砖诇讗 转砖讗讬诇 谞驻讛 讜讻讘专讛 专讬讞讬诐 讜转谞讜专 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪砖讬讗讛 砖诐 专注 讘砖讻讬谞讜转讬讛 讜讻谉 讛讬讗 砖谞讚专讛 砖诇讗 转砖讗诇 讜砖诇讗 转砖讗讬诇 谞驻讛 讜讻讘专讛 讜专讬讞讬诐 讜转谞讜专 讜砖诇讗 转讗专讜讙 讘讙讚讬诐 谞讗讬诐 诇讘谞讬讜 转爪讗 砖诇讗 讘讻转讜讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪砖讬讗转讜 砖诐 专注 讘砖讻讬谞讬讜

The Gemara notes: That opinion is also taught in a baraita: One who vows and obligates his wife not to borrow or not to lend a sifter, or a sieve, or a mill, or an oven, must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract, since he causes her to develop a bad reputation among her neighbors. And similarly, if it is she who vowed not to borrow or not to lend a sifter, or a sieve, or a mill, or an oven, or that she will not weave nice garments for his children, she may be divorced without payment of her marriage contract. This too is because she causes him to develop a bad reputation among his neighbors, as they will link her behavior to him and think that he instructed her to act this way.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 讬讜爪讗讜转 砖诇讗 讘讻转讜讘讛 讛注讜讘专转 注诇 讚转 诪砖讛 讜讬讛讜讚讬转 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讚转 诪砖讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诪注讜砖专 讜诪砖诪砖转讜 谞讚讛 讜诇讗 拽讜爪讛 诇讛 讞诇讛 讜谞讜讚专转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪拽讬讬诪转

MISHNA: And these are examples of women who may be divorced without payment of their marriage contract: A woman who violates the precepts of Moses, i.e., halakha, or the precepts of Jewish women, i.e., custom. The Mishna explains: And who is categorized as a woman who violates the precepts of Moses? This includes cases such as when she feeds him food that has not been tithed, or she engages in sexual intercourse with him while she has the legal status of a menstruating woman, or she does not separate a portion of dough to be given to a priest [岣lla], or she vows and does not fulfill her vows.

讜讗讬讝讜讛讬 讚转 讬讛讜讚讬转 讬讜爪讗讛 讜专讗砖讛 驻专讜注 讜讟讜讜讛 讘砖讜拽 讜诪讚讘专转 注诐 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪拽诇诇转 讬讜诇讚讬讜 讘驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛拽讜诇谞讬转 讜讗讬讝讜讛讬 拽讜诇谞讬转 诇讻砖讛讬讗 诪讚讘专转 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讛 讜砖讻讬谞讬讛 砖讜诪注讬谉 拽讜诇讛

And who is considered a woman who violates the precepts of Jewish women? One who, for example, goes out of her house, and her head, i.e., her hair, is uncovered; or she spins wool in the public marketplace; or she speaks with every man she encounters. Abba Shaul says: Also one who curses his, i.e., her husband鈥檚, parents in his presence. Rabbi Tarfon says: Also a loud woman. And who is defined as a loud woman? When she speaks inside her house and her neighbors hear her voice.

讙诪壮 诪讗讻讬诇转讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诪注讜砖专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讬讚注 谞驻专讜砖 讗讬 讚诇讗 讬讚注 诪谞讗 讬讚注 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 驻诇讜谞讬 讻讛谉 转讬拽谉 诇讬 讗转 讛讻专讬 讜讗讝讬诇 砖讬讬诇讬讛 讜讗砖转讻讞 砖讬拽专讗

GEMARA: The mishna stated: She feeds him food that has not been tithed. The Gemara attempts to clarify: What are the circumstances of the case under discussion? If he knows that the food is untithed, he should abstain and not eat it. And if he does not know that the food is untithed, then how does he know that she in fact fed him such food, so that he can divorce her? The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary when she tells him: So-and-so the priest rectified the pile of grain for me by tithing it, and he then went and asked the priest whether he did so, and it was found to be a lie. It is therefore clear that she did not tithe the food before she served it to him.

讜诪砖诪砖转讜 谞讚讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讬讚注 讘讛 谞驻专讜砖 讗讬 讚诇讗 讬讚注 谞住诪讜讱 注讬诇讜讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪谞讬谉 诇谞讚讛 砖住讜驻专转 诇注爪诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜住驻专讛 诇讛 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 诇讛 诇注爪诪讛

搂 The mishna stated: Or she engages in sexual intercourse with him while she has the status of a menstruating woman. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If he knows about her that she is a menstruating woman, he should abstain. And if he does not know, then he should rely on her. Because Rav 岣nnana bar Kahana said that Shmuel said: From where is it derived that a menstruating woman can count the days for herself, and that she is trusted to testify that she did so? As it is stated: 鈥淭hen she shall count to herself seven days鈥 (Leviticus 15:28). 鈥淭o herself鈥 means by herself, and she may be trusted that she did so. If so, why can鈥檛 the husband trust his wife that she is not a menstruating woman?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 驻诇讜谞讬 讞讻诐 讟讬讛专 诇讬 讗转 讛讚诐 讜讗讝诇 砖讬讬诇讬讛 讜讗砖转讻讞 砖讬拽专讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讞讝拽讛 谞讚讛 讘砖讻讬谞讜转讬讛 讘注诇讛 诇讜拽讛 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 谞讚讛

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary when she tells him: So-and-so the Sage purified the blood for me by ruling that it did not qualify as menstrual blood, and he went and asked him, and it was found that her claim was a lie. And if you wish, say instead that this is similar to that which Rav Yehuda said, as Rav Yehuda stated: If she is known by her neighbors to be a menstruating woman, her husband is flogged if he has relations with her, due to the prohibition against cohabiting with a menstruating woman. In this case, she was known by her neighbors to be a menstruating woman, but she had not told her husband. She then engaged in sexual intercourse with him, and he subsequently discovered her status from her neighbors.

讜诇讗 拽讜爪讛 诇讛 讞诇讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讬讚注 谞驻专讜砖 讗讬 讚诇讗 讬讚注 诪谞讗 讬讚注 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 驻诇讜谞讬 讙讘诇 转讬拽谉 诇讬 讗转 讛注讬住讛 讜讗讝讬诇 砖讬讬诇讬讛 讜讗砖转讻讞 砖讬拽专讗

搂 The mishna stated: Or she does not separate 岣lla. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If he knows that she did not separate 岣lla, he should abstain. If he does not know, then how does he know about it afterward in order to divorce her? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary when she tells him: So-and-so the kneader rectified the dough for me by separating 岣lla, and he went and asked him, and it was found that her claim was a lie.

讜谞讜讚专转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪拽讬讬诪转 讚讗诪专 诪专 讘注讜谉 谞讚专讬诐 讘谞讬诐 诪转讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讗诇 转转谉 讗转 驻讬讱 诇讞讟讬讗 讗转 讘砖专讱 讜讙讜壮 讜讗讬讝讜 讛谉 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讜转讬讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 诇砖讜讗 讛讻讬转讬 讗转 讘谞讬讻诐 诇砖讜讗 注诇 注住拽讬 砖讜讗

搂 The mishna also stated: Or she vows and does not fulfill her vows. The Gemara clarifies the reason for this, as it is different from the other cases in the mishna, where she causes her husband to violate a prohibition. In this case it is only she who violates a prohibition. As the Master said: Due to the sin of unfulfilled vows, children die, as it is stated: 鈥淚t is better not to vow than to vow and not pay. Do not allow your mouth to bring your flesh to sin鈥why should the Lord become angry at your voice and destroy the work of your hands?鈥 (Ecclesiastes 5:4鈥5). And what is the work of a person鈥檚 hands? You must say it is referring to his sons and his daughters. Rav Na岣an said: A proof to the above idea may be brought from here: 鈥淚n vain I smote your children鈥 (Jeremiah 2:30). The phrase 鈥渋n vain鈥 means: For matters caused by vain words, meaning that you took a vow and did not fulfill it.

转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛讬讜讚注 讘讗砖转讜 砖谞讜讚专转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪拽讬讬诪转 讬讞讝讜专 讜讬讚讬专谞讛 讬讚讬专谞讛 讘诪讗讬 诪转拽谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 讬讞讝讜专 讜讬拽谞讬讟谞讛 讻讚讬 砖转讚讜专 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讬驻专 诇讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讚专 注诐 谞讞砖 讘讻驻讬驻讛

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir used to say: Anyone who knows concerning his wife that she vows and does not fulfill her vows should return and vow to obligate her. The Gemara wonders: He should vow and obligate her? How will he rectify it for her by doing this? Rather, the intention is he should return and provoke her, so that she will vow in his presence and he can then nullify it for her. They said to him: This solution is not effective, because a person does not reside in a basket [kefifa], i.e., in close quarters, with a snake, since this is extremely dangerous. Similarly, he cannot constantly prevent her from taking vows, so it would be preferable that he divorce her.

转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛讬讜讚注 讘讗砖转讜 砖讗讬谞讛 拽讜爪讛 诇讜 讞诇讛 讬讞讝讜专 讜讬驻专讬砖 讗讞专讬讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讚专 注诐 谞讞砖 讘讻驻讬驻讛

It is taught in a baraita similar to the previous one that Rabbi Yehuda used to say: Anyone who knows concerning his wife that she does not separate 岣lla for him should go back and separate it after she is finished. They said to him: This solution is not effective, since a person does not reside in a basket with a snake.

诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讛讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗讛讱 讗讘诇 诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讗讛讱 讗讘诇 讛讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪拽专讬 讜讗讻讬诇

The Gemara discusses the two applications of the idea that a husband should try to correct his wife鈥檚 misdeeds: He who teaches it with regard to this, the case of 岣lla, all the more so would teach it for that, the case of vows, which are not a daily occurrence. But he who teaches it with regard to that, i.e., the case of vows, teaches it only in that case, but in this case of 岣lla, sometimes he will happen to eat untithed produce; and Rabbi Meir holds that he cannot always be careful enough to ensure that 岣lla was taken.

讜讗讬讝讜讛讬 讚转 讬讛讜讚讬转 讬讜爪讗讛 讜专讗砖讛 驻专讜注 专讗砖讛 驻专讜注 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜驻专注 讗转 专讗砖 讛讗砖讛 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讝讛专讛 诇讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 砖诇讗 讬爪讗讜 讘驻专讜注 专讗砖 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

搂 The mishna stated: And who is considered a woman who violates the precepts of Jewish women? One who goes out and her head is uncovered. The Gemara asks: The prohibition against a woman going out with her head uncovered is not merely a custom of Jewish women. Rather, it is by Torah law, as it is written with regard to a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful: 鈥淎nd he shall uncover the head of the woman鈥 (Numbers 5:18). And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: From here there is a warning to Jewish women not to go out with an uncovered head, since if the Torah states that a woman suspected of adultery must have her head uncovered, this indicates that a married woman must generally cover her head. The Gemara explains: By Torah law,

拽诇转讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讚转 讬讛讜讚讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 拽诇转讛 谞诪讬 讗住讜专

if she covers her head with her basket [kilta], it seems well and is sufficient. But by precepts of Jewish women, i.e., custom, even if her head is covered by her basket this is also prohibited; she requires a substantial head covering.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽诇转讛 讗讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 驻专讜注 专讗砖 讛讜讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讬讻讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘砖讜拽 讚转 讬讛讜讚讬转 讛讬讗 讜讗诇讗 讘讞爪专 讗诐 讻谉 诇讗 讛谞讞转 讘转 诇讗讘专讛诐 讗讘讬谞讜 砖讬讜砖讘转 转讞转 讘注诇讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专 讜讚专讱 诪讘讜讬

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If she covers her head with her basket, there is no violation of the prohibition against having an uncovered head. Rabbi Zeira discussed it: Where is the woman that Rabbi Yo岣nan is referring to? If we say he means that she appears this way in the marketplace, this is a violation of precepts of Jewish women, as explained previously. And if you say rather that he means she appears this way in her own courtyard, if so, you have not allowed any daughter of our father Abraham to remain with her husband, since most women are not careful to cover their heads completely inside their own courtyards. Abaye said, and some say that Rav Kahana said: Rabbi Yo岣nan is referring to when she walks from one courtyard to another courtyard or via an alleyway. Although these places are not considered public areas, strangers may still be present in them.

讜讟讜讜讛 讘砖讜拽 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪专讗讛 讝专讜注讜转讬讛 诇讘谞讬 讗讚诐 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 讘讟讜讜讛 讜专讚 讻谞讙讚 驻谞讬讛 讜诪讚讘专转 注诐 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪砖讞拽转 注诐 讘讞讜专讬诐

And the mishna stated that a woman violates Jewish custom if she spins wool in the marketplace. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This means that she reveals her arms to people by raising her sleeves as she spins. Rav 岣sda said that Avimi said: It is referring to when she spins with a red [vered] thread opposite her face to highlight her beauty, which entails an element of promiscuity. The mishna also stated another violation of Jewish custom: Or she speaks with every man she encounters. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This means that she flirts with young men.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讝讬诪谞讗 讞讚讗 讛讜讛 拽讗讝讬诇谞讗 讘转专讬讛 讚专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讞讝讬转讬讛 诇讛讛讬讗 注专讘讬讗 讚讛讜讛 讬转讘讛 拽讗 砖讚讬讗 驻讬诇讻讛 讜讟讜讜讛 讜专讚 讻谞讙讚 驻谞讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讬转讬谞谉 驻住讬拽转讬讛 诇驻讬诇讻讛 砖讚讬转讬讛 讗诪专讛 诇讬 注讜诇诐 讛讘 诇讬 驻诇讱 讗诪专 讘讛 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 诪讬诇转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 讘讛 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讟讜讜讛 讘砖讜拽 讗诪专 讘讛 专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 诪讚讘专转 注诐 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗诪专 讘讛

Rabba bar bar 岣nna said: One time I was walking behind Rav Ukva. I saw an Arab woman who was sitting, casting her spindle, and spinning a red thread opposite her face. Once she saw us, she tore the spindle from the thread and threw it down. She said to me: Young man, give me the spindle. Rav Ukva made a comment about her, noting that she provided an example of one of the types of promiscuity mentioned in the mishna. The Gemara asks: What did he say about her? Which one of the cases in the mishna did he mention? Ravina said: He said about her that she was an example of a woman who licentiously spins in the marketplace. The Rabbis said: He said about her that she was an example of a woman who licentiously speaks with every man.

讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪拽诇诇转 讬讜诇讚讬讜 讘驻谞讬讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪拽诇诇转 讬讜诇讬讚讬讜 讘驻谞讬 诪讜诇讬讚讬讜 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 讗驻专讬诐 讜诪谞砖讛 讻专讗讜讘谉 讜砖诪注讜谉 讬讛讬讜 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讚讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 谞讬讻诇讬讛 讗专讬讗 诇住讘讗 讘讗驻讬 讘专讬讛

搂 The mishna stated: Abba Shaul says: Also a woman who curses her husband鈥檚 parents in his presence violates the precepts of Jewish women. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Even when she curses his parents in the presence of his children and not in his presence she is considered one who violates Jewish custom. And your mnemonic is 鈥淓phraim and Manasseh will be to me like Reuben and Simeon鈥 (Genesis 48:5), which teaches that grandchildren have the status of children. Cursing one鈥檚 husband鈥檚 parents in front of his children is tantamount to doing so in front of the husband himself. Rabba said: An example is that she said in the presence of her husband鈥檚 son: May a lion devour your grandfather.

专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛拽讜诇谞讬转 诪讗讬 拽讜诇谞讬转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪砖诪注转 拽讜诇讛 注诇 注住拽讬 转砖诪讬砖 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 讘诪砖诪砖转 讘讞爪专 讝讜 讜谞砖诪注 拽讜诇讛 讘讞爪专 讗讞专转

搂 The mishna stated: Rabbi Tarfon says: Also a loud woman. The Gemara asks: What is the definition of a loud woman? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: She is considered loud when she raises her voice about matters relating to intercourse, i.e., she quarrels and fights with her husband about it loudly enough that the neighbors overhear, causing him embarrassment. It was taught in a baraita: When she engages in intercourse in this courtyard and she screams from pain, and therefore her voice is heard in another courtyard.

讜谞讬转谞讬讬讛 讙讘讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚砖谞讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara asks: But if so, then this should be taught together with the blemishes in the mishna at the end of the chapter, where it lists cases of women who may be divorced without payment of their marriage contract due to a physical blemish, as opposed to the mishna here, which discusses immodest conduct. Rather, it is clear as we initially answered, that a loud woman is so defined due to immodest behavior.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讚砖 讗转 讛讗砖讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讛 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞诪爪讗讜 注诇讬讛 谞讚专讬诐 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讻谞住讛 住转诐 讜谞诪爪讗讜 注诇讬讛 谞讚专讬诐 转爪讗 砖诇讗 讘讻转讜讘讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who betroths a woman on condition that there are no vows incumbent upon her, and it was subsequently discovered that there are vows incumbent upon her, she is not betrothed. This is because if the condition is not fulfilled, the betrothal is nullified. If he married her without specification and it was subsequently discovered that vows were incumbent upon her, she may be divorced without payment of her marriage contract, since he discovered a deficiency about which she had not initially informed him. However, this does not invalidate the betrothal, since he did not make any explicit condition.

注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 诪讜诪讬谉 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讘讛 诪讜诪讬谉 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讻谞住讛 住转诐 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讘讛 诪讜诪讬谉 转爪讗 砖诇讗 讘讻转讜讘讛 讻诇 讛诪讜诪讬谉 讛驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讻讛谞讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘谞砖讬诐

If he betrothed her on condition that she has no blemishes, and it was subsequently discovered that she did have blemishes, she is not betrothed. But if he married her without specification, and it was subsequently discovered that she had blemishes, she may be divorced without payment of her marriage contract. The mishna clarifies what qualifies as a blemish: All of the blemishes that are listed in tractate Bekhorot involving significant physical deformities that disqualify priests from service similarly disqualify betrothal of women, as a mistaken transaction.

讙诪壮 讜转谞谉 谞诪讬 讙讘讬 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讛讻讗 讻转讜讘讜转 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 转谞讗 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讗讟讜 讻转讜讘讜转 讛转诐 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 转谞讗 讻转讜讘讜转 讗讟讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara comments: And we learned a mishna (Kiddushin 50a) also concerning betrothal just like this case. The mishna there is essentially identical to the mishna here, so why must it be repeated? The Gemara explains: Here, it was necessary for the tanna to mention these halakhot in the context of marriage contracts, which is the topic of this tractate. Therefore, he taught the halakha of betrothal due to the halakha of marriage contracts. There, in Kiddushin, it was necessary for him to mention the halakha of betrothal, so he taught about marriage contracts due to betrothal.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜爪讚拽 讘讗诇讜 谞讚专讬诐 讗诪专讜 砖诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘砖专 讜砖诇讗 转砖转讛 讬讬谉 讜砖诇讗 转转拽砖讟 讘讘讙讚讬 爪讘注讜谞讬诐 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘讗诇讜 谞讚专讬诐 讗诪专讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 砖诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘砖专 讜砖诇讗 转砖转讛 讬讬谉 讜砖诇讗 转转拽砖讟 讘讘讙讚讬 爪讘注讜谞讬谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: These are the vows they spoke about in the mishna that are considered grounds for divorce without payment of the marriage contract: A vow that she will not eat meat or that she will not drink wine or that she will not adorn herself with colored garments. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: These are the vows they spoke about: Matters that involve affliction, such as that she will not eat meat, or that she will not drink wine, or that she will not adorn herself with colored garments.

讛讜讬 讘讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗专讬砖讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 拽驻讬讚 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讗住讬驻讗

Rav Pappa discussed it: To which statement in the mishna is this referring? If we say it is referring to the first clause of the mishna, where one betroths a woman on condition that there are no vows incumbent upon her, then since he demonstrated that he is particular about vows, even vows concerning any other matters, including insignificant ones, should also be included. Since he stipulated a condition and it was not fulfilled, the betrothal is invalid. Rather, one must conclude that it is referring to the latter clause of the mishna, about one who marries a woman without stipulation and then discovers that vows were incumbent upon her. In such a case the mishna says she may be divorced without payment of her marriage contract. However, it does not say this for all vows, but only for vows concerning matters of significant affliction.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗专讬砖讗 讜诪讬讚讬 讚拽驻讚讬 讘讛 讗讬谞砖讬 讛讜讛 拽驻讬讚讬讛 拽驻讬讚讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讘讛 讗讬谞砖讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 拽驻讬讚讬讛 拽驻讬讚讗

Rav Ashi said: Actually, one can explain that it is referring to the first clause of the mishna, where he stipulates that the marriage is conditional on the assumption that she has no vows incumbent upon her, and that the point is that for a vow concerning a matter about which people are ordinarily particular, his insistence is considered legitimate insistence, and is effective to invalidate the betrothal. But with regard to a vow concerning a matter about which people are generally not particular, his insistence is not considered insistence, and such a vow is not considered a violation of the condition. Consequently, the betrothal is valid.

讗讬转诪专 拽讬讚砖讛 注诇 转谞讗讬 讜讻谞住讛 住转诐 专讘 讗诪专 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬

It was stated that the Sages had a dispute concerning the following question: If he betrothed her conditionally, such as that she had no vows incumbent upon her, and he subsequently married her without specification, and then it was discovered that the condition had not been fulfilled, Rav said: Although he may divorce her without payment of her marriage contract, the betrothal is not nullified, and therefore she requires a bill of divorce from him. And Shmuel said: The betrothal was invalid from the outset, and therefore she does not require a bill of divorce from him. Abaye said:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Terri Krivosha for the Refuah Shlemah of her husband Harav Hayim Yehuda Ben Faiga Rivah.聽

  • 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 72: The Hair-Covering Daf

A mishnah on the practices of Dat Moshe and Dat Yehudit, and defining them by their practices, in the context...

Ketubot 72

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Ketubot 72

讗讬讻讗 谞讜注诇 讘驻谞讬讛 讗诇讗 诇讘讬转 讛讗讘诇 诪讗讬 谞讜注诇 讘驻谞讬讛 讗讬讻讗 转谞讗 诇诪讞专 讛讬讗 诪转讛 讜讗讬谉 讻诇 讘专讬讛 住讜驻讚讛 讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讻诇 讘专讬讛 住讜驻谞讛

there is effectively an act of locking a door in front of her by withholding from her any possibility of rejoicing, but when he forbids her from going to a house of mourning, what locking of a door in front of her is there? He taught: In the future she too will die, and no person will eulogize her or take care of her, just as she did not do so for others. And some say: No person will value her or pay attention to her, since a person who does not visit the sick or console mourners cuts himself off from others.

转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讟讜讘 诇诇讻转 讗诇 讘讬转 讗讘诇 诪诇讻转 讗诇 讘讬转 诪砖转讛 讘讗砖专 讛讜讗 住讜祝 讻诇 讛讗讚诐 讜讛讞讬 讬转谉 讗诇 诇讘讜 诪讗讬 讜讛讞讬 讬转谉 讗诇 诇讘讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖诇 诪讬转讛 讚住驻讚 讬住驻讚讜谞讬讛 讚拽讘专 讬拽讘专讜谞讬讛 讚讬讚诇 讬讚诇讜谞讬讛 讚诇讜讗讬 讬诇讜讜谞讬讛 讚讟注谉 讬讟注谞讜谞讬讛

Similarly, it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir used to say: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淚t is better to go to a house of mourning than to go to a house of feasting, since that is the end of all men, and the living will take it to heart鈥 (Ecclesiastes 7:2)? What does 鈥渁nd the living will take it to heart鈥 mean? It means that they will take matters relating to death to heart, realizing that they too will eventually die. He who eulogizes others, people will eulogize him; he who buries someone, people will bury him; he who lifts others to bring them to burial, people will similarly lift him to bring him to burial; he who escorts others out for burial, people will similarly escort him; he who carries others, others will carry him. Therefore, one who does not come to a house of mourning to comfort the bereaved will himself not be treated with proper dignity when he dies.

讜讗诐 讛讬讛 讟讜注谉 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专 讗讞专 专砖讗讬 诪讗讬 讚讘专 讗讞专 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讘谞讬 讗讚诐 驻专讜爪讬谉 砖诪爪讜讬讬谉 砖诐 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 诇讗 讗诪专谉 讗诇讗 讚讗讬转讞讝拽 讗讘诇 诇讗 讗讬转讞讝拽 诇讗 讻诇 讻诪讬谞讬讛

搂 The mishna stated: And if he claimed he forbade her due to something else, he is permitted to do so. The Gemara asks: What is meant by something else? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: He claims he did so due to promiscuous individuals that are commonly found there, and he does not want his wife to be among them. Rav Ashi said: We said that he may forbid her only with regard to a case where a presumption has been established that promiscuous people frequent this location, but if no such presumption has been established, it is not in his power to say he is concerned about it.

讜讗诐 讗诪专 诇讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖转讗诪专讬 讜转讬诪讗 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讚讘专讬诐 砖诇 拽诇讜谉

搂 The mishna stated: And 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, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. The Gemara asks: And let her say it. Why shouldn鈥檛 she simply comply with his wishes? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: It is referring to degrading matters, meaning intimate conversations between husband and wife, which she is ashamed to relate in the presence of others.

讗讜 砖转讛讗 诪诪诇讗讛 讜诪注专讛 诇讗砖驻讛 讜转讬注讘讬讚 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 砖转诪诇讗 讜谞讜驻爪转 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 砖转诪诇讗 注砖专讛 讻讚讬 诪讬诐 讜转注专讛 诇讗砖驻讛

The mishna stated: Or he said the vow will be void on condition that she fill something up and pour it into the refuse. The Gemara asks: And let her do it. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The mishna鈥檚 intention is that he demanded that she fill herself up and then shake herself out. This is a euphemistic way of saying that the husband wants her to take measures to prevent herself from becoming pregnant, and she is permitted to protest this. It was taught in a baraita: The case is that he told her to fill up ten jugs of water and pour them into the refuse, a task that involves pointless effort and appears foolish.

讘砖诇诪讗 诇砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖讜诐 讛讻讬 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛 讗诇讗 诇诪转谞讬转讗 诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诇讛 诪讬谞讛 转讬注讘讬讚 讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪驻谞讬 砖谞专讗讬转 讻砖讜讟讛

The Gemara asks: Granted that according to Shmuel, who explains that the mishna is referring to a case where the husband insists that she not become pregnant, due to that reason he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. But according to the baraita, which explains that he simply wants her to engage in pointless work, what difference does it make to her? Let her do it. Rabba bar bar 岣nna said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: Because she would appear insane if she were to perform pointless actions, she may therefore demand a divorce.

讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛诪讚讬专 讗转 讗砖转讜 砖诇讗 转砖讗诇 讜砖诇讗 转砖讗讬诇 谞驻讛 讜讻讘专讛 讜专讬讞讬诐 讜转谞讜专 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛 砖诪砖讬讗讛 砖诐 专注 讘砖讻讬谞讜转讬讛

Rav Kahana said: One who vows and obligates his wife not to borrow or not to lend utensils that people generally lend, such as a sifter, or a sieve, or a mill, or an oven, must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract, since by making such rules he causes her to develop a bad reputation among her neighbors, who will suspect her of stinginess or haughtiness.

转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讛诪讚讬专 讗转 讗砖转讜 砖诇讗 转砖讗诇 讜砖诇讗 转砖讗讬诇 谞驻讛 讜讻讘专讛 专讬讞讬诐 讜转谞讜专 讬讜爪讬讗 讜讬转谉 讻转讜讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪砖讬讗讛 砖诐 专注 讘砖讻讬谞讜转讬讛 讜讻谉 讛讬讗 砖谞讚专讛 砖诇讗 转砖讗诇 讜砖诇讗 转砖讗讬诇 谞驻讛 讜讻讘专讛 讜专讬讞讬诐 讜转谞讜专 讜砖诇讗 转讗专讜讙 讘讙讚讬诐 谞讗讬诐 诇讘谞讬讜 转爪讗 砖诇讗 讘讻转讜讘讛 诪驻谞讬 砖诪砖讬讗转讜 砖诐 专注 讘砖讻讬谞讬讜

The Gemara notes: That opinion is also taught in a baraita: One who vows and obligates his wife not to borrow or not to lend a sifter, or a sieve, or a mill, or an oven, must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract, since he causes her to develop a bad reputation among her neighbors. And similarly, if it is she who vowed not to borrow or not to lend a sifter, or a sieve, or a mill, or an oven, or that she will not weave nice garments for his children, she may be divorced without payment of her marriage contract. This too is because she causes him to develop a bad reputation among his neighbors, as they will link her behavior to him and think that he instructed her to act this way.

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 讬讜爪讗讜转 砖诇讗 讘讻转讜讘讛 讛注讜讘专转 注诇 讚转 诪砖讛 讜讬讛讜讚讬转 讜讗讬讝讜 讛讬讗 讚转 诪砖讛 诪讗讻讬诇转讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诪注讜砖专 讜诪砖诪砖转讜 谞讚讛 讜诇讗 拽讜爪讛 诇讛 讞诇讛 讜谞讜讚专转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪拽讬讬诪转

MISHNA: And these are examples of women who may be divorced without payment of their marriage contract: A woman who violates the precepts of Moses, i.e., halakha, or the precepts of Jewish women, i.e., custom. The Mishna explains: And who is categorized as a woman who violates the precepts of Moses? This includes cases such as when she feeds him food that has not been tithed, or she engages in sexual intercourse with him while she has the legal status of a menstruating woman, or she does not separate a portion of dough to be given to a priest [岣lla], or she vows and does not fulfill her vows.

讜讗讬讝讜讛讬 讚转 讬讛讜讚讬转 讬讜爪讗讛 讜专讗砖讛 驻专讜注 讜讟讜讜讛 讘砖讜拽 讜诪讚讘专转 注诐 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪拽诇诇转 讬讜诇讚讬讜 讘驻谞讬讜 专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛拽讜诇谞讬转 讜讗讬讝讜讛讬 拽讜诇谞讬转 诇讻砖讛讬讗 诪讚讘专转 讘转讜讱 讘讬转讛 讜砖讻讬谞讬讛 砖讜诪注讬谉 拽讜诇讛

And who is considered a woman who violates the precepts of Jewish women? One who, for example, goes out of her house, and her head, i.e., her hair, is uncovered; or she spins wool in the public marketplace; or she speaks with every man she encounters. Abba Shaul says: Also one who curses his, i.e., her husband鈥檚, parents in his presence. Rabbi Tarfon says: Also a loud woman. And who is defined as a loud woman? When she speaks inside her house and her neighbors hear her voice.

讙诪壮 诪讗讻讬诇转讜 砖讗讬谞讜 诪注讜砖专 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讬讚注 谞驻专讜砖 讗讬 讚诇讗 讬讚注 诪谞讗 讬讚注 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 驻诇讜谞讬 讻讛谉 转讬拽谉 诇讬 讗转 讛讻专讬 讜讗讝讬诇 砖讬讬诇讬讛 讜讗砖转讻讞 砖讬拽专讗

GEMARA: The mishna stated: She feeds him food that has not been tithed. The Gemara attempts to clarify: What are the circumstances of the case under discussion? If he knows that the food is untithed, he should abstain and not eat it. And if he does not know that the food is untithed, then how does he know that she in fact fed him such food, so that he can divorce her? The Gemara responds: No, it is necessary when she tells him: So-and-so the priest rectified the pile of grain for me by tithing it, and he then went and asked the priest whether he did so, and it was found to be a lie. It is therefore clear that she did not tithe the food before she served it to him.

讜诪砖诪砖转讜 谞讚讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讬讚注 讘讛 谞驻专讜砖 讗讬 讚诇讗 讬讚注 谞住诪讜讱 注讬诇讜讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讞讬谞谞讗 讘专 讻讛谞讗 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪谞讬谉 诇谞讚讛 砖住讜驻专转 诇注爪诪讛 砖谞讗诪专 讜住驻专讛 诇讛 砖讘注转 讬诪讬诐 诇讛 诇注爪诪讛

搂 The mishna stated: Or she engages in sexual intercourse with him while she has the status of a menstruating woman. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If he knows about her that she is a menstruating woman, he should abstain. And if he does not know, then he should rely on her. Because Rav 岣nnana bar Kahana said that Shmuel said: From where is it derived that a menstruating woman can count the days for herself, and that she is trusted to testify that she did so? As it is stated: 鈥淭hen she shall count to herself seven days鈥 (Leviticus 15:28). 鈥淭o herself鈥 means by herself, and she may be trusted that she did so. If so, why can鈥檛 the husband trust his wife that she is not a menstruating woman?

诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 驻诇讜谞讬 讞讻诐 讟讬讛专 诇讬 讗转 讛讚诐 讜讗讝诇 砖讬讬诇讬讛 讜讗砖转讻讞 砖讬拽专讗 讜讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讻讚专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讛讜讞讝拽讛 谞讚讛 讘砖讻讬谞讜转讬讛 讘注诇讛 诇讜拽讛 注诇讬讛 诪砖讜诐 谞讚讛

The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary when she tells him: So-and-so the Sage purified the blood for me by ruling that it did not qualify as menstrual blood, and he went and asked him, and it was found that her claim was a lie. And if you wish, say instead that this is similar to that which Rav Yehuda said, as Rav Yehuda stated: If she is known by her neighbors to be a menstruating woman, her husband is flogged if he has relations with her, due to the prohibition against cohabiting with a menstruating woman. In this case, she was known by her neighbors to be a menstruating woman, but she had not told her husband. She then engaged in sexual intercourse with him, and he subsequently discovered her status from her neighbors.

讜诇讗 拽讜爪讛 诇讛 讞诇讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬 讚讬讚注 谞驻专讜砖 讗讬 讚诇讗 讬讚注 诪谞讗 讬讚注 诇讗 爪专讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 驻诇讜谞讬 讙讘诇 转讬拽谉 诇讬 讗转 讛注讬住讛 讜讗讝讬诇 砖讬讬诇讬讛 讜讗砖转讻讞 砖讬拽专讗

搂 The mishna stated: Or she does not separate 岣lla. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If he knows that she did not separate 岣lla, he should abstain. If he does not know, then how does he know about it afterward in order to divorce her? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary when she tells him: So-and-so the kneader rectified the dough for me by separating 岣lla, and he went and asked him, and it was found that her claim was a lie.

讜谞讜讚专转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪拽讬讬诪转 讚讗诪专 诪专 讘注讜谉 谞讚专讬诐 讘谞讬诐 诪转讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 讗诇 转转谉 讗转 驻讬讱 诇讞讟讬讗 讗转 讘砖专讱 讜讙讜壮 讜讗讬讝讜 讛谉 诪注砖讛 讬讚讬讜 砖诇 讗讚诐 讛讜讬 讗讜诪专 讘谞讬讜 讜讘谞讜转讬讜 专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诪讛讻讗 诇砖讜讗 讛讻讬转讬 讗转 讘谞讬讻诐 诇砖讜讗 注诇 注住拽讬 砖讜讗

搂 The mishna also stated: Or she vows and does not fulfill her vows. The Gemara clarifies the reason for this, as it is different from the other cases in the mishna, where she causes her husband to violate a prohibition. In this case it is only she who violates a prohibition. As the Master said: Due to the sin of unfulfilled vows, children die, as it is stated: 鈥淚t is better not to vow than to vow and not pay. Do not allow your mouth to bring your flesh to sin鈥why should the Lord become angry at your voice and destroy the work of your hands?鈥 (Ecclesiastes 5:4鈥5). And what is the work of a person鈥檚 hands? You must say it is referring to his sons and his daughters. Rav Na岣an said: A proof to the above idea may be brought from here: 鈥淚n vain I smote your children鈥 (Jeremiah 2:30). The phrase 鈥渋n vain鈥 means: For matters caused by vain words, meaning that you took a vow and did not fulfill it.

转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛讬讜讚注 讘讗砖转讜 砖谞讜讚专转 讜讗讬谞讛 诪拽讬讬诪转 讬讞讝讜专 讜讬讚讬专谞讛 讬讚讬专谞讛 讘诪讗讬 诪转拽谉 诇讛 讗诇讗 讬讞讝讜专 讜讬拽谞讬讟谞讛 讻讚讬 砖转讚讜专 讘驻谞讬讜 讜讬驻专 诇讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讚专 注诐 谞讞砖 讘讻驻讬驻讛

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir used to say: Anyone who knows concerning his wife that she vows and does not fulfill her vows should return and vow to obligate her. The Gemara wonders: He should vow and obligate her? How will he rectify it for her by doing this? Rather, the intention is he should return and provoke her, so that she will vow in his presence and he can then nullify it for her. They said to him: This solution is not effective, because a person does not reside in a basket [kefifa], i.e., in close quarters, with a snake, since this is extremely dangerous. Similarly, he cannot constantly prevent her from taking vows, so it would be preferable that he divorce her.

转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讻诇 讛讬讜讚注 讘讗砖转讜 砖讗讬谞讛 拽讜爪讛 诇讜 讞诇讛 讬讞讝讜专 讜讬驻专讬砖 讗讞专讬讛 讗诪专讜 诇讜 讗讬谉 讗讚诐 讚专 注诐 谞讞砖 讘讻驻讬驻讛

It is taught in a baraita similar to the previous one that Rabbi Yehuda used to say: Anyone who knows concerning his wife that she does not separate 岣lla for him should go back and separate it after she is finished. They said to him: This solution is not effective, since a person does not reside in a basket with a snake.

诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 诇讛 讗讛讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗讛讱 讗讘诇 诪讗谉 讚诪转谞讬 讗讛讱 讗讘诇 讛讗 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讚诪拽专讬 讜讗讻讬诇

The Gemara discusses the two applications of the idea that a husband should try to correct his wife鈥檚 misdeeds: He who teaches it with regard to this, the case of 岣lla, all the more so would teach it for that, the case of vows, which are not a daily occurrence. But he who teaches it with regard to that, i.e., the case of vows, teaches it only in that case, but in this case of 岣lla, sometimes he will happen to eat untithed produce; and Rabbi Meir holds that he cannot always be careful enough to ensure that 岣lla was taken.

讜讗讬讝讜讛讬 讚转 讬讛讜讚讬转 讬讜爪讗讛 讜专讗砖讛 驻专讜注 专讗砖讛 驻专讜注 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗 讛讬讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜驻专注 讗转 专讗砖 讛讗砖讛 讜转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗讝讛专讛 诇讘谞讜转 讬砖专讗诇 砖诇讗 讬爪讗讜 讘驻专讜注 专讗砖 讚讗讜专讬讬转讗

搂 The mishna stated: And who is considered a woman who violates the precepts of Jewish women? One who goes out and her head is uncovered. The Gemara asks: The prohibition against a woman going out with her head uncovered is not merely a custom of Jewish women. Rather, it is by Torah law, as it is written with regard to a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful: 鈥淎nd he shall uncover the head of the woman鈥 (Numbers 5:18). And the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: From here there is a warning to Jewish women not to go out with an uncovered head, since if the Torah states that a woman suspected of adultery must have her head uncovered, this indicates that a married woman must generally cover her head. The Gemara explains: By Torah law,

拽诇转讛 砖驻讬专 讚诪讬 讚转 讬讛讜讚讬转 讗驻讬诇讜 拽诇转讛 谞诪讬 讗住讜专

if she covers her head with her basket [kilta], it seems well and is sufficient. But by precepts of Jewish women, i.e., custom, even if her head is covered by her basket this is also prohibited; she requires a substantial head covering.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 拽诇转讛 讗讬谉 讘讛 诪砖讜诐 驻专讜注 专讗砖 讛讜讬 讘讛 专讘讬 讝讬专讗 讛讬讻讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讘砖讜拽 讚转 讬讛讜讚讬转 讛讬讗 讜讗诇讗 讘讞爪专 讗诐 讻谉 诇讗 讛谞讞转 讘转 诇讗讘专讛诐 讗讘讬谞讜 砖讬讜砖讘转 转讞转 讘注诇讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘 讻讛谞讗 诪讞爪专 诇讞爪专 讜讚专讱 诪讘讜讬

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: If she covers her head with her basket, there is no violation of the prohibition against having an uncovered head. Rabbi Zeira discussed it: Where is the woman that Rabbi Yo岣nan is referring to? If we say he means that she appears this way in the marketplace, this is a violation of precepts of Jewish women, as explained previously. And if you say rather that he means she appears this way in her own courtyard, if so, you have not allowed any daughter of our father Abraham to remain with her husband, since most women are not careful to cover their heads completely inside their own courtyards. Abaye said, and some say that Rav Kahana said: Rabbi Yo岣nan is referring to when she walks from one courtyard to another courtyard or via an alleyway. Although these places are not considered public areas, strangers may still be present in them.

讜讟讜讜讛 讘砖讜拽 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪专讗讛 讝专讜注讜转讬讛 诇讘谞讬 讗讚诐 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬诪讬 讘讟讜讜讛 讜专讚 讻谞讙讚 驻谞讬讛 讜诪讚讘专转 注诐 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪砖讞拽转 注诐 讘讞讜专讬诐

And the mishna stated that a woman violates Jewish custom if she spins wool in the marketplace. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This means that she reveals her arms to people by raising her sleeves as she spins. Rav 岣sda said that Avimi said: It is referring to when she spins with a red [vered] thread opposite her face to highlight her beauty, which entails an element of promiscuity. The mishna also stated another violation of Jewish custom: Or she speaks with every man she encounters. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: This means that she flirts with young men.

讗诪专 专讘讛 讘专 讘专 讞谞讛 讝讬诪谞讗 讞讚讗 讛讜讛 拽讗讝讬诇谞讗 讘转专讬讛 讚专讘 注讜拽讘讗 讞讝讬转讬讛 诇讛讛讬讗 注专讘讬讗 讚讛讜讛 讬转讘讛 拽讗 砖讚讬讗 驻讬诇讻讛 讜讟讜讜讛 讜专讚 讻谞讙讚 驻谞讬讛 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讬转讬谞谉 驻住讬拽转讬讛 诇驻讬诇讻讛 砖讚讬转讬讛 讗诪专讛 诇讬 注讜诇诐 讛讘 诇讬 驻诇讱 讗诪专 讘讛 专讘 注讜拽讘讗 诪讬诇转讗 诪讗讬 讗诪专 讘讛 专讘讬谞讗 讗诪专 讟讜讜讛 讘砖讜拽 讗诪专 讘讛 专讘谞谉 讗诪专讬 诪讚讘专转 注诐 讻诇 讗讚诐 讗诪专 讘讛

Rabba bar bar 岣nna said: One time I was walking behind Rav Ukva. I saw an Arab woman who was sitting, casting her spindle, and spinning a red thread opposite her face. Once she saw us, she tore the spindle from the thread and threw it down. She said to me: Young man, give me the spindle. Rav Ukva made a comment about her, noting that she provided an example of one of the types of promiscuity mentioned in the mishna. The Gemara asks: What did he say about her? Which one of the cases in the mishna did he mention? Ravina said: He said about her that she was an example of a woman who licentiously spins in the marketplace. The Rabbis said: He said about her that she was an example of a woman who licentiously speaks with every man.

讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛诪拽诇诇转 讬讜诇讚讬讜 讘驻谞讬讜 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪拽诇诇转 讬讜诇讬讚讬讜 讘驻谞讬 诪讜诇讬讚讬讜 讜住讬诪谞讬讱 讗驻专讬诐 讜诪谞砖讛 讻专讗讜讘谉 讜砖诪注讜谉 讬讛讬讜 诇讬 讗诪专 专讘讛 讚讗诪专讛 诇讬讛 谞讬讻诇讬讛 讗专讬讗 诇住讘讗 讘讗驻讬 讘专讬讛

搂 The mishna stated: Abba Shaul says: Also a woman who curses her husband鈥檚 parents in his presence violates the precepts of Jewish women. Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: Even when she curses his parents in the presence of his children and not in his presence she is considered one who violates Jewish custom. And your mnemonic is 鈥淓phraim and Manasseh will be to me like Reuben and Simeon鈥 (Genesis 48:5), which teaches that grandchildren have the status of children. Cursing one鈥檚 husband鈥檚 parents in front of his children is tantamount to doing so in front of the husband himself. Rabba said: An example is that she said in the presence of her husband鈥檚 son: May a lion devour your grandfather.

专讘讬 讟专驻讜谉 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛拽讜诇谞讬转 诪讗讬 拽讜诇谞讬转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘诪砖诪注转 拽讜诇讛 注诇 注住拽讬 转砖诪讬砖 讘诪转谞讬转讗 转谞讗 讘诪砖诪砖转 讘讞爪专 讝讜 讜谞砖诪注 拽讜诇讛 讘讞爪专 讗讞专转

搂 The mishna stated: Rabbi Tarfon says: Also a loud woman. The Gemara asks: What is the definition of a loud woman? Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: She is considered loud when she raises her voice about matters relating to intercourse, i.e., she quarrels and fights with her husband about it loudly enough that the neighbors overhear, causing him embarrassment. It was taught in a baraita: When she engages in intercourse in this courtyard and she screams from pain, and therefore her voice is heard in another courtyard.

讜谞讬转谞讬讬讛 讙讘讬 诪讜诪讬谉 讘诪转谞讬转讬谉 讗诇讗 诪讞讜讜专转讗 讻讚砖谞讬谉 诪注讬拽专讗

The Gemara asks: But if so, then this should be taught together with the blemishes in the mishna at the end of the chapter, where it lists cases of women who may be divorced without payment of their marriage contract due to a physical blemish, as opposed to the mishna here, which discusses immodest conduct. Rather, it is clear as we initially answered, that a loud woman is so defined due to immodest behavior.

诪转谞讬壮 讛诪拽讚砖 讗转 讛讗砖讛 注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 注诇讬讛 谞讚专讬诐 讜谞诪爪讗讜 注诇讬讛 谞讚专讬诐 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讻谞住讛 住转诐 讜谞诪爪讗讜 注诇讬讛 谞讚专讬诐 转爪讗 砖诇讗 讘讻转讜讘讛

MISHNA: In the case of one who betroths a woman on condition that there are no vows incumbent upon her, and it was subsequently discovered that there are vows incumbent upon her, she is not betrothed. This is because if the condition is not fulfilled, the betrothal is nullified. If he married her without specification and it was subsequently discovered that vows were incumbent upon her, she may be divorced without payment of her marriage contract, since he discovered a deficiency about which she had not initially informed him. However, this does not invalidate the betrothal, since he did not make any explicit condition.

注诇 诪谞转 砖讗讬谉 讘讛 诪讜诪讬谉 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讘讛 诪讜诪讬谉 讗讬谞讛 诪拽讜讚砖转 讻谞住讛 住转诐 讜谞诪爪讗讜 讘讛 诪讜诪讬谉 转爪讗 砖诇讗 讘讻转讜讘讛 讻诇 讛诪讜诪讬谉 讛驻讜住诇讬谉 讘讻讛谞讬诐 驻讜住诇讬谉 讘谞砖讬诐

If he betrothed her on condition that she has no blemishes, and it was subsequently discovered that she did have blemishes, she is not betrothed. But if he married her without specification, and it was subsequently discovered that she had blemishes, she may be divorced without payment of her marriage contract. The mishna clarifies what qualifies as a blemish: All of the blemishes that are listed in tractate Bekhorot involving significant physical deformities that disqualify priests from service similarly disqualify betrothal of women, as a mistaken transaction.

讙诪壮 讜转谞谉 谞诪讬 讙讘讬 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讛讻讗 讻转讜讘讜转 讗讬爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 转谞讗 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讗讟讜 讻转讜讘讜转 讛转诐 拽讚讜砖讬谉 讗爪讟专讬讻讗 诇讬讛 转谞讗 讻转讜讘讜转 讗讟讜 拽讚讜砖讬谉

GEMARA: The Gemara comments: And we learned a mishna (Kiddushin 50a) also concerning betrothal just like this case. The mishna there is essentially identical to the mishna here, so why must it be repeated? The Gemara explains: Here, it was necessary for the tanna to mention these halakhot in the context of marriage contracts, which is the topic of this tractate. Therefore, he taught the halakha of betrothal due to the halakha of marriage contracts. There, in Kiddushin, it was necessary for him to mention the halakha of betrothal, so he taught about marriage contracts due to betrothal.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪砖讜诐 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 讬讛讜爪讚拽 讘讗诇讜 谞讚专讬诐 讗诪专讜 砖诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘砖专 讜砖诇讗 转砖转讛 讬讬谉 讜砖诇讗 转转拽砖讟 讘讘讙讚讬 爪讘注讜谞讬诐 转谞讬讗 谞诪讬 讛讻讬 讘讗诇讜 谞讚专讬诐 讗诪专讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 砖诇讗 转讗讻诇 讘砖专 讜砖诇讗 转砖转讛 讬讬谉 讜砖诇讗 转转拽砖讟 讘讘讙讚讬 爪讘注讜谞讬谉

Rabbi Yo岣nan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: These are the vows they spoke about in the mishna that are considered grounds for divorce without payment of the marriage contract: A vow that she will not eat meat or that she will not drink wine or that she will not adorn herself with colored garments. That opinion is also taught in a baraita: These are the vows they spoke about: Matters that involve affliction, such as that she will not eat meat, or that she will not drink wine, or that she will not adorn herself with colored garments.

讛讜讬 讘讛 专讘 驻驻讗 讗讛讬讬讗 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讗专讬砖讗 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讗 拽驻讬讚 讗驻讬诇讜 讻诇 诪讬诇讬 谞诪讬 讗诇讗 讗住讬驻讗

Rav Pappa discussed it: To which statement in the mishna is this referring? If we say it is referring to the first clause of the mishna, where one betroths a woman on condition that there are no vows incumbent upon her, then since he demonstrated that he is particular about vows, even vows concerning any other matters, including insignificant ones, should also be included. Since he stipulated a condition and it was not fulfilled, the betrothal is invalid. Rather, one must conclude that it is referring to the latter clause of the mishna, about one who marries a woman without stipulation and then discovers that vows were incumbent upon her. In such a case the mishna says she may be divorced without payment of her marriage contract. However, it does not say this for all vows, but only for vows concerning matters of significant affliction.

专讘 讗砖讬 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讗专讬砖讗 讜诪讬讚讬 讚拽驻讚讬 讘讛 讗讬谞砖讬 讛讜讛 拽驻讬讚讬讛 拽驻讬讚讗 诪讬讚讬 讚诇讗 拽驻讚讬 讘讛 讗讬谞砖讬 诇讗 讛讜讬 拽驻讬讚讬讛 拽驻讬讚讗

Rav Ashi said: Actually, one can explain that it is referring to the first clause of the mishna, where he stipulates that the marriage is conditional on the assumption that she has no vows incumbent upon her, and that the point is that for a vow concerning a matter about which people are ordinarily particular, his insistence is considered legitimate insistence, and is effective to invalidate the betrothal. But with regard to a vow concerning a matter about which people are generally not particular, his insistence is not considered insistence, and such a vow is not considered a violation of the condition. Consequently, the betrothal is valid.

讗讬转诪专 拽讬讚砖讛 注诇 转谞讗讬 讜讻谞住讛 住转诐 专讘 讗诪专 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 讜砖诪讜讗诇 讗诪专 讗讬谞讛 爪专讬讻讛 讛讬诪谞讜 讙讟 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬

It was stated that the Sages had a dispute concerning the following question: If he betrothed her conditionally, such as that she had no vows incumbent upon her, and he subsequently married her without specification, and then it was discovered that the condition had not been fulfilled, Rav said: Although he may divorce her without payment of her marriage contract, the betrothal is not nullified, and therefore she requires a bill of divorce from him. And Shmuel said: The betrothal was invalid from the outset, and therefore she does not require a bill of divorce from him. Abaye said:

Scroll To Top