Ketubot 72
אִיכָּא נוֹעֵל בְּפָנֶיהָ, אֶלָּא לְבֵית הָאֵבֶל מַאי נוֹעֵל בְּפָנֶיהָ אִיכָּא? תָּנָא: לְמָחָר הִיא מֵתָה וְאֵין כׇּל בְּרִיָּה סוֹפְדָהּ. וְאִיכָּא דְּאָמְרִי: אֵין כׇּל בְּרִיָּה סוֹפְנָהּ.
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.
תַּנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: מַאי דִּכְתִיב ״טוֹב לָלֶכֶת אֶל בֵּית אֵבֶל מִלֶּכֶת אֶל בֵּית מִשְׁתֶּה בַּאֲשֶׁר הוּא סוֹף כׇּל הָאָדָם וְהַחַי יִתֵּן אֶל לִבּוֹ״, מַאי ״וְהַחַי יִתֵּן אֶל לִבּוֹ״? דְּבָרִים שֶׁל מִיתָה: דְּ[יִ]סְפֹּד — יִסְפְּדוּנֵיהּ, דְּ[יִ]קְבַּר — יִקְבְּרוּנֵיהּ, דִּידַל — יְדַלּוּנֵיהּ, דִּ[י]לַוֵּאי — יְלַוּוֹנֵיהּ, דְּ[יִ]טְעֹן — יִטְעֲנוּנֵיהּ.
Similarly, it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir used to say: What is the meaning of that which is written: “It 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” (Ecclesiastes 7:2)? What does “and the living will take it to heart” 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.
וְאִם הָיָה טוֹעֵן מִשּׁוּם דָּבָר אַחֵר — רַשַּׁאי. מַאי ״דָּבָר אַחֵר״? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מִשּׁוּם בְּנֵי אָדָם פְּרוּצִין שֶׁמְּצוּיִין שָׁם. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: לָא אֲמַרַן אֶלָּא דְּאִיתַּחְזַק, אֲבָל לָא אִיתַּחְזַק — לֹא כָּל כְּמִינֵּיהּ.
§ 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.
וְאִם אָמַר לָהּ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתֹּאמְרִי. וְתֵימָא? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: דְּבָרִים שֶׁל קָלוֹן.
§ 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’t 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.
אוֹ שֶׁתְּהֵא מְמַלְּאָה וּמְעָרָה לְאַשְׁפָּה. וְתִיעְבֵּיד! אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שֶׁתְּמַלֵּא וְנוֹפֶצֶת. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תַּנָּא: שֶׁתְּמַלֵּא עֲשָׂרָה כַּדֵּי מַיִם וּתְעָרֶה לְאַשְׁפָּה.
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’s 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.
בִּשְׁלָמָא לִשְׁמוּאֵל — מִשּׁוּם הָכִי יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. אֶלָּא לְמַתְנִיתָא מַאי נָפְקָא לַהּ מִינַּהּ? תִּיעְבֵּיד! אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּרְאִיתָ כְּשׁוֹטֶה.
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 Ḥanna said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Because she would appear insane if she were to perform pointless actions, she may therefore demand a divorce.
אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תִּשְׁאַל וְשֶׁלֹּא תַּשְׁאִיל נָפָה וּכְבָרָה וְרֵיחַיִם וְתַנּוּר — יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. שֶׁמַּשִּׂיאָהּ שֵׁם רַע בִּשְׁכֵינוֹתֶיהָ.
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.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תִּשְׁאַל וְשֶׁלֹּא תַּשְׁאִיל נָפָה וּכְבָרָה רֵיחַיִם וְתַנּוּר — יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּשִּׂיאָהּ שֵׁם רַע בִּשְׁכֵינוֹתֶיהָ. וְכֵן הִיא שֶׁנָּדְרָה שֶׁלֹּא תִּשְׁאַל וְשֶׁלֹּא תַּשְׁאִיל נָפָה וּכְבָרָה וְרֵיחַיִם וְתַנּוּר, וְשֶׁלֹּא תֶּאֱרוֹג בְּגָדִים נָאִים לְבָנָיו — תֵּצֵא שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְתוּבָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמַּשִּׂיאָתוֹ שֵׁם רַע בִּשְׁכֵינָיו.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ יוֹצְאוֹת שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְתוּבָּה — הָעוֹבֶרֶת עַל דָּת מֹשֶׁה וִיהוּדִית. וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא דָּת מֹשֶׁה? מַאֲכִילָתוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעוּשָּׂר, וּמְשַׁמַּשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה, וְלֹא קוֹצָה לָהּ חַלָּה, וְנוֹדֶרֶת וְאֵינָהּ מְקַיֶּימֶת.
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 [ḥalla], or she vows and does not fulfill her vows.
וְאֵיזוֹהִי דָּת יְהוּדִית? יוֹצְאָה וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ, וְטוֹוֶה בְּשׁוּק, וּמְדַבֶּרֶת עִם כָּל אָדָם. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: אַף הַמְקַלֶּלֶת יוֹלְדָיו בְּפָנָיו. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף הַקּוֹלָנִית. וְאֵיזוֹהִי קוֹלָנִית? לִכְשֶׁהִיא מְדַבֶּרֶת בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתָהּ וּשְׁכֵינֶיהָ שׁוֹמְעִין קוֹלָהּ.
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’s, 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.
גְּמָ׳ מַאֲכִילָתוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעוּשָּׂר, הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּיָדַע — נִפְרוֹשׁ. אִי דְּלָא יָדַע — מְנָא יָדַע? לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאָמְרָה לֵיהּ ״פְּלוֹנִי כֹּהֵן תִּיקֵּן לִי אֶת הַכְּרִי״, וְאָזֵיל שַׁיְילֵיהּ, וְאִשְׁתְּכַח שִׁיקְרָא.
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.
וּמְשַׁמַּשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּיָדַע בָּהּ — נִפְרוֹשׁ, אִי דְּלָא יָדַע — נִסְמוֹךְ עִילָּוַהּ. דְּאָמַר רַב חִינָּנָא בַּר כָּהֲנָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: מִנַּיִן לְנִדָּה שֶׁסּוֹפֶרֶת לְעַצְמָהּ — שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְסָפְרָה לָּהּ שִׁבְעַת יָמִים״, ״לָהּ״ — לְעַצְמָהּ!
§ 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 Ḥinnana 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: “Then she shall count to herself seven days” (Leviticus 15:28). “To herself” means by herself, and she may be trusted that she did so. If so, why can’t the husband trust his wife that she is not a menstruating woman?
לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאָמְרָה לֵיהּ: פְּלוֹנִי חָכָם טִיהֵר לִי אֶת הַדָּם, וַאֲזַל שַׁיְילֵיהּ, וְאִשְׁתְּכַח שִׁיקְרָא. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא כִּדְרַב יְהוּדָה, דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: הוּחְזְקָה נִדָּה בִּשְׁכֵינוֹתֶיהָ — בַּעְלָהּ לוֹקֶה עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם נִדָּה.
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.
וְלֹא קוֹצָה לָהּ חַלָּה. הֵיכִי דָמֵי? אִי דְּיָדַע — נִפְרוֹשׁ, אִי דְּלָא יָדַע — מְנָא יָדַע? לָא צְרִיכָא, דְּאָמְרָה לֵיהּ: פְּלוֹנִי גַּבָּל תִּיקֵּן לִי אֶת הָעִיסָּה, וְאָזֵיל שַׁיְילֵיהּ, וְאִשְׁתְּכַח שִׁיקְרָא.
§ The mishna stated: Or she does not separate ḥalla. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances? If he knows that she did not separate ḥalla, 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 ḥalla, and he went and asked him, and it was found that her claim was a lie.
וְנוֹדֶרֶת וְאֵינָהּ מְקַיֶּימֶת. דְּאָמַר מָר: בַּעֲוֹן נְדָרִים בָּנִים מֵתִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״אַל תִּתֵּן אֶת פִּיךָ לַחֲטִיא אֶת בְּשָׂרֶךָ וְגוֹ׳״. וְאֵיזוֹ הֵן מַעֲשֵׂה יָדָיו שֶׁל אָדָם — הֱוֵי אוֹמֵר בָּנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו. רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר מֵהָכָא: ״לַשָּׁוְא הִכֵּיתִי אֶת בְּנֵיכֶם״, ״לַשָּׁוְא״ — עַל עִסְקֵי שָׁוְא.
§ 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: “It is better not to vow than to vow and not pay. Do not allow your mouth to bring your flesh to sin…why should the Lord become angry at your voice and destroy the work of your hands?” (Ecclesiastes 5:4–5). And what is the work of a person’s hands? You must say it is referring to his sons and his daughters. Rav Naḥman said: A proof to the above idea may be brought from here: “In vain I smote your children” (Jeremiah 2:30). The phrase “in vain” means: For matters caused by vain words, meaning that you took a vow and did not fulfill it.
תַּנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַיּוֹדֵעַ בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁנּוֹדֶרֶת וְאֵינָהּ מְקַיֶּימֶת — יַחְזוֹר וְיַדִּירֶנָּה. יַדִּירֶנָּה?! בְּמַאי מְתַקֵּן לַהּ? אֶלָּא: יַחְזוֹר וְיַקְנִיטֶנָּה, כְּדֵי שֶׁתִּדּוֹר בְּפָנָיו וְיָפֵר לָהּ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אֵין אָדָם דָּר עִם נָחָשׁ בִּכְפִיפָה.
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.
תַּנְיָא, הָיָה רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַיּוֹדֵעַ בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁאֵינָהּ קוֹצֶה לוֹ חַלָּה — יַחְזוֹר וְיַפְרִישׁ אַחֲרֶיהָ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ: אֵין אָדָם דָּר עִם נָחָשׁ בִּכְפִיפָה.
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 ḥalla 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.
מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי לַהּ אַהָא, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן אַהָךְ. אֲבָל מַאן דְּמַתְנֵי אַהָךְ, אֲבָל הָא — זִימְנִין דְּמִקְּרֵי וְאָכֵיל.
The Gemara discusses the two applications of the idea that a husband should try to correct his wife’s misdeeds: He who teaches it with regard to this, the case of ḥalla, 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 ḥalla, sometimes he will happen to eat untithed produce; and Rabbi Meir holds that he cannot always be careful enough to ensure that ḥalla was taken.
וְאֵיזוֹהִי דָּת יְהוּדִית? יוֹצְאָה וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ. רֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא הִיא, דִּכְתִיב: ״וּפָרַע אֶת רֹאשׁ הָאִשָּׁה״, וְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: אַזְהָרָה לִבְנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹּא יֵצְאוּ בִּפְרוּעַ רֹאשׁ! דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא —
§ 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: “And he shall uncover the head of the woman” (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,
קַלְתָּהּ שַׁפִּיר דָּמֵי, דָּת יְהוּדִית — אֲפִילּוּ קַלְתָּהּ נָמֵי אָסוּר.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי אַסִּי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: קַלְתָּהּ, אֵין בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם פְּרוּעַ רֹאשׁ. הָוֵי בַּהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא: הֵיכָא? אִילֵּימָא בְּשׁוּק — דָּת יְהוּדִית הִיא! וְאֶלָּא בֶּחָצֵר — אִם כֵּן לֹא הִנַּחְתָּ בַּת לְאַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ שֶׁיּוֹשֶׁבֶת תַּחַת בַּעְלָהּ! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי וְאִיתֵּימָא רַב כָּהֲנָא: מֵחָצֵר לְחָצֵר וְדֶרֶךְ מָבוֹי.
Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan 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 Yoḥanan 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.
וְטוֹוֶה בַּשּׁוֹק. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּמַרְאָה זְרוֹעוֹתֶיהָ לִבְנֵי אָדָם. רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר אֲבִימִי: בְּטוֹוֶה וְרַד כְּנֶגֶד פָּנֶיהָ, וּמְדַבֶּרֶת עִם כׇּל אָדָם. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בִּמְשַׂחֶקֶת עִם בַּחוּרִים.
§ 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 Ḥisda 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.
אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: זִימְנָא חֲדָא הֲוָה קָאָזֵילְנָא בָּתְרֵיהּ דְּרַב עוּקְבָא, חֲזִיתֵיהּ לְהַהִיא עַרְבָיָא דַּהֲוָה יָתְבָה קָא שָׁדְיָא פִּילְכַּהּ, וְטוֹוֶה וְרַד כְּנֶגֶד פָּנֶיהָ. כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזֵיתִינַן, פְּסַיקְתֵּיהּ לְפִילְכַּהּ שְׁדֵיתֵיהּ. אֲמַרָה לִי: עוּלָם, הַב לִי פֶּלֶךְ. אָמַר בַּהּ רַב עוּקְבָא מִילְּתָא. מַאי אָמַר בָּהּ? רָבִינָא אָמַר: ״טוֹוָה בַּשּׁוּק״ אָמַר בַּהּ. רַבָּנַן אָמְרִי: ״מְדַבֶּרֶת עִם כׇּל אָדָם״ אָמַר בָּהּ.
Rabba bar bar Ḥanna 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.
אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר: אַף הַמְקַלֶּלֶת יוֹלְדָיו בְּפָנָיו. אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בִּמְקַלֶּלֶת יוֹלְידָיו בִּפְנֵי מוֹלָידָיו. וְסִימָנָיךְ: ״אֶפְרַיִם וּמְנַשֶּׁה כִּרְאוּבֵן וְשִׁמְעוֹן יִהְיוּ לִי״. אָמַר רַבָּה: דְּאָמְרָה לֵיהּ ״נֵיכְלֵיהּ אַרְיָא לְסָבָא בְּאַפֵּי בְּרֵיהּ״.
§ The mishna stated: Abba Shaul says: Also a woman who curses her husband’s 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 “Ephraim and Manasseh will be to me like Reuben and Simeon” (Genesis 48:5), which teaches that grandchildren have the status of children. Cursing one’s husband’s 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’s son: May a lion devour your grandfather.
רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר: אַף הַקּוֹלָנִית. מַאי ״קוֹלָנִית״? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּמַשְׁמַעַת קוֹלָהּ עַל עִסְקֵי תַּשְׁמִישׁ. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: בִּמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת בְּחָצֵר זוֹ וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹלָהּ בְּחָצֵר אַחֶרֶת.
§ 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.
וְנִיתְנְיַיהּ גַּבֵּי מוּמִין בְּמַתְנִיתִין! אֶלָּא מְחַוַּורְתָּא כִּדְשַׁנִּין מֵעִיקָּרָא.
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.
מַתְנִי׳ הַמִּקְדָּשׁ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ נְדָרִים, וְנִמְצְאוּ עָלֶיהָ נְדָרִים — אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, כְּנָסָהּ סְתָם וְנִמְצְאוּ עָלֶיהָ נְדָרִים — תֵּצֵא שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְתוּבָּה.
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.
עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ מוּמִין וְנִמְצְאוּ בָּהּ מוּמִין — אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. כְּנָסָהּ סְתָם וְנִמְצְאוּ בָּהּ מוּמִין — תֵּצֵא שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְתוּבָּה. כֹּל הַמּוּמִין הַפּוֹסְלִין בַּכֹּהֲנִים — פּוֹסְלִין בְּנָשִׁים.
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.
גְּמָ׳ וּתְנַן נָמֵי גַּבֵּי קִדּוּשִׁין כִּי הַאי גַוְונָא! הָכָא — כְּתוּבּוֹת אִיצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, תַּנָּא קִדּוּשִׁין אַטּוּ כְּתוּבּוֹת. הָתָם — קִדּוּשִׁין אִצְטְרִיכָא לֵיהּ, תְּנָא כְּתוּבּוֹת אַטּוּ קִדּוּשִׁין.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוֹצָדָק: בְּאֵלּוּ נְדָרִים אָמְרוּ — שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר, וְשֶׁלֹּא תִּשְׁתֶּה יַיִן, וְשֶׁלֹּא תִּתְקַשֵּׁט בְּבִגְדֵי צִבְעוֹנִים. תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי: בְּאֵלּוּ נְדָרִים אָמְרוּ — דְּבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ: שֶׁלֹּא תֹּאכַל בָּשָׂר, וְשֶׁלֹּא תִּשְׁתֶּה יַיִן, וְשֶׁלֹּא תִּתְקַשֵּׁט בְּבִגְדֵי צִבְעוֹנִין.
Rabbi Yoḥanan 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.
הָוֵי בַּהּ רַב פָּפָּא: אַהֵיָיא? אִילֵּימָא אַרֵישָׁא: כֵּיוָן דְּקָא קָפֵיד — אֲפִילּוּ כֹּל מִילֵּי נָמֵי! אֶלָּא אַסֵּיפָא.
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.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם אַרֵישָׁא, וּמִידִּי דְּקָפְדִי בַּהּ אִינָשֵׁי — הֲוָה קְפִידֵיהּ קְפִידָא. מִידֵּי דְּלָא קָפְדִי בַּהּ אִינָשֵׁי — לָא הָוֵי קְפִידֵיהּ קְפִידָא.
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.
אִיתְּמַר: קִידְּשָׁה עַל תְּנַאי וּכְנָסָהּ סְתָם, רַב אָמַר: צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט. אָמַר אַבָּיֵי:
§ 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:
