## Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot Chapter 7

###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:1:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:1:1)

**משנה:** הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִלֵּיהָנוֹת לוֹ עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם יַעֲמִיד לָהּ פַּרְנָס. יוֹתֵר מִיכֵּן יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל חֹדֶשׁ אֶחָד יְקַיֵים וּשְׁנַיִם יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה וּבַכֹּהֶנֶת שְׁנַיִם מְקַיֵים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody makes a vow that his wife should not have any usufruct from him¹, up to thirty days² he shall appoint a provider³, more than that he has to divorce her and pay the *ketubah.* Rebbi Jehudah says, if he is an Israel⁴, for one month he should keep her, for two he has to divorce her and pay the *ketubah*; in the case of the wife of a Cohen⁵ 21:7. for two months he should keep her, for three he has to divorce her and pay the *ketubah.*

footnotes:
¹ Then he cannot fulfill his obligation to feed, clothe, and house his wife.
² This can be read to mean that the wife cannot sue for divorce if the husband limits his vow to thirty days. But if his vow is unlimited, the wife can demand an immediate divorce. It might also mean that in no case can the wife sue unless the husband did not provide for her for at least 30 days.
³ Who provides for her from his own money and only later is repaid by the husband.
⁴ Who can remarry his divorcee if he found an Elder who dissolves his vow.
⁵ He is given more time to find a way to dissolve his vow since he never could remarry his divorcee, Lev.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:1:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:1:2)

**הלכה:** הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִלֵּיהָנוֹת לוֹ כול׳. תַּמָּן תַּנִּינָן. הַמַּדִיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִתַּשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּיטָּה. וָכָא אַתְּ מַר הָכֵין. תַּמָּן בְּמַדִירָהּ מִגּוּפוֹ. בְּרַם הָכָא בְמַדִירָהּ מִנְּכָסָיו. וְיֵשׁ אָדָם נוֹדֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִפְרוֹעַ אֶת חוֹבוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶן חֲנִינָה. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁהוּא עָתִיד לְגָרְשָׁהּ וְלִיתֵּן לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה וּלְמָעֵט מִמְּזוֹנוֹתֶיהָ כְּמִי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ חוֹב. וּתְהֵא יוֹשֶׁבֶת וּמַמְתֶּנֶת. וְאִם גֵּירַשׁ הֲרֵי יָפֶה. וְאִם לָאו יַעֲלֶה לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת. כְּמָאן דָּמַר. אֵין מְזוֹנוֹת הָאִשָּׁה מִדְּבַר תּוֹרָה. כְּהָדָא דְּתַנֵּי. אֵין בֵּית דִּין פּוֹסְקִין לְאִשָּׁה מְזוֹנוֹת מִדְּמֵי שְׁבִיעִית. אֲבָל נִיזּוֹנֶת הִיא אֶצֶל בַּעֲלָהּ בַּשְּׁבִיעִית. וְיַעֲשׂוּ אוֹתָהּ כְּפוֹעֵל שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. הָדָא אָמְרָה שֶׁאֵין עוֹשִׂין אוֹתוֹ כְּפוֹעֵל שֶׁאֵינוֹ שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody makes a vow that his wife should not have any usufruct from him,” etc. There⁶, we have stated: “If somebody by a vow bars his wife from sexual intercourse,” and here you say so? There, he makes a vow to separate her from his body⁷, but here he makes a vow to separate her from his property. But can anybody make a vow not to pay his debt⁸)? Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, since in the future he will divorce her, pay her the *ketubah,* and stop her food supply, it is as if there was no debt⁹. Why could she not sit there and wait; if he divorced her everything would be in order, otherwise let him provide her with food¹⁰? It follows him who said that the wife’s food is not from words of the Torah¹¹ 3:1, Notes 11–13. Cf. also the argument of R. Eliezer ben Jacob in Halakhah 5:8 and the last sentence of Chapter 13., as it was stated¹² 5:22.: The court will not determine food for the wife from Sabbatical money, but she may be given Sabbatical produce to eat at her husband’s¹³ document.) But if the husband is present, she may eat from his Sabbatical fruit since this fulfills the rabbinic ordinance to support the wife and is not counted as paying a debt.. Then should she not be considered as a worker not worth a *peruṭah*¹⁴²? This proves that she is not considered as a worker not worth a *peruṭah.*

footnotes:
⁶ Mishnah 5:8. There, the House of Hillel already force the husband to divorce his wife after one week.
⁷ A vow not to sleep with his wife is essentially a vow to terminate the marriage; a vow concerning money matters is not.
⁸ Why should the vow be valid if it infringes contractual rights of third parties? (Cf. Introduction to Tractate Nedarim.
⁹ The Babli, 70a, notes that the partners in a marriage have the right to separate their incomes: The husband can renounce any benefit from his wife’s work and not pay any of her expenses or the wife can renounce any support from her husband and keep all her earnings. But any of these possibilities presuppose mutual consent.
¹⁰ Since in Halakhah 5:8 the obligation of the husband to feed his wife was given a biblical basis, why should the husband’s vow not simply be declared invalid and he be forced to feed his wife by a court order?
¹¹ This and the next argument are explained in Ma‘serot
¹² Tosephta Ševi‘it
¹³ If the husband is away on a trip and the wife needs money to survive, she can sell some of the husband’s property under the supervision of the court. She cannot sell Sabbatical produce since nobody may use such produce to pay his debts (and the wife’s claim is a debt based on the ketubah
¹⁴² Which is not a defect for a male, cf. Note 137.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:1:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:1:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:1:3)

וְיַעֲמִיד פַּרְנָס. כְּהָדָא. אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מוּדָּר מִמֶּנִי הֲנָיָיה וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה. יַעֲמִיד פַּרְנָס. רְשׁוּת בְּיַד הָאִשָּׁה לוֹמַר. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי לְהִתְפַּרְנֵס מְאַחֵר אֶלָּא מִבַּעֲלִי. וְהָתַנִּינָן. הַמַּשְׁרֶה אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ עַל יְדֵי שָׁלִישׁ. כָּאן בְּשֶׁקִּיבְּלָה עָלֶיהָ וְכָאן בְּשֶׁלֹּא קִיבְּלָה עָלֶיהָ. אִי בְּשֶׁלֹּא קִבְּלָה עָלֶיהָ אֲפִילוּ יוֹם אֶחָד לֹא יַעֲמִיד. מְגַלְגֶּלֶת עִמּוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם שֶׁמָּא יִמְצָא פֶתַח לְנִדְרוֹ. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. בְּמַדִירָהּ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. אֲבָל בְּמַדִירָהּ לְעוֹלָם מִיָּד יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. רִבִּי זְעִירָה רִבִּי אֲבִינָא בְשֵׁם רַב. וַאֲפִילוּ בְּמַדִירָהּ לְעוֹלָם מְגַלְגֶּלֶת עִמּוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם שֶׁמָּא יִמְצָא פֶתַח לְנִדְרוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
He could appoint a provider¹⁵ 4:8 (Notes 101,102) quoted here, in that he indicates to a third person that he is ready to repay that person after he has provided for his wife, in a way that the provider could not have recourse to the courts if the husband would not pay., as the following: “X is forbidden any profit from me by a vow and I do not know what to do.” Let him appoint a provider¹⁶! A woman has the right to say, it is impossible for me to be provided for by anybody other than my husband. But did we not state¹⁷: “If somebody provides for his wife through a third party.” There, if she accepted it; here, if she did not accept it. If she did not accept it¹⁸ then he should not appoint even for one day! She continues with him for one month, perhaps he will find an opening for his vow¹⁹. Samuel says, if he vowed for thirty days. But if he vowed forever, he shall divorce immediately and pay the *ketubah.* Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Avina in the name of Rav: Even if he vowed forever, she continues with him for one month, perhaps he will find an opening for his vow²⁰.

footnotes:
¹⁵ The Mishnah requires the husband to look for a provider but in fact he cannot appoint one since his vow prohibits him to provide for his wife through an agent. The only way the husband can fulfill his obligation is indicated by Mishnah Nedarim
¹⁶ Why can the wife force a divorce if she is provided for?
¹⁷ Mishnah 5:11. That Mishnah and the following give detailed instructions how a wife is provided for by an agent, giving the impression that this refers to a permanent arrangement. Why is this only accepted as very temporary in the Mishnah here?
¹⁸ This clause is an insert by the first corrector. The text is suspect since אִי is Babylonian, for Galilean אִין “if”.
¹⁹ One requires a cooling-down period of one month to give the husband time to regret his vow and seek dissolution of the vow by an Elder.
²⁰ In the Babli, 71a, the positions attributed to Samuel and Rav are switched.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:1:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:1:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:1:4)

אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים. מָאן דָּמַר. שְׁלֹשִׁים. מְסַיּיֵעַ לְרַב. וּמָאן דָּמַר. עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים. מְסַיּיֵעַ לִשְׁמוּאֵל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Some Tannaïm state: thirty days. Some Tannaïm state: up to thirty days²¹. He who says thirty days²² supports Rav; he who says up to thirty days²³ paid. supports Samuel.

footnotes:
²¹ All ms. sources (Mishnah, Tosephta 7:1, quotes in Yerushalmi and Babli) support the second version.
²² This is the minimum delay before the wife can go to court; therefore the husband certainly has to provide for 30 days.
²³ The divorce proceedings should be finished by then and the full ketubah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:1:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:1:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:1:5)

רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. בְּכוֹהֲנוֹת פְּלִיגִין. יוֹתֵר מִיכֵּן יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. בְּסוֹף שְׁנַיִם. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר. בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל חוֹדֶשׁ אֶחָד יְקַיֵים. וּשְׁנַיִם יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. בְּסוֹף שְׁנַיִם. וּבְכוֹהֲנוֹת שְׁנַיִם יְקַיֵים. שְׁלֹשָׁה יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּתָהּ. בִּתְחִילַּת שָׁלֹשׁ. וְתַנֵּי פְלִיג בְּסוֹף שְׁלֹשָׁה. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. אָמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי מָנָא. הֵן דְּלָא תַנִּיתָהּ פְּלִיגָא אַתְּ עֲבַד לֵיהּ פְּלִיגָא. אֶלָּא בְיִשְׂרָאֵל פְּלִיגִין. יוֹתֵר מִיכֵּן יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. בִּתְחִילַּת שְׁנַיִם. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל חֹדֶשׁ אֶחָד יְקַיֵים וּשְׁנַיִם יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. בִּתְחִילַּת שְׁנַיִם. וּבַכּוֹהֲנוֹת שְׁנַיִם יְקַיֵים. שְׁלֹשָׁה יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. בְּסוֹף שְלֹשָׁה. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. בְּסוֹף שְׁלֹשָׁה דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Yose said, they²⁴ differ about wives of Cohanim. “Beyond that he has to divorce her and pay the *ketubah*,” at the end of the second [month]²⁵. “Rebbi Jehudah says, if he is an Israel, for one month he should keep her, for two he has to divorce her and pay the *ketubah*,” at the end of the second [month]. “In the case of the wife of a Cohen for two months he should keep her, for three he has to divorce her and pay the *ketubah*,” at the beginning of the third. And a disagreement was stated²⁶, at the end of three [months], the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Mana said to him, where no disagreement was stated, you introduce a disagreement. But they disagree if he is an Israel. “Beyond that he has to divorce her and pay the *ketubah*,” at the beginning of the second [month]. “Rebbi Jehudah says, if he is an Israel, for one month he should keep her²⁷, for two he has to divorce her and pay the *ketubah*,” at the beginning of the second. “In the case of the wife of a Cohen for two months he should keep her, for three he has to divorce her and pay the *ketubah*,” at the end of three [months]. It was stated thus: At the end of three by everybody’s opinion.

footnotes:
²⁴ R. Jehudah and R. Meïr, the author of the anonymous Mishnah. In Tosephta 7:1 it is stated: “He should appoint a provider for up to 30 days, and for a Cohen’s wife three months, the words of R. Meïr.” At first glance, this seems to indicate that R. Jehudah permits the court to force the husband to divorce his wife immediately after the end of the second month but R. Meïr only after the end of the third.
²⁵ Scheduling one month for the court proceedings.
²⁶ In the Tosephta.
²⁷ In a short month only 29 days, in opposition to R. Meïr who requires 30 days in every case (Babli 71a).


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:2:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:2:1)

**משנה:** הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תִטְעוֹם בְּאֶחָד מִכָּל מִינֵי פֵירוֹת יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. רִבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל חֹדֶשׁ אֶחָד יְקַיֵים שְׁנַיִם יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. וּבְכוֹהֶנֶת שְׁנַיִם יְקַיֵים שְׁלֹשָׁה יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody causes²⁸ a vow of his wife that she should not taste any kind of fruits has to divorce her and pay the *ketubah.* Rebbi Jehudah says, if he is an Israel, for one month²⁹ he should keep her, for two he has to divorce her and pay the *ketubah*; in the case of the wife of a Cohen for two [months] he should keep her, for three he has to divorce her and pay the *ketubah.*

footnotes:
²⁸ The Halakhah will explain how a husband can cause a wife’s vow.
²⁹ Most mss. of the Babli and the Mishnah read “day” instead of “month”. The reading “month” is found in a number of early medieval authors discussing the Babli.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:2:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:2:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:2:2)

**הלכה:** הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ כול׳. וְיֵשׁ אָדָם שֶׁמַּדִּיר אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ מֵחַיִים. אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁנָּדְרָה אִשָּׁה וְשָׁמַע בַּעֲלָהּ וְאָמַר לָהּ. אִם תֹּאכְלִי מֵחֶפֶץ פְּלוֹנִי תְּהֵא אֲסוּרָה מִנְּכָסָיו. אָכְלָה מֵאוֹתוֹ הַחֶפֶץ וּתְהֵא אֲסוּרָה מִנְּכָסָיו. וָהֲנֵי רֹאשָׁהּ דְּפִירְקָא. אֲבָל בְּשֶׁנָּדְרָה אִשְׁתּוֹ וְשָׁמַע בַּעֲלָהּ וְלֹא הֵיפֵר לָהּ וּכְמָאן דָּמַר. הוּא נָתַן אֶצְבָּעוֹ בֵּין שִׁינֶּיהָ יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי חוּנָה. אֲפִילוּ כְמָאן דָּמַר. הִיא נָתְנָה אֶצְבָּעוֹ בֵּין שִׁינֶּיהָ תֵּצֵא שֶׁלֹּא בִכְתוּבָּה. מוֹדֵי בְמַקְנִיטָהּ וְנָדְרָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody causes a vow of his wife,” etc. Can anybody cause somebody else’s vow during his lifetime? It must be that the wife made a vow, the husband heard it, and said to her: If you will eat from such and such, my property will be forbidden to you. If she ate from such and such, why should his property not be forbidden to her³⁰? Is that not the case from the beginning of the chapter³¹? But if his wife made a vow, her husband was informed, and did not dissolve it, following him who says that he put his finger between her teeth³², 11:13, Notes 98–103. The image is that if he puts his finger between her teeth, he has only himself to blame if she bites. R. Meïr and R. Jehudah hold that he put his finger between her teeth; cf. also Babli 71a., he has to divorce her and pay the *ketubah.* Rebbi Ḥuna said, even he who said that she put his finger between her teeth, and should be divorced without *ketubah,* will agree³³ in case he provoked her to make the vow.

footnotes:
³⁰ Since she is the cause.
³¹ He forbade his property to her. Why does the anonymous Tanna require a stay of 30 days in the first Mishnah but none in the second?
³² The question whether the husband is responsible for the consequences if he does not dissolve his wife’s vows is in the last paragraph of Nedarim
³³ That he has to pay.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:3:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:3:1)

**משנה:** הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תִתְקַשֵּׁט בְּאֶחָד מִכָּל הַמִּינִין יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר בָּעֲנִיּוֹת שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן קִיצְבָּה וּבָעֲשִׁירוֹת שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody causes a vow of his wife that she should not adorn herself with one of the kinds³⁴ has to divorce her and pay the *ketubah.* Rebbi Yose says, among the poor if he did not give a time limit, among the rich for thirty days.

footnotes:
³⁴ Kinds of perfume. In modern Hebrew, only jewellery would be קישוּט.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:3:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:3:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:3:2)

**הלכה:** הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תִתְקַשֵּׁט כול׳. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. בָּעֲנִיּוֹת שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן קִיצְבָּה. עוּלָּא בַר יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר. בָּעֲנִיּוֹת שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן קִצְבָּה. אֲבָל אִם נָתַן קִיצְבָּה אֲפִילוּ עַד עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים מוּתָּר. שֶׁאֵין שׁוּעָל עָפַר פִּרִין מֵת. נָתַן בַּר הוֹשַׁעְיָה אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. חוּץ מִן הָרֶגֶל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody causes a vow of his wife that she should not adorn herself,” etc. Rav Huna said, so is the Mishnah³⁵: “Among the poor if he did not give a time limit.” Ulla bar Ismael said, among the poor if he did not give a time limit; but if he gave a time limit even if it were for ten years³⁶ it is permitted, for no fox dies if he gets dusty from his lair³⁷. Nathan bar Hoshaiah said in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Except holidays³⁸.

footnotes:
³⁵ J. N. Epstein, 2מבוא לנוסח המשנה, p. 474–475 conjectures that originally the Mishnah read: “if he set a time limit, he may keep her,” and only Rav Huna changed the text to adapt it to the other Mishnaiot of this series. In any case, all mss. of Mishnah and Babli follow Rav Huna’s reading.
³⁶ In the Babli, 71b, this is R. Joḥanan’s opinion.
³⁷ This popular saying also occurs in a slightly different version in the Babli, 71b. If the husband himself smells badly, he will not be bothered by his wife’s smells.
³⁸ In the Babli, 71b, this is ascribed to Rav Ḥisda.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:4:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:4:1)

**משנה:** הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תֵלֵךְ לְבֵית אָבִיהָ בִּזְמַן שֶׁהֵן עִמָּהּ בָּעִיר חֹדֶשׁ אֶחָד יְקַיֵים שְׁנַיִם יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהֵן בְּעִיר אֲחֶרֶת רֶגֶל אֶחָד יְקַיֵים שְׁנַיִם יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody causes a vow of his wife that she should not go to her father’s house, if they live in the same city she does, for one month he should keep her, for two he has to divorce her and pay the *ketubah.* If they live in another city, for one holiday he should keep her, for two he has to divorce her and pay the *ketubah.*


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:4:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:4:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:4:2)

**הלכה:** הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תֵלֵךְ לְבֵית אָבִיהָ כול׳. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. תַּנֵּי תַמָּן. הֵדִירָהּ שֶׁלֹּא תִרְחֲצִי בַמֶּרְחָץ. בַּכָּרָכִים שַׁבָת אַחַת וּבַכְּפָרִים שְׁתֵּי שַׁבָּתוֹת. שֶׁלֹּא תִנְעֲלִי מַנְעַל. בָּכְּפָרִים שְׁלֹשָׁה חֳדָשִׁים וּבַכְּרָכִים מֵעֵת לְעֵת.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody causes a vow of his wife that she should not go to her father’s house,” etc. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, they stated there³⁹: If he made her make a vow that she should not wash in the bathhouse⁴⁰, in walled cities one week, in villages two weeks. That she should not wear shoes⁴¹, in villages three months⁴² 13:9) reads: Three days., in walled cities 24 hours.

footnotes:
³⁹ In Babylonia.
⁴⁰ The public thermal bath.
⁴¹ Only sandals.
⁴² Maimonides (Hilkhot Iššut


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:4:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:4:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:4:3)

רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. בְּרֶגֶל רְדוּפִין שָׁנוּ. אֵי זֶהוּ רֶגֶל הָרְדוּפִין. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. זֶה רֶגֶל רִאשׁוֹן שֶׁאָבִיה רוֹדְפָהּ לְבֵית בַּעֲלָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Joḥanan⁴³ said, they taught that about the pursueds’ holiday. What is the pursueds’ holiday? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Bun said, that is the first holiday⁴⁴ when her father drives her to her husband’s house⁴⁵.

footnotes:
⁴³ In the Babli, 71b, this is said in the name of Rabba bar Ulla with the concurrence of R. Joḥanan.
⁴⁴ After her final marriage.
⁴⁵ When it is customary for the newlywed to visit her family and the father sends her back to her husband’s house.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:5:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:5:1)

**משנה:** הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תֵלֵךְ לְבֵית הָאֵבֶל אוֹ לְבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנוֹעֵל בְּפָנֶיהָ. וְאִם הָיָה טוֹעֵן מִשּׁוּם דָּבָר אַחֵר רַשַּׁאי. אִם אָמַר לָהּ שֶׁתֹּאמְרִי לִפְלוֹנִי מַה שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי לָךְ אוֹ שֶׁתִּהְיִי מְמַלְּאָה וּמְעָרָה לְאַשָּׁפוֹת יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** ⁴⁶ If somebody causes a vow of his wife that she should not pay condolence visits or go to weddings has to divorce her and pay the *ketubah.* But if he argues because of another reason, he is in his rights. If he said to her you should tell X what I said to you⁴⁷ or that she should fill [vessels] and pour them out on garbage heaps, he has to divorce her and pay the *ketubah.*

footnotes:
⁴⁶ The entire Mishnah is explained in the Halakhah.
⁴⁷ This is the text in the Yerushalmi and one Babli mss. In all other Talmud or Mishnah mss.: “What you said to me or what I said to you” (text in the Halakhah) or “what I said to you or you said to me”.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:5:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:5:2)

**הלכה:** הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תֵלֵךְ לְבֵית הָאֵבֶל כול׳. הִדִּירָהּ שֶׁלֹּא לְהַשְׁאִיל נָפָה וּכְבָרָה. יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מַשִּׂיאָהּ שֶׁם רַע בִּשְׁכֵינוֹתֶיהָ. וְכֵן הִיא שֶׁנָּדְרָה שֶׁלֹּא לְהַשְׁאִיל נָפָה וּכְבָרָה תֵצֵא שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְתוּבָּה. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא מַשִּׂיאָתוֹ שֶׁם רַע עַל שְׁכֵינָיו. הִדִּירָהּ שֶׁלֹּא תֵלֵךְ לְבֵית הָאֵבֶל אוֹ לְבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. שֶׁלְּמָחָר מֵתָהּ מוּטָּל לְפָנֶיהָ וְאֵין בִּרְיָיה מַשְׁגָּחַת עָלֶיהָ. וְכֵן הִיא שֶׁנָּדְרָה שֶׁלֹּא תֵלֵךְ לְבֵית הָאֵבֶל אוֹ לְבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה תֵצֵא שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְתוּבָּה. שֶׁלְּמָחָר מֵתוֹ מוּטָּל לְפָנָיו וְאֵין בִּרְיָיה מַשְׁגָּחַת עָלָיו. רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה רַבּוֹ. טוֹב לָלֶכֶת אֶל בֵּית הָאֵבֶל מִלֶּכֶת אֶל בֵּית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה בַּאֲשֶׁר הוּא סוֹף כָּל הָאָדָם וְהַחַי יִתֵּן אֶל לִבּוֹ. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְהַחַי יִתֵּן אֶל לִבּוֹ. אֶלָּא עֲבַד דְּיַעַבְדּוֹן סְפוֹד דְּיִסְפְּדוּן קֲבוֹר דְּיִקְבְּרוּן לְוַויי דְּיִלְווּן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody causes a vow of his wife that she should not pay condolence visits,” etc. ⁴⁸”If he made her vow not to lend out fine and coarse sieves, he shall divorce her and pay the *ketubah,* since he gives her a bad reputation among her [female] neighbors. And so if she made a vow not to lend out fine and coarse sieves, she should leave without *ketubah* since she gives him a bad reputation among his [male] neighbors.” ⁴⁹”If he made her vow not to pay condolence visits or go to weddings, he shall divorce her and pay the *ketubah,* since tomorrow a relative of hers will die and nobody will take notice of her. And so if she made a vow not to pay condolence visits or go to weddings, she should leave without *ketubah* since tomorrow a relative of his will die and nobody will take notice of him.” ⁵⁰ 7:6).”Rebbi Meïr is saying in the name of his teacher Rebbi Aqiba: ‘It is better to pay condolence visits than to go to a wedding since the former is the end of every human, and the living should take notice.’ Why does the verse say, ‘and the living should take notice’? But do so they shall: eulogize so they should eulogize, bury so they should bury, accompany⁵¹ so they should accompany.”

footnotes:
⁴⁸ In the Babli, 72a, and Tosephta 7:4: “fine and coarse sieves and portable ovens.”
⁴⁹ Babli, 72a, In Tosephta 7:5: She will die and nobody will care.
⁵⁰ Similar but slightly different texts in Babli, 72a, and Tosephta 7:6 (Eccl.
⁵¹ Accompany the coffin to the cemetery.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:5:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:5:3)

אִם הָיָה טוֹעֵן מִשּׁוּם דָּבָר אַחֵר רַשַּׁאי. מִשּׁוּם שֶׁם רַע.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“If he argues because of another reason, he is in his rights,” because of bad reputation⁵².

footnotes:
⁵² If he objects only to certain visits where his wife is likely to meet persons of bad reputation who might seduce her.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:5:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:5:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:5:4)

אָמַר לָהּ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתֹּאמְרִי לְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי מַה שֶׁאָמַרְתְּ לִי. בְּיָחִיד. אוֹ שֶׁאָמַרְתִּי לָךְ. בְּיָחִיד. אוֹ שֶׁתְּהֵא מְמַלָּא וּמְעָרָה לְאַשָּׁפוֹת יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. תַּמָּן אָמְרִין. כְּגוֹן מַעֲשֵׂה עֵר. וְרַבָּנִין דְּהָכָא אָמְרִין. דְּבָרִים שֶׁלְּבַטָּלָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“If he said to her I require that you tell Mr. X what you said to me,” alone, “or I said to you”, alone⁵³, “or that she should fill [vessels] and pour them out on garbage heaps, he has to divorce her and pay the *ketubah.*⁵⁴” There⁵⁵, they say, like Er’s action⁵⁶38:7,9. Cf. *Gen. rabba* 85(5) where the expression is: He ploughed in the gardens and poured out on the garbage heaps., but the rabbis here say, senseless things⁵⁷.

footnotes:
⁵³ Private matters at the time of sex play; Tosephta 7:6. The formulation in the Babli 72a, “shameful matters” is ambiguous.
⁵⁴ In the Tosephta: Because he does not treat her following the laws of Moses and Israel. The formula for the preliminary marriage is that the woman shall be married to the man “following the laws of Moses and Israel.”
⁵⁵ Babli 72a in the name of Samuel.
⁵⁶ Which in Jewish tradition was identical to Onan’s sin. He requires her to take contraceptive action; Gen.
⁵⁷ In the words of the Babli, 72a, if she pours water out on the garbage heap “her neighbors would consider her insane.”


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:6:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:6:1)

**משנה:** אֵילּוּ יוֹצְאוֹת שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְתוּבָּה. הָעוֹבֶרֶת עַל דָּת מֹשֶׁה וִיהוּדִית. וְאֵי זוֹ הִיא דָּת מֹשֶׁה. מַאֲכִילָתוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעוּשָּׂר וּמְשַׁמְּשָׁתוֹ נִידָּה וְלֹא קוֹצָה לָהּ חַלָּה וְנוֹדֶרֶת וְאֵינָהּ מְקַיֶימֶת. וְאֵי זוֹ הִיא דָּת יְהוּדִית. יוֹצְאָה וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ וְטוֹוָה בַשּׁוּק וּמְדַבֶּרֶת עִם כָּל אָדָם. אָבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר. אַף הַמְקַלֶּלֶת יוֹלְדָיו בְּפָנָיו. רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר אַף הַקּוֹלָנִית. וְאֵי זוֹ הִיא קוֹלָנִית. לִכְשֶׁהִיא מְדַבֶּרֶת בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתָהּ וּשְׁכֵינֶיהָ שׁוֹמְעִין קוֹלָהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** The following leave without *ketubah*: Any one violating the laws of Moses or Jews. What is the law of Moses? She feeds him what is not tithed, or makes him sleep with her when she is menstruating, or does not cut *ḥallah*⁵⁸2:2 (Note 129; 22d l. 59)]., or makes vows which she does not keep. And what is the law of Jews: She leaves home with her hair in disorder⁵⁹, or spins in public⁶⁰, or speaks with everybody⁶¹. Abba Saul says, also one who curses his parents in his presence. Rebbi Tarphon says, also the big-voiced.
What is the big-voiced? Any who speaks inside her house and her neighbors hear her voice.

footnotes:
⁵⁸ In all these cases, she causes him to commit a sin punishable by extirpation. One recommends to the husband to divorce her since “nobody should live with a snake in the same basket” [Babli 72a; Yerushalmi Demai
⁵⁹ In both Talmudim, this is interpreted that she leaves home with her hair uncovered.
⁶⁰ It seems that it was a common sign of a free woman engaged in prostitution to appear as if spinning in public (in the Babli, 72b, if she is spinning with a rose on her ear), in contrast to slave girls used as prostitutes who were exhibited naked in front of brothels.
⁶¹ This also could be interpreted as a way of soliciting.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:6:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:6:2)

**הלכה:** אֵילּוּ יוֹצְאוֹת שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְתוּבָּה כול׳. וְאֵי זוֹ הִיא הַקּוֹלָנִית כול׳. וְכוּלְּהוֹן בְּעֵדִים. פְּלוֹנִי עִישֵּׂר. פְּלוֹנִי רָאָה כִיתְמִן. פְּלוֹנִי קָצָה חַלָּתָהּ. פְּלוֹנִי הִתִּיר אֶת נִדְרָהּ. בָּדְקוּן כוּלְּהוֹן וְלָא אַשְׁכְּחוֹן.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “The following leave without *ketubah*,” etc. “What is the big-voiced,” etc. And all with witnesses. “X tithed⁶², X saw the stains⁶³ 4:1) and Sadducees accused Pharisees because they do not consider all genital discharges as menstrual (Damascus Document A 5:7). Later practice eliminated the problem by observing both Pharisaic and Sadducee prohibitions. Pharisaic distinctions between pure and impure blood required women to consult rabbis about their discharges. It is not likely that this ever was widespread practice except for wives of Cohanim in whose household impurity had to be reduced to an absolute minimum. The disappearance of priestly purity in the second century C.E. probably put an end to that practice even though the fourth Century Babylonian Rava still claimed full knowledge of all relevant rules., X cut her *ḥallah*⁶⁴ from it; cf. Mishnah *Ḥallah* 1:7., X permitted her vow.” They checked and found it was not so.

footnotes:
⁶² The same argument in the Babli, 72a.
⁶³ She said to her husband that she showed her stained underwear to a rabbi who decided that it was not menstrual blood. In the first Century C. E. it was a common usage of Jewish sects to accuse the adherents of other sects of sleeping with menstruating women. Pharisees accused Sadducees and Samaritans because they considered all genital discharges as menstrual (Mishnah Niddah
⁶⁴ The heave to be taken from bread dough. It was common practice to have a professional baker prepare bread dough for private households and to take ḥallah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:6:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:6:3)

מַאֲכִילָתוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעוּשָּׂר וּמְשַׁמְּשָׁתוֹ נִידָּה וְאֵינָהּ קוֹצָה לוֹ חַלָּה וְנוֹדֶרֶת וְאֵינָהּ מְקַיֶימֶת. נִיחָא כוּלְּהוֹן דְּאִית לֵהּ בְּהוֹן. נוֹדֶרֶת וְאֵינָהּ מְקַיֶימֶת מָה אִית לָהּ בְּהָדֵיהּ. יְכִיל מֵימַר. אֵי אֶיפְשִׁי אִשָּׁה נַדְרָנִית שֶׁהִיא קוֹבֶרֶת אֶת בָּנֶיהָ. תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוּדָן. בְּעָוֹן נְדָרִים הַבָּנִים מֵתִים. דִּכְתִיב לַשָּׁוְא הִכִּיתִי אֶת בְּנֵיכֶם.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“She feeds him what is not tithed, or makes him sleep with her when she is menstruating, or does not cut *ḥallah,* or makes vows which she does not keep.” We understand all these because he is involved⁶⁵. “She makes vows which she does not keep,” what is his interest in this? He can say, I cannot live with a vowing wife because she buries her children. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Yudan⁶⁶ 4:3 (45c 1. 63), *Šabbat* 5b 1. 8; Babli 72a in the name of Rav Naḥman. *Šabbat* 32b in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Isaac (also thus in one Geniza ms. of *Ketubot*); in *Yalquṭ Šim‘oni Jer.* #266 a different verse in the name of R. Nathan (anonymous in the Babli, 72a).: Children die for the sin of vows, as it is written⁶⁷ 2:30.: “For vain [vows] I smote your children.

footnotes:
⁶⁵ In the first three cases, she leads him into sin.
⁶⁶ Giṭṭin
⁶⁷ Jer.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:6:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:6:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:6:4)

וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ. לֶחָצֵר אָמְרוּ. קַל וָחוֹמֶר לְמָבוֹי. רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הַיּוֹצְאָה בְקַפִּלִּטִין שֶׁלָּהּ אֵין בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם רֹאשָׁהּ פָרוּעַ. הָדָא דְתֵימַר לְחָצֵר. אֲבָל לְמָבוֹי יֵשׁ בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם יוֹצְאָה וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ. יֵשׁ חָצֵר שֶׁהוּא כְמָבוֹי וְיֵשׁ מָבוֹי שֶׁהוּא כְחָצֵר. חָצֵר שֶׁהָרַבִּים בּוֹקְעִין בְּתוֹכָהּ הֲרֵי הוּא כְמָבוֹי. וּמָבוֹי שֶׁאֵין הָרַבִּים בּוֹקְעִין בְּתוֹכוֹ הֲרֵי הוּא כְחָצֵר.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“With her hair in disorder.” They said that for the courtyard⁶⁸; so much more for the passageway⁶⁹. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one goes out in her wig⁷⁰ But the meaning of that word as given in the dictionaries is not “wig” as asserted by Musaphia but “the hair” (collective). The meaning “false hair, wig” is found in Latin *capillamentum.* Cf. also the Latin adjective *capillatus, -a, -um*“having hair, with fine head of hair”.
The parallel in the Babli, 72b, has קלתה which Rashi explains as a makeshift head cover formed by an inverted basket, which is declared as forbidden., she does not go out with her hair in disorder. That is, to the courtyard; if she does it in the passageway, she goes out with her hair in disorder. There exists a courtyard which is like a passageway and a passageway which is like a courtyard. A courtyard through which outsiders have broken⁷¹ is like a passageway and a passageway through which no outsiders are breaking⁷² is like a courtyard.

footnotes:
⁶⁸ It is supposed that no house has a direct exit to the street but that a number of houses share a common courtyard from which one leaves to a passageway or a street.
⁶⁹ A side street which is not a thoroughfare. It may be a dead-end street or not; it is public domain but mainly used by the dwellers of courtyards opening to that side street.
⁷⁰ The word was identified by Musaphia as Latin capillitium.
⁷¹ It has become a shortcut for outsiders.
⁷² A dead-end street used only by the inhabitants of its houses.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:6:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:6:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:6:5)

אָבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר. אַף הַמְקַלֶּלֶת אֵת וְולָדיו בִּפְנֵי יוֹלְדָיו. רִבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר אַף הַקּוֹלָנִית. אֵי זוֹ הִיא הַקּוֹלָנִית. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. כָּל שֶׁהִיא מְדַבֶּרֶת וּשְׁכֵינוֹתֶיהָ שׁוֹמְעוֹת אוֹתָהּ. רַב אָמַר. כָּל שֶׁקּוֹלָהּ הוֹלֵךְ מִמִּיטָּה לְמִיטָּה בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Abba Saul says, also one who curses their child in his parents’ presence⁷³. Rebbi Tarphon says, also the big-voiced. What is the big-voiced? Samuel says, any who speaks and her women neighbors hear her voice⁷⁴. Rav says, any one whose voice is heard by other people from bed to bed during intercourse⁷⁵.

footnotes:
⁷³ In the Babli, 72b, as Amoraic statement: One who curses his parents before his children.
⁷⁴ Therefore, all his marital disagreements are immediately public knowledge.
⁷⁵ The same statement is also in the Babli, 72b.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:6:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:6:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:6:6)

תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חָנִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל. אֶחָד נָשִׁים שֶׁאָמְרוּ. יֵשׁ לָהֶן כְּתוּבָּה. וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים שֶׁאָמְרוּ. יוֹצְאוֹת שֶׁלֹּא בִכְתוּבָּה. כְּגוֹן הַיְתוֹמָה וְהַשְּׁנִיָיה וְהָאַיְילוֹנִית. לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא כְתוּבַּת מְנָה מָאתַיִם. אָלָּא אֲפִילוּ הָיְתָה כְּתוּבָּה שֶׁלְּאֶלֶף דֵּינָר מְאַבֶּדֶת וְנוֹטֶלֶת בְּלָיוֹת מִמָּה שֶׁיֵּשׁ לְפָנֶיהָ. וְהַיּוֹצְאָה מִשּׁוּם שֵׁם רַע אֵין לָהּ בְּלָיוֹת. מָהוּ נְסַב מִן הַפָּרָא פֶרְנוֹן דִּידָּהּ. רִבִּי זְעִירָה אָמַר. נָסְבָה. רִבִּי הִילָא אָמַר. לֹא נָסְבָה. רִבִּי הִילָא עֲבַד לָהּ כְּמִיתָה. רִבִּי הִילָא רִבִּי יָסָא רִבִּי בָּא בַּר כֹּהֵן מַטֵּי בָהּ בְשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אֶחָד נָשִׁים שֶׁאָמְרוּ. יוֹצְאוֹת שֶׁלֹּא בִכְתוּבָּה. לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא כְּתוּבַּת מְנָה מָאתַיִם אָלָּא אֲפִילוּ הָיְתָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ שֶׁלְּאֶלֶף דֵּינָר מְאַבֶּדֶת. רִבִּי סִימוֹן אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. כָּל הַמִּשְׁנָיוֹת מְחוּבָּרוֹת בְּמִשְׁנָה זוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יָסָא. בְּהַיי דָא מַתְנִיתָא. בְּרִבִי חָנִין דִּשְׁמוּאֵל. אָמַר לֵיהּ. דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל הִיא. וְתַנֵּי רִבִּי חִיָיה כֵן. נָשִׁים הַמַּעַבְרוֹת עַל הַדָּת מְאַבְּדוֹת אֶת הַכֹּל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
⁷⁶ Rebbi Ḥanin stated in the name of Rebbi Samuel: Both for women about whom they said that they have *ketubah* as also those about whom they said they leave without *ketubah*, as the minor, the secondarily prohibited⁷⁷ Somehow the text should accommodate several kinds of divorces.
The minor who is mentioned in this connection is an underage girl married off by her mother or brothers after her father’s death whose marriage has no biblical validity and who can walk out of it without formality (cf. *Yebamot* 1:2, Note 118). Her repudiation of her husband annuls her marriage and with it her *ketubah* but it does not touch her property rights; both mortmain (*dos aestimata*) as also paraphernalia (*dos non aestimata*) must be returned to her (cf. *Yebamot* 7:1, Note 1).
Secondary prohibitions are rabbinically prohibited unions extending biblical prohibitions, usually for one additional generation (cf. *Yebamot* 2:4, Note 67). The rabbinate will force the husband to divorce his wife and, in order to scare away women from such marriages, will not enforce any payment of *ketubah.* But her property rights for mortmain and paraphernalia are not touched (and her children are legitimate.)
The she-ram (*Yebamot* 1:1, Note 65) is a woman exhibiting secondary male sex characterstics. She is presumed to be congenitally infertile; her marriage is considered invalid by biblical standards, and she will have difficulty collecting the *ketubah* but not recovering her property.
The statement as it stands now does not cover women who are divorced following Mishnah 6, who may not be able to recover their property., and the she-ram, did they speak about a mina or 200 [*zuz*]? But even if the *ketubah* was a thousand denars⁷⁸, she loses⁷⁹ as the underage orphan, the secondarily prohibited, and the she-ram, they spoke only about a mina or 200 [*zuz*] But if the *ketubah* was a thousand denars, she takes it.” As the commentators of the Babli explain, the obligatory *ketubah* must be lost since she leaves without *ketubah*; but any additional sums are voluntary gifts from the husband. The claim to such a voluntary gift can be lost only by criminal behavior of the wife, not by an inherent defect of the marriage which was known to the husband at the time he made the promise.
Naḥmanides (*Sefer Hazzekhut,* in Alfasi, *loc. cit.*) reads: תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חָנִין בְּרִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל. נָשִׁים שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ אֵין לָהֶן כְּתוּבָּה יֵשׁ לָהֶן תּוֹסֶפֶת. וּשֶׁאָֽמְרוּ יוֹצְאוֹת שֶׁלֹּא בִכְתוּבָּה אֵין לָהֶן אֲפִילוּ תוֹסֶפֶת. “Rebbi Ḥanin ben Rebbi Samuel stated: Women about whom they said they have no *ketubah,* receive the additions; but those about whom they said that they leave without *ketubah* do not even get the additions.” Women who have no *ketubah* are those whose marriage was invalid from the start, e. g., the underage orphan, the secondarily prohibited, and the she-ram. They receive the voluntary additions as explained above. Women who leave without *ketubah* are those who are divorced because of their crimes; they lose also the husband’s voluntary gift since they force the husband to divorce them.
Probably one should read in the text: “Rav Ḥanin (known as Rav’s student) in the name of Samuel.” This is consistent with the quote later in the paragraph., but she takes her existing rags⁸⁰. But the one who leaves because of a bad reputation loses everything⁸¹ document. Nothing is said about paraphernalia, the wife’s separate property which is administered by her husband. The parallel statement of Samuel in the Babli, 101a, agrees that she loses the husband’s additions above the minimal *ketubah* but is silent about mortmain.. Can she take her paraphernalia⁸² including mortmain and paraphernalia in the literal sense.? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, she takes. Rebbi Hila said, she does not take. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Abba bar Cohen mention it in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: Both women about whom they said that they leave without *ketubah*, did they speak about the *ketubah* of a mina or 200 [*zuz*]? But even if the *ketubah* was a thousand denars, she loses⁸³ they spoke not only about a mina or 200 *[zuz],* but even if the *ketubah* was a thousand denars, she loses everything, but she takes her used clothing..” The Tosephta can be quoted in support of R. Hila that she takes anything that clearly is her property at that moment (her personal effects and the paraphernalia proper) but the husband is not required to return her mortmain which has become his property; her claim to it is voided.. Rebbi Simon said, Rebbi Joḥanan: All the Mishnaiot⁸⁴ are connected to this *baraita.* Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yasa: About which *baraita*? Of Rebbi Ḥanin from Samuel⁸⁵? He said to him, it is everybody’s opinion. And Rebbi Ḥiyya formulated so⁸⁶: “Women who infringe upon the law lose everything.

footnotes:
⁷⁶ This text seems to be in rather bad shape and the secondary sources are contradictory, Note 79.
⁷⁷ Obviously one has to read in the first clause: have no ketubah.
⁷⁸ Promised by the husband; this does not touch repayment of the dowry.
⁷⁹ R. Nissim Gerondi (Commentary to Aliasi, 59b in the Wilna edition) reads: נָשִׁים שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין לָהֶן כְּתוּבָּה. כְּגוֹן הַיְתוֹמָה וְהַשְּׁנִייָה וְהָאַייְלוֹנִית. לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מְנָא מָאתַיִים. אֲבָל כְּתוּבָּה שֶׁלְּאֶלֶף דֵּינָר נוֹטֶלֶת “Women about whom they said that they leave without ketubah,
⁸⁰ Her used clothing; cf. Chapter 5, Notes 224–225.
⁸¹ Including mortmain, the dowry given to the husband as the latter’s property subject to his obligation to return their value in the fixed amount stated in the ketubah
⁸² This means her dowry as addition to the ketubah,
⁸³ This text does not make too much sense. Probably one should read something similar to the text of Tosephta 7:7: כָּל־אֵילּוּ שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ. יוֹצְאוֹת שֶׁלֹּא בִכְתוּבָּה. לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מְנָא מָאתַיִים אָלָּא אֲפִילוּ הָֽיְתָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ שֶׁלְּאֶלֶף דֵּינָר מְאַבֶּדֶת אֶת־הַכֹּל וְנוֹטֶלֶת בְּלָאיוֹת שֶׁמּוֹצָא לְפָנֶיהָ. “[Women] about whom they said that they leave without ketubah,
⁸⁴ All Mishnaiot on the topic why a women should be divorced.
⁸⁵ Since this is clearly formulated as Amoraic opinion of a single person, it cannot be the central topic of a whole series of Mishnaiot.
⁸⁶ Tosephta 7:7.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:6:7
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:6:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:6:7)

רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. רָאוּ אוֹתָהּ חוֹגֶרֶת בְּסִינָר רוֹכֵל יוֹצֵאה מִתּוֹךְ בֵּיתָהּ. כָּאוּר הַדָּבָר תֵּצֵא. רוֹק עַל גַבֵּי מִיטָּתָהּ. כָּאוּר הַדָּבָר תֵּצֵא. רוֹק עַל גַבֵּי מִיטָּתוֹ. כָּאוּר הַדָּבָר תֵּצֵא. סַנְדָּלוֹ לִפְנֵי מִיטָּתָהּ. כָּאוּר הַדָּבָר תֵּצֵא. סַנְדָּלָהּ לִפְנֵי מִיטָּתוֹ. כָּאוּר הַדָּבָר תֵּצֵא. שְׁנֵיהֶם יוֹצְאִין מִמָּקוֹם אָפֵל. כֵּאוּר הַדָּבָר תֵּצֵא. מַעֲלִין זֶה אֶת זֶה מִן הַבּוֹר. כָּאוּר הַדָּבָר תֵּצֵא. שְׁנֵיהֶם טוֹפְחוֹת עַל יְרֵיכָהּ בַּמֶּרְחָץ. כֵּאוּר הַדָּבָר תֵּצֵא. חֲנִינָה בַּר אִיקָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְכוּלְּהֹן אִם הֵבִיאָה רְאָיָיה לִדְבָרֶיהָ נֶאֱמֶנֶת. רַב אָדָא בַּר אֲחַוָּה בְּשֵׁם רַב. מַעֲשֶׂה בָא לִפְנֵי רִבִּי וָמַר. מַה בְּכָךְ. בְּעָיָין קוֹמוֹי. אֲפִילוּ רָאוּ אוֹתוֹ נוֹתֵן פִּיו עַל פִּיהָ שֶׁלָּהּ. אָמַר. כָּזֶה בָאת מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁרָאוּ אוֹתוֹ נוֹתֵן פִּיו עַל פִּיהָ שֶׁלָּהּ. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר. תֵּיפּוּק בְּלֹא פֶרֶן. וְהַוְיָין קְרִיבֶיהָ עָרְרִין וְאָמְרִין. אִין שׂוֹטָה הִיא תֵּיפּוּק בְּלֹא פֶרֶן. וְאִין לֵית שׂוֹטָה הִיא תִּיסַּב פֶּרֶן שְׁלֵים. אֲמַר לוֹן רִבִּי מָנָא. אִייתוֹן פֶרְנָא נִיקְרִינֵיהּ. אַיְיתוּן פֶרְנָהּ וְאַשְׁכְּחוּן כְּתוּב בְּגַוָוהּ. אִין הָדָא פְלָנִית תִּסְבִּי לְהָדֵין פְּלוֹנִי בַעֲלָהּ וְלָא תִצְבִּי בְשׁוּתְפוּתֵיהּ תִּהֲוֵי נָסְבָה פַּלְּגוּת פֶּרֶן. אָמַר רִבִּי אָבוּן. מִכֵּיוָן שֶקִּיבְּלָה עָלֶיהָ שֶׁיִתֵּן אֶת פִּיו עַל פִּיהָ שֶׁלָּ[הּ] כְּמָאן דִּשְׂנָאת [לֵיהּ] וְלֵית לָהּ אֶלָּא פִּלְגּוּת פֶּרֶן. הִיא גַּו חוּבָּה וְהוּא גַּו חוּבָּה סוֹטָה. מְגָפְפִין סוֹטָה. מְנַשְּׁקִין סוֹטָה. תַּרְעָה טְרִיד סוֹטָה. מוּגָף צְרִיכָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina⁸⁷: If they saw her putting on her underpants⁸⁸ 1:2, Note 115. and the pedlar leaves her house, the thing is ugly, she should leave⁸⁹ 24b–25a, this and the following statements are by R. Ḥiyya (the elder) quoting the authority of Rebbi. In all these cases, where adultery is not proven by two witnesses to the act, one implies that the woman can be divorced without payment of the *ketubah* since the acts describe a high probability of adultery, which is admissible proof in money matters and does not need prior warning.. There is slime on her bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. There is slime on his⁹⁰ bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. His sandal is in front of her bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Her sandal is in front of his⁹⁰ bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Both leave the same dark place, the thing is ugly, she should leave. They lift one another from the cistern, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Both of them clap on her thighs in the bathhouse⁹¹ 8:6, Note 240) are generally classified as undesirable., the thing is ugly, she should leave. Ḥanina bar Iqa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, in all these cases, if she brings an explanation for her behavior she is believed. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: A case came before Rebbi and he said, what of it⁹² on Alfassi *Yebamot,*6a in the Wilna edition.)? They asked before him⁹³: Even if they saw him putting his mouth on her mouth? He said, this did happen, that they saw a man⁹⁴ putting his mouth on her mouth. The case came befote Rebbi Yose, who said that she should leave without *ketubah.* Her relatives appealed the case and said, if she is deviant⁹⁵ amount if the husband divorces her.
A document in which כתובה and פרנה are used interchangeably was published by S, Asaph, *Tarbiz* 9(1938), #1, p. 25., she should leave without *ketubah.* If she is not deviant, she should take the entire *ketubah.* Rebbi Mana said to them, bring the *ketubah* that we may read it. They brought the *ketubah* and found written in it⁹⁶ text which gives the wife the right to force a divorce in exchange for a predetermined financial reward for the husband, see the details in Note 226, Chapter 5.: If this X marries this Y as her husband and should no longer desire his company, she shall take half the *ketubah* sum. Rebbi Abun said, since she agreed that he⁹⁴ should put his mouth on her mouth it is as if she hated him; she has only half the *ketubah.* She lies in his bosom⁹⁷ 4:6,7. A less likely explanation would be “hideout”, derived from the Hebrew root חבא “to hide”. In the cases mentioned here, there are witnesses but the parties are fully clothed. or he lies in her bosom, she is deviant⁹⁸. If they embrace, she is deviant. If they kiss, she is deviant. If the door is locked, she is deviant. If it is blocked⁹⁹, that is a problem¹⁰⁰ amount but the outcome of the suit cannot be guaranteed..

footnotes:
⁸⁷ In the opinion of S. Abramson, the name should be Ze‘ira ben Ḥanina, an Amora contemporary with rabbis Yose and Mana mentioned later in the text. Cf. בירורם ,שרגא אברמסון, Sinai 89 (1981) pp. 118–121.
⁸⁸ Cf. Soṭah
⁸⁹ In the Babli, Yebamot
⁹⁰ The other man’s.
⁹⁰ The other man’s.
⁹¹ Where everybody is naked. Mishnah 9 implies that the use of public thermal baths was separate by sex; then the reference would be to lesbian relationships which, while not forbidden (cf. Yebamot
⁹² It seems to mean that Rebbi did not want to see the courts involved as long as the testimony did not amount to a legal proof. Some commentators of the Babli read the sentence as referring to the woman’s explanation, that Rebbi would not accept any explanation except a legal disproof (cf. R. Yosef Ḥabiba, Nimmuqe Yosef,
⁹³ This seems to refer to the person mentioned at the head of this paragraph Note 87.
⁹⁴ A man other than the husband.
⁹⁵ A proven adulteress. Since there is no legal proof, she should take the entire ketubah
⁹⁶ About this ketubah
⁹⁴ A man other than the husband.
⁹⁷ For Aramaic חוּבָּה = Hebrew חיק, cf. Targum Yerušalmi Ex.
⁹⁸ And may be divorced without claim to the ketubah.
⁹⁹ Not locked, but some obstacle would have to be removed before a third party could enter the room.
¹⁰⁰ The wife has not lost her right to sue for the ketubah


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:7:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:7:1)

**משנה:** הַמְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת הַאִשָּׁה עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ נְדָרִים וְנִמְצְאוּ עָלֶיהָ נְדָרִים אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. כְּנָסָהּ סְתָם וְנִמְצְאוּ עָלֶיהָ נְדָרִים תֵּצֵא שֶׁלֹּא בִכְתוּבָּה. עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ מוּמִין וְנִמְצְאוּ בָהּ מוּמִין אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. כְּנָסָהּ סְתָם וְנִמְצְאוּ בָהּ מוּמִין תֵּצֵא שֶׁלֹּא בִכְתוּבָּה. שֶׁכָּל הַמּוּמִין הַפּוֹסְלִין בַּכֹּהֲנִים פּוֹסְלִין בַּנָּשִׁים. הָיוּ בָהּ מוּמִין וְעוֹדָהּ בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ הָאָב צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָיה שֶׁמִּשֶׁנִתְאָרְסָה נוֹלְדוּ בָהּ מוּמִין אֵילּוּ וְנִסְתַּחֲפָה שָׂדֶהוּ. נִכְנְסָה לִרְשׁוּת הַבַּעַל הַבַּעַל צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָיה שֶׁעַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְאָרְסָה הָיוּ בָהּ מוּמִין אֵילּוּ וְהָיָה מִקְחוֹ מֶקַח טָעוּת דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר אֲבָל בְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעוֹן. אִם יֵשׁ מֶרְחָץ עִמּוֹ בְּאוֹתָהּ הָעִיר אַף מוּמִין שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעוֹן מִפְּנֵי שֶהוּא בוֹדְקָהּ בִּקְרוֹבוֹתָיו.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If somebody performed the preliminary marriage with a woman on condition that she had no obligation of vows on her and it turned out that she had vows to fulfill, she is not preliminarily married¹⁰¹. If he married her definitively without inquiry¹⁰² and she had vows to fulfill¹⁰³, she should leave without *ketubah*. If somebody performed the preliminary marriage with a woman on condition that she had no bodily defects and it turned out that she had bodily defects, she is not preliminarily married. If he married her definitively without inquiry and she had bodily defects, she should leave without *ketubah*; and¹⁰⁴ all defects which disqualify a priest¹⁰⁵21:16–24; Mishnah *Bekhorot* 7. disqualify a woman.
If she had bodily defects¹⁰⁶ Is the burden of proof on the claimant (in this case the bride and her father) or on the person who wants to break the contract (the groom)? Since in money matters the burden of proof is both on the claimant and on the person who disputes the validity of a document, a way has to be found to reconcile the two conflicting rules. This Mishnah presupposes that the *ketubah* was written at the time of the preliminary marriage., as long as she is in her father’s house, the father has to prove that the defects developed after she was preliminarily married and his field was swamped¹⁰⁷; once she entered her husband’s domain, the husband has to prove that she had the defects before the preliminary wedding so that his acquisition was in error¹⁰⁸ assumption that a defect happened where it was discovered., the words of Rebbi Meïr. But the Sages say, when was this said? For hidden defects, but he has no claim about visible defects¹⁰⁹, and if there is a public bathhouse in his town he has no claim for hidden defects since he checks her out through his female relatives.

footnotes:
¹⁰¹ No conditional contract is valid if the condition is not fulfilled at the moment the contract is activated.
¹⁰² Vows were not mentioned at all in the preparations for the preliminary marriage.
¹⁰³ Of the kind she could expect that the husband would object to.
¹⁰⁴ This is one of the cases where שֶׁ and וְ have the same meaning.
¹⁰⁵ From Temple service; cf. Lev.
¹⁰⁶ The preliminarily married groom divorces her because of the defects and refuses to pay the ketubah.
¹⁰⁷ This agricultural simile is used generally to describe that an accident happened in the buyer’s domain. If somebody buys a field and then finds out that is was recently flooded and became unusable for the current season, it is of the essence that the date of the flood be determined exactly to find out whether it was his bad luck or that he had been sold the field fraudulently. In the latter case he can recover the price paid in court.
¹⁰⁸ The underlying principle is: There is a prima facie
¹⁰⁹ Since he is not supposed to marry a woman he had not seen before the marriage.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:7:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:7:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:7:2)

**הלכה:** הַמְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת הַאִשָּׁה עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ נְדָרִים וְנִמְצְאוּ עָלֶיהָ נְדָרִים כול׳. הָיוּ בָהּ מוּמִין וְעוֹדָהּ בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ כול׳. תַּנִּינָן מוּמִין. בְּאֵילּוּ נְדָרִים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹצָדָק. נָדְרָה שֶׁלֹּא לוֹכַל בָּשָׂר וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁתּוֹת יַיִן וְשֶׁלֹּא לִלְבּוֹשׁ בִּגְדֵּי צִבְעוֹנִין. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. כְּלֵי פִשְׁתָּן הַדַּקִּין הַבָּאִים מִבֵּית שָׁן כִּכְלֵי צִבְעוֹנִין הֵן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָא בְּשֶׁאָמַר לָהּ. עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין עָלַיִךְ נְדָרִים. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר. עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין עָלַיִךְ כָּל נֵדֶר. אֲפִילוּ נָדְרָה שֶׁלֹּא לוֹכַל חָרוּבִין נֵדֶר הוּא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If somebody performed the preliminary marriage with a woman on condition that she had no obligation of vows on her,” etc. “If she had bodily defects, as long as she is in her father’s house,” etc. We have stated defects. Which vows¹¹⁰
The entire Halakhah from here on is also Halakhah *Qiddus̄in*2:5*.* The variant readings are noted **ק**.? Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoṣadaq: If she vowed not to eat, or not to drink wine, or not to wear dyed garments¹¹¹. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the fine linen garments which come from Bet She‘an have the status of dyed garments¹¹². Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah deals with the case that he said to her, “on condition that you have no obligation of vows on you.” But if he said, “on condition that you have no obligation of *any* vow on you,” then even if she made a vow not to eat carob fruit¹¹³ it is a vow.

footnotes:
¹¹⁰ The Mishnah stated a criterion for defects which are serious enough for annulment of the marriage. Does there exist a similar criterion for vows? “Vows” without a qualifier are always “vows or oaths of prohibition for the purposes of mortification”; cf. Introduction to Tractate Nedarim.
¹¹¹ Babli 72b, Tosephta 7:8. These vows either interfere with her ability to cook for her husband or they detract from his standing in the community if his wife appears in undyed woolen or linen garments used only by the poor.
¹¹² These are bleached white; he asserts that bleaching is the equivalent of dying.
¹¹³ In which case nobody should care. A similar argument is ascribed to Rav Pappa in the Babli, 72b.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:7:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:7:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:7:3)

הָלְכָה אֶצֶל הַזָּקֵן וְהִתִּיר לָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. אֶצֶל הָרוֹפֵא וְרִיפְּאָה אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. מַה בֵין זָקֵן וּמַה בֵין רוֹפֵא. זָקֵן עוֹקֵר אֶת הַנֵּדֶר מֵעִיקָּרוֹ. רוֹפֵא אֵינוֹ מְרַפֵּא אֶלָּא מִיכָּן וּלְהַבָּא. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵי. אֲפִילוּ הָלְכָה אֶצֶל הַזָּקֵן וְהִתִּיר לָהּ אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. מַתְנִיתָא דְּרִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר. דְּתַנֵּי תַּמָּן. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. לֹא אָסְרוּ זֶה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי זֶה. מַה טַעֲמָא דְרִבִּי לָעְזָר. בְּדִין הָיָה נֵדֶר שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם מִפְּנֵי נֵדֶר שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. מוּתֶּרֶת לְהִינָּשֵׂא בְלֹא גֵט. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֲסוּרָה לְהִינָּשֵׂא בְלֹא גֵט. הֲווֹן בְּעָיָין מֵימַר. מָאן דָּמַר. מוּתֶּרֶת לְהִינָּשֵׂא בְלֹא גֵט. רִבִּי לָעְזָר. וּמָאן דָּמַר. אֲסוּרָה לְהִינָּשֵׂא בְלֹא גֵט. רַבָּנִין. כּוּלָּהּ דְּרַבָּנִין. וּמָאן דָּמַר. מוּתֶּרֶת לְהִינָּשֵׂא בְלֹא גֵט. שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁהִיא יוֹדַעַת שֶׁאִם הוֹלֶכֶת הִיא אֶצֶל הַזָּקֵן וְהוּא מַתִּיר לָהּ אֶת נִדְרָהּ וְהִיא אֵינָהּ הוֹלֶכֶת. לְפוּם כֵּן מוּתֶּרֶת לְהִינָּשֵׂא בְלֹא גֵט. וּמָאן דָּמַר. אֲסוּרָה לְהִינָּשֵׂא בְלֹא גֵט. שֶׁלֹּא תֵלֵךְ אֶצֶל הַזָּקֵן וְיַתִּיר לָהּ אֶת נִדְרָהּ וְקִידּוּשִׁין חָלִין עָלֶיהָ לְמַפְרֵעַ וְנִמְצְאוּ בָנֶיהָ בֵּאִין לִידֵי מַמְזֵרוּת. לְפוּם כֵּן אֲסוּרָה לְהִינָּשֵׂא בְלֹא גֵט.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
¹¹⁴“If she went to an Elder and her dissolved her vow, she is preliminarily married. To a doctor and he healed her, she is not preliminarily married.” ¹¹⁵ What is the difference between the Elder and the doctor? The elder uproots the vow from its start; the doctor heals only for the future. ¹¹⁶ Some Tannaïm state: Even if she went to an Elder and her dissolved her vow, she is not preliminarily married. The *baraita* follows Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Eleazar said, they forbade this only because of the other.¹¹⁷ 4:7 where it is stated that a man who divorces his wife because of her vows is never permitted to take her back. This is a rabbinic rule. R. Meïr holds that no remarriage is permitted in case of any vow that needs to be annulled by an Elder (cf. *Nedarim* Chapter 9). The reason is that one has to avoid a situation in which the divorcee marries another man and for him goes to an Elder to have him annul the vow. If the ex-husband says, “if I had known that her vow will be annulled, I would not have divorced her,” he retroactively would annul the bill of divorce, make his ex-wife a bigamist and bastards of her children from the second husband. Therefore, one has to make clear to him that the divorce is final and irreversible, to prevent him from having second thoughts. But if the cause of the divorce is an invalid vow, the divorce is not caused by the vow and the husband may remarry his divorcee (as long as she did not marry another man). R. Eleazar says that remarriage was forbidden in the second case because of the first one since it is obvious that the husband must be an ignoramus if he divorces his wife because of a vow which every competent scholar will immediately declare as invalid if asked about it (“a vow which does not have to be investigated by a Sage” because the Sage will declare it invalid at first sight.)” What is the reason of Rebbi Eleazar? It would have been logical about a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage … because a vow which does not have to be investigated by a Sage¹¹⁸ 4:7 (and a related text in *Qiddušin* 2:5):אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. לֹא אָֽסְרוּ זֶה אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי זֶה. בְּדִין הָיָה שֶׁאֲפִילוּ נֵדֶר שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם יַחֲזִיר. שֶׁהַזָּקֵן עוֹקֵר אֶת הַנֵּדֶר מֵעִיקָּרוֹ מִפְּנֵי מָה אָֽסְרוּ נֵדֶר שֶׁאֵין צָרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם. מִפְּנֵי נֵדֶר שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם. “Rebbi Eleazar said, they forbade this only because of the other. It would have been logical that even in the case of a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage he could take her back. For the Elder uproots the vow from the start. Why did they forbid a vow which does not have to be investigated by a Sage? Because of a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage.”. Some Tannaïm state: She is allowed to marry¹¹⁹ without a bill of divorce. Some Tannaïm state: She is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce¹²⁰. They wanted to say that he who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce, is Rebbi Eleazar¹²¹, and he who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, are the rabbis¹²² Aliassi 35a.). Everything follows the rabbis. He who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce: Since she knows that if she went to an Elder, he would dissolve her vow, since she does not go therefore she can be married without a bill of divorce¹²³. But he who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, that she should not go to an Elder¹²⁴ who would dissolve her vow, then the preliminary marriage would become retroactively valid for her and it would turn out that her children become bastards. Therefore she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce¹²⁵.

footnotes:
¹¹⁴ Tosephta 7:8; quoted in Babli 74b; also in Yerushalmi Qiddušin 2:5 (62c l. 66).
¹¹⁵ In the Babli (previous Note) this is quoted as a tannai'tic text.
¹¹⁶ The following text has a parallel with different emphasis in the Babli, loc. cit.
¹¹⁷ The reference is to Mishnah Giṭṭin
¹¹⁸ This text is clearly elliptic. There does not seem to be a lacuna, but rather the text is a reference to an extensive argument in Giṭṭin
¹¹⁹ The woman whose preliminary marriage has been declared invalid because of her vows may marry any other man without a divorce from the first.
¹²⁰ This is also quoted in the Babli, loc. cit.
¹²¹ Who holds that all these prohibitions are only extreme precautions.
¹²² This position, rejected here, is the one adopted in the Babli. It seems that the Babli would reject the argument given for the permission to remarry as unreasonable (cf. R. Nissim Gerondi, ad
¹²³ If she does not go to stay married to the first husband, one does not expect her to try to dissolve her vow for any other man.
¹²⁴ Having used the vows to escape a marriage chosen for her when adolescent by her father, she might be expected to have the vow annulled as an adult for a man of her choice.
¹²⁵ From her first husband, who in executing the divorce has to forswear any hope ever again to be married to her.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:7:4
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:7:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:7:4)

רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה בְּשֶׁקִּידְּשָׁהּ עַל תְּנַאי וּכְנָסָהּ סְתָם. אֲבָל אִם קִידְּשָׁהּ סְתָם וּכְנָסָהּ סְתָם יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ קִידְּשָׁהּ סְתָם וּכְנָסָהּ סְתָם אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. אָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וּצְרִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ גֵט אֲפִילוּ קִידְּשָׁהּ עַל תְּנַיי וּכְנָסָהּ סְתָם. רִבִּי זְעִירָא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. קִידְּשָׁהּ סְתָם וְגֵירְשָׁהּ מִן הָאֵירוּסִין מָה אָמַר בָּהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הָיוּ בָהּ מוּמִין וְעוֹדָהּ בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ הָאָב צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָיה. הָא אִם הֵבִיא הָאָב רְאָיָיה יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. מַה חֲמִית לְמֵימַר. בְּשֶׁקִּידְּשָׁהּ סְתָם וְגֵירְשָׁהּ מִן הָאֵירוּסִין. מָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. מִן דְּבַתְרָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. בְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר. אֲבָל בְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעוֹן. וְאִין [בְּמַתְנֶה] אַף בְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי טוֹעֵן. הָא אָמְרִין חֲבֵרַיָיא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֱמוֹר דְּבַתְרָה וּתְהֵא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. נִכְנְסָה לִרְשׁוּת הַבַּעַל הַבַּעַל צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה. הָא אִם הֵבִיא הַבַּעַל רְאָיָיה אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. וְהַךְ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. רִבִּי כֹהֵן בְשֵׁם רַבָּנִין דְּקַיסָרִין. מַתְנִיתָא בְּשֶׁכָּנַס וְלֹא בָעַל. מָאן דָּמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּשֶׁכָּנַס וּבָעַל. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. נִתְרַצֶּה לָהּ בִּבְעִילָה.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Mishnah deals with the case that he married her preliminarily conditionally but definitively silently¹²⁷. But if he married her preliminarily silently and definitively silently, she can claim her *ketubah*¹²⁸ even if one agrees that he can divorce his wife for cause since he cannot be expected to live with a vowing or invalid wife. The Tosephta, 7:9, supports R. Simeon ben Laqish.. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he married her preliminarily silently and definitively silently, she has no *ketubah*¹²⁹ even if the subject was never mentioned at the preliminary marriage.. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But she needs a bill of divorce from him even if he married her preliminarily conditionally but definitively silently¹³⁰. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: In case he married her preliminarily silently and divorced her after the preliminary marriage, what does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say¹³¹ was written for the preliminary marriage, does R. Simeon ben Laqish equate the signing of the *ketubah* document to a definitive marriage as far as money matters go?? Let us hear from the following: “If she had bodily defects, as long as she is in her father’s house, the father has to prove.” This implies that if the father proved his case, she can claim her *ketubah.* What do you see to say, if he married her preliminarily silently and divorced her after the preliminary marriage! Where do we hold¹³²? Since afterwards [it is stated]: “When was this said? For hidden defects, but he has no claim about visible defects.” If he [made it conditional]¹²⁶ missing here in ms. and *editio princeps.*, could he not also claim for visible ones? But did not the colleagues say before Rebbi Yose: Should we say that the following statement disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? “Once she entered her husband’s domain, the husband has to prove.” This implies that if the husband proved his case¹³³, she has no claim to *ketubah.* But by the statement of Rebbi Simeon ban Laqish, she has a claim to *ketubah.* Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: The Mishnah deals with the case that he definitively married her but did not sleep with her; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish speaks about the case that he definitively married her and slept with her; I am saying that she was acceptable to him since he took her to bed¹³⁴.

footnotes:
¹²⁷ The Mishnah does not spell out what the connections are between preliminary and definitive marriage ceremonies. R. Simeon ben Laqish reads the Mishnah as one statement: If he stipulated for the preliminary marriage that the woman should be without vows or blemishes, if his condition is not met he can walk out of his commitment without further obligation. If he goes ahead with the definitive marriage, the marriage is valid and can be dissolved only by a bill of divorce, but his original condition has not been withdrawn and, therefore, he does not have to pay.
¹²⁸ This case has not been dealt with in the Mishnah; therefore the groom has no legal basis for refusing to pay the ketubah
¹²⁹ He holds that the two cases in the Mishnah, referring to preliminary and definitive marriages, are independent of one another. Therefore, anybody who finds his wife encumbered by vows or having bodily defects can divorce her without ketubah,
¹³⁰ Since the stipulation was not repeated at the definitive marriage, the fact of the definitive marriage retroactively validates the preliminary marriage that would have been invalid if the condition of the bride had been investigated by the groom. Therefore, the stipulation can refer only to money matters, not to the validity of the marriage and the marriage cannot simply be declared nonexistent.In the Babli, 72b/73a, this is the position of Rav, disputed by Samuel. The Babli explains that Rav holds that if a man sleeps with a woman he shows that in his mind he is legally married (and the preliminary marriage is validated retroactively); Samuel does not attribute such pious thoughts to men.
¹³¹ If the ketubah
¹³² This proves that the Mishnah must assume the preliminary marriage to have been unconditional.
¹²⁶ From the parallel in Qiddušin,
¹³³ Referring to an unconditional preliminary marriage.
¹³⁴ He must have been aware of her bodily defect. The Mishnah treats the cases of vows and defects as completely parallel; one must therefore restrict the statement of R. Simeon ben Laqish to the case that the husband was aware of his wife’s vows when he slept with her for the first time.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:7:5
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:7:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:7:5)

שֶׁכָּל הַמּוּמִין הַפּוֹסְלִין בַּכֹּהֲנִים פּוֹסְלִין בַּנָּשִׁים. הוֹסִיפוּ עֲלֵיהֶן בָּאִשָּׁה רֵיחַ הַפֶּה וְרֵיחַ הַזֵּיעָה שׁוּמָא שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ שִׂיעֵר. רִבִּי אַמִי בַּר עוּקְבָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָה. בְּעוֹר הַפָּנִים שָׁנוּ. וְהָא תַנִּינָן. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים בְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר אֲבָל בְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעוֹן. וְזֶה מִן הַמּוּמִין שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי הוּא. תִּיפְתָּר הִיא דְּמִטָּמְרָא לָהּ תַּחַת קֳלְֹסִתָיהּ דְרֹאשָׁהּ. תַּנֵּי. שׁוּמָא שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהּ שִׂיעֵר בֵּין בִגְדוֹלָה בֵּין בִּקְטַנָּה בֵּין בַּגּוּף בִּין בַּפָּנִים הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם. וּשֶׁאֵין בָּהּ שִׂיעֵר. בְּפָנִים מוּם בַּגּוּף אֵינוֹ מוּם. בַּמֶה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. בִּקְטַנָּה. אֲבָל בִגְדוֹלָה בֵּין בַּגּוּף בֵּין בַּפָּנִים הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם. עַד כַּמָּה גְּדוֹלָה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. עַד כְּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי. רִבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר חֲנִינָה אָמַר. כְּגוֹן הָדֵין דֵּינָרָא קוֹרְדִיָינָא שִׁיעוּרוֹ כַּחֲצִי זָהֻב כָּל שֶׁהוּא. רִבִּי רְדִיפָה רִבִּי יוֹנָה רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה שְׁאִיל. אִשָּׁה קָרַחַת שִׁיטָּה שֶׁלְּשִׂיעֵר מַקֶּפֶת מֵאוֹזֶן לָאוֹזֶן. בָּעֵיי מַשְׁמַע מִן הָדָא. הוֹסִיפוּ עֲלֵיהֶן בָּאִשָּׁה רֵיחַ הַפֶּה וְרֵיחַ הַזֵּיעָה שׁוּמָא שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ שִׂיעֵר. וְלָא אַדְכְּרוֹן קָרְחָה. סָבְרִין מֵימַר שֶׁאֵינָהּ מוּם. אָתָא רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אָמַר רִבִּי נָסָא. מוּם הוּא. לֹא מַתְנֵי אֶלָּא. דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא כֵאוּר בַּזֶּה וּבַזֶּה. מוּם בַּזֶּה וְאֵינוֹ מוּם בַּזֶּה. אֲבָל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא נוֹי בַּזֶּה וּמוּם בָּזֶּה. כְּגוֹן הָדָא קָרַחַת. אַף עַל גַּב דְּהוּא מוּם לֹא תַנִּיתָא. תֵּדַע לָךְ שֶׁהוּא כֵן. הֲרֵי זָקָן הֲרֵי נוֹי בָאִישׁ וּמוּם בָּאִשָּׁה. וְלֹא תַנִינָן. יֶתֶר עֲלֵיהֶן בָּאִשָּׁה זָקָן. הֲרֵי דַדִּים הֲרֵי נוֹי בָאִשָּׁה וּמוּם בָּאִישׁ. וְלֹא תַנִינָן. יוֹתֵר עֲלֵיהֶם בָּאִישׁ דַּדִּים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
“And all defects which disqualify a priest disqualify a woman. They added to them for women mouth odor, sweat odor, and a hairless mole.¹³⁷ Chapter 6 enumerates the defects which make an animal unfit for the altar. Chapter 7 states that any defect making an animal unfit will disqualify a Cohen from Temple service. In addition, a misshapen head will disqualify a priest, also a bald pate not bordered in the front by a line of hair from ear to ear.” Rebbi Ammi bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They taught this¹³⁸ about the skin of the face. But did we not state: “When was this said? For hidden defects, but he has no claim about visible defects,” and this is of the visible defects! Explain it if she hid it under her headgear. It was stated: “A mole with hairs is a defect, whether it be large or small, whether it be on the body or on the face. Without a hair it is a defect on the face but not on the body. When has this been said? If it is small. But if it is large, it is a defect whether it be on the body or on the face. How big is large? Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, up to an Italic *as*¹³⁹ is quoted in the Babli, 75a; the following amoraic comment (and reduction in size) has no parallel there..” Rebbi Eleazar bar Ḥanina said, for example such a Gordianic denar¹⁴⁰ but whose weight was only ⅓ larger than the simple denars minted by Gordianus I and II. Cf. D. Sperber, *Roman Palestine,*200–400,*Money and Prices,* Ramat Gan 1974, pp. 39,226. Since the text here is confirmed by its parallel in *Qiddušin,* the different readings in הילכות טרפות לבני ארץ ישראל, תלפיות ח 1963, pp. 324–5, do not refer to the text here. his measure is half an ubiquitous gold piece¹⁴¹ the quote is “R. Eleazar in the name of R. Ḥanina”; the latter lived under the last Severan emperors and the early military anarchy. The gold coin is an *aureus* of Septimius Severus or his successors.. Rebbi Radifa, Rebbi Jonah: Rebbi Jeremiah asked: A bald woman with a row of hair going from one ear to the other¹⁴²? They wanted to understand it from the following: “They added to them for women mouth odor, sweat odor, and a hairless mole.” They did not mention baldness. They wanted to conclude that it is not a defect. There came Rebbi Samuel the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Rebbi Nasa said, it is a defect. It is listed only if it is ugly for both sexes. But something which is beautiful in one sex but ugly in the other, like a bald pate, even though it is a defect it was not listed. You should know that this is so because a beard is beautiful for a man and a defect for a woman, and we did not state: In addition, for a woman a beard. There are breasts which are beautyiful for a woman and a defect for men, and we did not state: In addtion, for a man women’s breasts¹⁴³ this is the end of the Halakhah..

footnotes:
¹³⁷ Tosephta 7:9, quoted in Babli 75a. Mishnah Bekhorot
¹³⁸ The mole.
¹³⁹ A rather large copper coin, abount an inch in diameter.The baraita
¹⁴⁰ Minted by Gordianus III. Really a double denar, an Antoninianus,
¹⁴¹ This R. Eleazar bar Ḥanina is not mentioned again in the Talmudim. In Qiddušin,
¹⁴² Which is not a defect for a male, cf. Note 137.
¹⁴³ No list is complete. In the Babli, oversized woman’s breasts are listed as defect.In Qiddušin,


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:7:6
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:7:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:7:6)

מַתְנִיתָא בְּמוּמִין שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכָּן לְהִיוָולֵד. אֲבָל בְּמוּמִין שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְהִיוָולֵד אֲפִילוּ מִשֶּׁנִּכְנְסָה לִרְשׁוּת הַבַּעַל הַבַּעַל צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָיה וְלוֹמַר. הִתְנֵיתִי עִמָּהּ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
The Mishnah deals with defects which do not spontaneously appear¹⁴⁴. But about defects which spontaneously appear, the husband has to bring proof and say that he stipulated about them.

footnotes:
¹⁴⁴ Defects that do not appear during the natural aging process. Without prior stipulation the husband cannot complain if his wife is not permanently youthful looking.There is a possibility that this paragraph refers to a statement similar to Tosephta 7:10: The Sages agree with R. Meïr (in Mishnah 8) that for defects which usually develop (in Nachmanides’s opinion, birth defects or defects that develop in early childhood) the father has to bring proof even if she is in her husband’s house (even if these are visible defects). In the opinion of the Babli, 77a, epilepsy is a hidden defect if the onset of an attack is preceded by signs which give the girl time to hide herself; it is a public defect if attacks come without warning.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:8:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:8:1)

**משנה:** הָאִישׁ שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בוֹ מוּמִין אֵין כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בָּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. בְּמוּמִין הַקְּטַנִים אֲבָל בְּמוּמִין הַגְּדוֹלִים כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** If a man developed defects, one does not force him to divorce¹⁴⁵. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, when has this been said? For minor defects. But for major defects one forces him to divorce.

footnotes:
¹⁴⁵ If the wife claims that she cannot live with such a man.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:8:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:8:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:8:2)

**הלכה:** הָאִישׁ שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בוֹ מוּמִין כול׳. רַב יְהוּדָה בְשֵׁם רַב. כֵּינִי מַתְנִיתָא. בְּשֶׁהָיוּ בוֹ. אֲבָל נוֹלְדוּ בוֹ כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא. רִבִּי בָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. הֲלָכָה כְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אָתָא עוֹבְדָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה בְּכוֹפִיחַ וּבְפָפוֹ. וְאַתְיָיא דְּרַב בְּשֶׁאֵין בּוֹ. וּדְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּשֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בוֹ. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. אַתְיָיא דְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל כְּרִבִּי מֵאִיר. הֵיי דֵין רִבִּי מֵאִיר. בְּקַדְמִיָיא בְּאַחַרַיָיא. אִין בְּקַדְמִיָיא עַד שֶיִּתְנֶה. אִין בְּאַחַרַיָיא אֲפִילוּ הִתְנֶה לֹא כְלוּם. אָלָּא סָלְקַת מַתְנִיתָא כְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. וְאֵילּוּ כֵן כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא. כְרַבָּנִין. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. אִם הָיָה מוּם גָּדוֹל. כְּגוֹן סוֹמֵא בְּאַחַת מֵעֵינָיו קִיטֵּעַ בְּאַחַת מִיָּדָיו חִיגֵּר בְּאַחַת מֵרַגְלָיו מִיַּד יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. הָדָא אָמְרָה. סָלְקַת מַתְנִיתָא כְרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. וְאֵילּוּ שֶׁכּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא כְרַבָּנִין.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “If a man developed defects,” etc. Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: So is the Mishnah, “if he had.¹⁴⁷” But if they developed newly, one forces him to divorce¹⁴⁸. Rebbi Abba bar Cahana in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Practice follows Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel¹⁴⁹. There came a case before Rebbi Jeremiah about a *kopeaḥ*¹⁵⁰ 7:6 as כיפח (in the Maimonides tradition of the Mishnah and oriental mss. of the Babli collected by R. Beṣalel Ashkenazi) or קיפח. According to Rashi *(Bekhorot* 45b), he is overly tall but has soft bones so that he cannot walk straight. R. Beṣalel Ashkenazi (*Bekhorot* 45b, Note י) quotes one opinion that he is an epileptic., and he forced him¹⁵¹. It turns out that following Rav¹⁵² if he did not become so, following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel if he became so. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel follows Rebbi Meïr. Which [statement of] Rebbi Meïr? The former or the later¹⁵³? If the former, until she made a condition¹⁵⁴. If the later, even if he made a condition it is nothing¹⁵⁵. But this Mishnah turns out following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel¹⁵⁶; does “the following one forces to divorce” [follows] the rabbis¹⁵⁷? Let us hear from the following¹⁵⁸: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, if it was a major defect, e. g., blind in one eye, amputated of one of his hands, lame in one of his legs, immediately he shall divorce and pay the *ketubah.*” This Mishnah turns out following Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel¹⁵⁶; “the following one forces to divorce” [follows] the rabbis¹⁵⁹.

footnotes:
¹⁴⁷ In the Babli, 77a, Rav Jehudah reads that the defect “developed (after the marriage)” and Rav’s son Ḥiyya reads “was (in existence at the time of marriage)”.
¹⁴⁸ This is Rav Jehudah’s conclusion.
¹⁴⁹ In the Babli, this is a statement of R. Abba bar Jacob in the name of R. Joḥanan, it is rejected by the Babylonian Amoraïm.
¹⁵⁰ This is mentioned in Mishnah Bekhorot
¹⁵¹ To divorce his wife upon her demand.
¹⁵² I. e., in Rav’s interpretation of the anonymous Tanna in the Mishnah.
¹⁵³ The former statement is in Mishnah 9, that one assumes that the defect occured at the place it was detected. The later statement is that of Mishnah 11: a woman may claim that she married because she thought she could stand to live with a man having such a defect but she recognizes now that this is impossible for her.
¹⁵⁴ If the reference were to Mishnah 9, one would require the woman to stipulate before the marriage that the man be free of defects. In that case, everybody agrees that she can force a divorce.
¹⁵⁵ If he divulged his defect to his fiancee before the marriage, R. Meïr still will not force the woman to stay married if she finds the experience intolerable.
¹⁵⁶ The entire Mishnah 10 is Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s. (One usually reads Mishnaiot containing a statement “when has this been said” to be the text of the person who explains). Since he makes a distinction between small and large defects, he must speak of newly developed defects.
¹⁵⁷ Does Mishnah 11 follow the rabbis in Rav’s interpretation, dealing with pre-existing conditons?
¹⁵⁸ Tosephta 7:9, Babli 77a; the language of the Tosephta is closer to the Yerushalmi.
¹⁵⁶ The entire Mishnah 10 is Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s. (One usually reads Mishnaiot containing a statement “when has this been said” to be the text of the person who explains). Since he makes a distinction between small and large defects, he must speak of newly developed defects.
¹⁵⁹ Since the defects mentioned in the Mishnah are not on Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel’s list.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:9:1
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:9:1)

**משנה:** וְאֵילּוּ שֶׁכּוֹפִין אוֹתָן לְהוֹצִיא מוּכֵּי שְׁחִין וּבַעַל פּוֹלִיפּוּס וְהַמְקַמֵּץ וְהַמְצָרֵף נְחוֹשֶׁת וְהַבּוּרְסִי בֶּין שֶׁהָיוּ בָם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישְּׂאוּ וּבֵין מִשֶּׁנִּישְּׂאוֹ לָמָדוּ. וְעַל כּוּלָּן אָמַר רִבִּי מֵאִיר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִתְנָה עִמָּהּ יְכוֹלָה הִיא שֶׁתֹּאמַר סְבוּרָה הָיִיתִי שֶׁאֲנִי יְכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל עַכְשָׁיו אֵינִי יְכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים מְקַבֶּלֶת הִיא עַל כָּרְחָהּ חוּץ מִמּוּכֶּה שְׁחִין מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּמִיקַּתּוּ. מַעֲשֶׂה בְצִידוֹן בְּבוּרְסִי אֶחָד שֶׁמֵּת וְהָיָה לוֹ אַח בּוּרְסִי אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים יְכוֹלָה הִיא שֶׁתֹּאמַר לְאָחִיךָ הָיִיתִי יְכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל וְלָךְ אֵינִי יְכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**MISHNAH:** The following one forces to divorce: Those smitten with boils, the one afflicted with a polyp¹⁶⁰, the dung collector¹⁶¹, the brass refiner, and the tanner¹⁶², whether they were in this before they married or they came to it after they married. For all of these says Rebbi Meïr that, even if he contracted with her¹⁶³, she can say “I thought that I could stand it, now I cannot stand it.” But the Sages say, she is forced to stand it except for the one smitten with boils because she causes him consumption¹⁶⁴. It happened in Sidon that a tanner died¹⁶⁵ who had a brother tanner; there the Sages said, she can say: “I could stand that in your brother, I cannot stand it in you.”

footnotes:
¹⁶⁰ Greek πολύπους “many-footed”, a cancerous growth in the nose (according to the Babli, 77a, an evil smelling growth.)
¹⁶¹ He collects animal dung to sell to tanners; he smells badly.
¹⁶² All these have professions that impregnate them with bad smells which even with a bath cannot be removed.
¹⁶³ He informed her of his impediment before the marriage.
¹⁶⁴ In talmudic medical theory there are kinds of boils for which sexual activity is very detrimental.
¹⁶⁵ He died childless; his widow can force her levir not to take her in levirate marriage and free her by ḥalîṣah.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:9:2
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:9:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:9:2)

**הלכה:** אֵילּוּ שֶׁכּוֹפִין אוֹתָן לְהוֹצִיא מוּכֶּי שְׁחִין כול׳. הַמְקַמֵּץ. זֶה הַמְקַמֵּץ צוֹאָה. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים. זֶה הַבּוּרְסִי. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. מַתְניתָא אָמְרָה. זֶה הַמְקַמֵּץ צוֹאָה. דְּתַנִינָן וְהַמְקַמֵּץ הַבּוּרְסִי. וְצוֹרַף נְחוֹשֶׁת. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. מַּתִיךְ נְחוֹשֶׁת מֵעִיקָּרוֹ.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
**HALAKHAH:** “The following one forces to divorce: Those smitten with boils,” etc. “The *meqammeṣ.*” This is the dung collector; but some say it is the tanner. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the Mishnah implies that this is the dung collector since we have stated: “The *meqammeṣ* and the tanner.”¹⁶⁶ “The brass refiner.” Samuel said, that is the one who smelts brass from its ore¹⁶⁷.

footnotes:
¹⁶⁶ The Babli, 77a, explains the problem away that in the opinion of the dissenting Tosephta (7:11) there are different kinds of tanners, smelling differently.
¹⁶⁷ In the Babli, 77a, this is only one opinion; Rav disagrees and holds that he repairs metal pots.


###### Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:9:3
[Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot 7:9:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Jerusalem%20Talmud%20Ketubot/r/7:9:3)

תַּנֵּי. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. פָּגַע בִּי זָקֵן אֶחָד מוּכֶּה שְׁחִין מִצִּיפּוֹרִין. אָמַר לִי. עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבָּעָה מִינֵי שְׁחִין הֵן וְאֵין לָךְ קָשֶׁה מִכּוּלָּם וְשֶׁהָאִשָּׁה רָעָה לֹו אֶלָּא רִאְתָן. רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹנָתָן. וּבוֹ לָקָה פַרְעֹה הָרָשָׁע. הָדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב וַינַגַּע יי אֶת פַּרְעֹה נְגָעִים גְּדוֹלִים וְאֶת בֵּיתוֹ וגו׳. אָמַר רִבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה. עַל דֶּטָלְמֵסֶן לְמַגַּע בְּסֹמָה דְמַטְרוֹנָה. אַרְבָּעָה וְעֶשְׂרִים מִינֵי אֲרָזִים הֵן וּמִכּוּלָּן לֹא פֵּירַשׁ הַכָּתוּב אֶלָּא שֶׁבַע בִּלְבַד. הָדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב אֶתַּן בַּמִּדְבָּר אֶרֶז שִׁיטָּה וַהֲדַס וְעֵץ שָׁמֶן אָשִׂים בָּעֲרָבָה בְּרוֹשׁ תִּדְהָּר וּתְאַשּׁוּר יַחְדָּיו. בְּרוֹשׁ בַּרְתָּא. תִּדְהָר אִדְרָא. וּתְאַשּׁוּר פִּיקְסִינָה. הוֹסִיפוּ עֲלֵיהֶן. אַלּוֹנִים עַרְמוֹנִים אַלְמוֹגִים. אַלּוֹנִים בְּלוּטִים. עַרְמוֹנִים דּוּלְבֵּי. אַלְמוּגִּים אֲלֹוִים.

**The Jerusalem Talmud, translation and commentary by Heinrich W. Guggenheimer. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1999-2015:**
It was stated¹⁶⁸ 41(2)] in this version only the person afflicted with *ritan* is required to divorce his wife for medical reasons. Another version in the Babli, 77b [*Lev. rabba*16(1)], requires all sufferers from boils to refrain from sexual activity.: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, I met an old man, smitten with boils, from Sepphoris. He told me, there are 24 kinds of boils; the worst one, and the one for which a woman is bad, is flowing boils¹⁶⁹. Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: With the latter kind, the evil Pharao was smitten¹⁷⁰41(2).; that is what is written¹⁷¹ 12:17.: “The Eternal smote Pharao and his house with great plagues,” etc. ¹⁷² 41(2), correct in 52(14). It was read by H. Graetz as mixed *Aramaic*/Greek/Latin sentence: *dĕ-*ἐτόλμησεν *lĕmagga‘ ba*-σῶμα *dĕ*-matrona; where ἐτόλμησεν is aorist of τολμάω “to dare, to presume”. Rebbi Berekhia said: Because he dared to touch the matron’s body. There are 24 kinds of cedar¹⁷³ 23a, *Sukkah* 37a, *Ta‘anit* 25b, *Baba batra* 80b) there are only 10 kinds mentioned, the 10 explained here, with sometimes different and multiple identifications. The original text seems to be in *Gen. rabba* 15(2): “R. Samuel ben Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: There are 24 kinds of cedar but only 7 are of the best kind.”, and from all of them the verse mentioned only seven. That is what is written¹⁷⁴ 41:19.: “I shall give in the desert cedar, acacia, myrtle, and oil wood¹⁷⁵; I put in the prairie *beroš, tidhar,* and *teaššur* together. *Beroš* is cypress; *tidhar* is *idra*¹⁷⁶;*teasššur* is the box-tree¹⁷⁷. They added to them¹⁷⁸ *’allonim, ‘armonim,* and *’almogim. ’Allonim* are oaks, *‘armonim* plane trees, *’almuggim* aloës.

footnotes:
¹⁶⁸ Tosephta 7:11 [Gen. rabba
¹⁶⁹ Usually derived somehow from Greek ῥέω “to flow”.
¹⁷⁰ This is anonymous in Gen. rabba
¹⁷¹ Gen.
¹⁷² This is slightly distorted in Gen. rabba
¹⁷³ This is added here because of the number 24. In the Babli (Roš Haššanah
¹⁷⁴ Is.
¹⁷⁵ In the Babli identified as the balsamum shrub.
¹⁷⁶ This Aramaic word for a tree has not been identified. In the Babli identified as ساج “teak”.
¹⁷⁷ Greek πύξινον “box-tree”.
¹⁷⁸ This expression is out of place here; it belongs to the tannaïtic tradition reported in the Babli that there are 10 kinds of cedar, with three added to the seven mentioned by Isaiah.