## Ketubot Daf 71a

###### Ketubot 71a:1
[Ketubot 71a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/71a:1)

מַעֲשֶׂה דְּבֵית חוֹרוֹן.

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


###### Ketubot 71a:2
[Ketubot 71a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/71a:2)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל חֹדֶשׁ אֶחָד וְכוּ׳. הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא? אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: כֹּהֶנֶת אֲתָא לְאַשְׁמוֹעִינַן. רָבָא אָמַר: חֹדֶשׁ מָלֵא וְחֹדֶשׁ חָסֵר אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.

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


###### Ketubot 71a:3
[Ketubot 71a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/71a:3)

אָמַר רַב: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בִּמְפָרֵשׁ, אֲבָל בִּסְתָם — יוֹצִיא לְאַלְתַּר וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בִּסְתָם לֹא יוֹצִיא, שֶׁמָּא יִמְצָא פֶּתַח לְנִדְרוֹ.

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


###### Ketubot 71a:4
[Ketubot 71a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/71a:4)

וְהָא אִיפְּלִגוּ בַּיהּ חֲדָא זִימְנָא, דִּתְנַן: הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִתַּשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: שְׁתֵּי שַׁבָּתוֹת. — וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: שַׁבָּת אַחַת. וְאָמַר רַב: מַחְלוֹקֶת בִּמְפָרֵשׁ, אֲבָל בִּסְתָם — יוֹצִיא לְאַלְתַּר וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ בִּסְתָם נָמֵי לֹא יוֹצִיא, שֶׁמָּא יִמְצָא פֶּתַח לְנִדְרוֹ.

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


###### Ketubot 71a:5
[Ketubot 71a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/71a:5)

צְרִיכָא, דְּאִי אִיתְּמַר בְּהָהִיא: בְּהָהִיא קָאָמַר רַב — מִשּׁוּם דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר בְּפַרְנָס, אֲבָל בְּהָא, דְּאֶפְשָׁר בְּפַרְנָס — אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ לִשְׁמוּאֵל. וְאִי אִתְּמַר בְּהָא: בְּהָא קָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל — מִשּׁוּם דְּאֶפְשָׁר בְּפַרְנָס, אֲבָל בְּהַהִיא, אֵימָא מוֹדֶה לֵיהּ לְרַב — צְרִיכָא.

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


###### Ketubot 71a:6
[Ketubot 71a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/71a:6)

תְּנַן: הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תִּטְעוֹם אֶחָד מִכׇּל הַפֵּירוֹת — יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב: כָּאן בִּסְתָם, כָּאן בִּמְפָרֵשׁ. אֶלָּא לִשְׁמוּאֵל קַשְׁיָא!

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


###### Ketubot 71a:7
[Ketubot 71a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/71a:7)

הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן שֶׁנָּדְרָה הִיא, וְקִיֵּים לָהּ אִיהוּ. וְקָסָבַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, הוּא נוֹתֵן אֶצְבַּע בֵּין שִׁינֶּיהָ.

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


###### Ketubot 71a:8
[Ketubot 71a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/71a:8)

וְסָבַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר הוּא נוֹתֵן אֶצְבַּע בֵּין שִׁינֶּיהָ? וְהָתַנְיָא: הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁנָּדְרָה בְּנָזִיר, וְשָׁמַע בַּעְלָהּ וְלֹא הֵפֵר לָהּ, רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמְרִים: הִיא נָתְנָה אֶצְבַּע בֵּין שִׁינֶּיהָ, לְפִיכָךְ אִם רָצָה הַבַּעַל לְהָפֵר — יָפֵר. וְאִם אָמַר אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּאִשָּׁה נַדְרָנִית — תֵּצֵא שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְתוּבָּה.

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


###### Ketubot 71a:9
[Ketubot 71a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/71a:9)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמְרִים: הוּא נוֹתֵן אֶצְבַּע בֵּין שִׁינֶּיהָ, לְפִיכָךְ אִם רָצָה הַבַּעַל לְהָפֵר — יָפֵר. וְאִם אָמַר: אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּאִשָּׁה נַדְרָנִית — יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה! אֵיפוֹךְ, רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמְרִים: הוּא נוֹתֵן, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמְרִים: הִיא נָתְנָה.

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


###### Ketubot 71a:10
[Ketubot 71a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/71a:10)

וְסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא נָתְנָה? וְהָתְנַן: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: בַּעֲנִיּוּת שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן קִצְבָה!

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


###### Ketubot 71a:11
[Ketubot 71a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/71a:11)

אֵימָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמְרִים: הוּא נוֹתֵן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמְרִים: הִיא נָתְנָה. וְסָבַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא נָתְנָה? וְהָתְנַן, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל יוֹם אֶחָד — יְקַיֵּים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Say** that the text of the *baraita* should read as follows: **Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei say: He is putting** his finger between her teeth; **Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar say: She put** her finger between her own teeth. This way, there is no contradiction between statements attributed to either Rabbi Meir or Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara asks further: **And** does **Rabbi Yehuda hold** that **she put** her finger between her own teeth? **But didn’t we learn** in the mishna that **Rabbi Yehuda says: For an Israelite,** if the vow is in effect for **one day he may maintain** her as his wife, but if the vow is in effect for two days he must divorce her and give her the payment of the marriage contract? According to the explanation that the mishna is referring to a case where she vowed and he ratified it, it would appear that Rabbi Yehuda also agrees that he is putting his finger between her teeth.


###### Ketubot 71a:12
[Ketubot 71a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/71a:12)

אֵימָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמְרִים: הוּא נוֹתֵן, וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר: הִיא נָתְנָה. וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר זוּגֵי זוּגֵי קָתָנֵי, אֵימָא, רַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמְרִים: הִיא נָתְנָה, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמְרִים: הוּא נוֹתֵן. וְהָא סְתָמָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר.

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


###### Ketubot 71a:13
[Ketubot 71a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/71a:13)

וְסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּעֲנִיּוּת שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן קִצְבָה, אַלְמָא בַּעַל מָצֵי מֵיפַר? וּרְמִינְהוּ: אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהַבַּעַל מֵיפֵר: דְּבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ, ״אִם אֶרְחַץ״, ״אִם לֹא אֶרְחַץ״. ״אִם אֶתְקַשֵּׁט״, ״אִם לֹא אֶתְקַשֵּׁט״. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֵין אֵלּוּ נִדְרֵי עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן נִדְרֵי עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ: ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל בָּשָׂר״, וְ״שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה יַיִן״, וְ״שֶׁלֹּא אֶתְקַשֵּׁט

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