## Ketubot Daf 73b

###### Ketubot 73b:1
[Ketubot 73b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/73b:1)

לָא, קִידְּשָׁה סְתָם, וּכְנָסָהּ סְתָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects the proof: **No,** the case there is referring to where **he betrothed her without specification and** then **married her without specification.**


###### Ketubot 73b:2
[Ketubot 73b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/73b:2)

אֲבָל, קִידְּשָׁה עַל תְּנַאי וּכְנָסָהּ סְתָם — הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא בָּעֲיָא גִּיטָּא? אַדְּתָנֵי הַמְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ נְדָרִים וְנִמְצְאוּ עָלֶיהָ נְדָרִים אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, לִיתְנֵי: כְּנָסָהּ סְתָם וְנִמְצְאוּ עָלֶיהָ נְדָרִים — אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, וְכׇל שֶׁכֵּן הָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But** according to this explanation, if **he betrothed her conditionally and** then **married her without specification,** is it **indeed** the case **that she does not require a bill of divorce?** If so, **instead of teaching** in the mishna that if **one betroths a woman on condition that there are no vows** incumbent **upon her** to fulfill, **and it was** subsequently **discovered** that there are **vows** that are incumbent **upon her, she is not betrothed, let** the mishna **teach** instead a more novel *halakha*: If he betrothed her with a condition and **married her without specification and** then **it was discovered** that **vows were** incumbent **upon her, she is not betrothed. And** from this one can derive that **all the more so** the same *halakha* would apply in **this** case, where he betrothed her conditionally but did not repeat the condition when marrying her.


###### Ketubot 73b:3
[Ketubot 73b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/73b:3)

הָכִי נָמֵי קָאָמַר: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ נְדָרִים וּכְנָסָהּ סְתָם, וְנִמְצְאוּ עָלֶיהָ נְדָרִים — אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. קִידְּשָׁה סְתָם וּכְנָסָהּ סְתָם — תֵּצֵא שֶׁלֹּא בִּכְתוּבָּה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **That is also what he is saying,** and one should understand the mishna this way: **One who betroths a woman on condition that there are no vows** incumbent **upon her** to fulfill, **and** then **marries her without specification, and it is** then **discovered** that **vows were** incumbent **upon her, she is not betrothed.** If **he betrothed her without specification and married her without specification, she** requires a bill of divorce but may be **divorced without** receiving payment of her **marriage contract.**


###### Ketubot 73b:4
[Ketubot 73b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/73b:4)

כְּתוּבָּה הוּא דְּלָא בָּעֲיָא, הָא גִּיטָּא — בָּעֲיָא. וּמַאי שְׁנָא כְּתוּבָּה דְּלָא בָּעֲיָא — דְּאָמַר: אִי אֶפְשִׁי בְּאִשָּׁה נַדְרָנִית, אִי הָכִי גֵּט נָמֵי לָא תִּיבְּעֵי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks about this *halakha* according to Shmuel: The mishna says that **she does not require** or receive payment of her **marriage contract, but** one can infer that **she does require a bill of divorce. And what is different** about **a marriage contract that she does not require** payment? **Because he says: I do not want a vowing wife,** and therefore the marriage is considered a mistaken transaction. **If so, she should also not require a bill of divorce.** Since he is clearly particular about this, shouldn’t the betrothal also be considered a mistaken transaction?


###### Ketubot 73b:5
[Ketubot 73b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/73b:5)

אָמַר רַבָּה: צְרִיכָה גֵּט מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. וְכֵן אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: צְרִיכָה גֵּט מִדִּבְרֵיהֶם. רָבָא אָמַר: תַּנָּא סַפּוֹקֵי מְסַפְּקָא לֵיהּ, גַּבֵּי מָמוֹנָא לְקוּלָּא, גַּבֵּי אִיסּוּרָא לְחוּמְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said: She requires a bill of divorce from the words of** the Sages, i.e., by rabbinic law. Although by Torah law the betrothal is in fact invalid, the Sages declared that since he did not explicitly stipulate the condition, she requires a bill of divorce. **And similarly, Rav Ḥisda said: She requires a bill of divorce from the words of** the Sages. **Rava said** a different explanation: The ***tanna* is uncertain** about the status of the betrothal in this case. **Concerning monetary matters,** one **should be lenient.** Therefore, she cannot extract money from the husband for the marriage contract based on the principle that in monetary cases the burden of proof rests upon the claimant. But **concerning prohibitions** such as adultery, one **must be stringent,** and she therefore requires a bill of divorce.


###### Ketubot 73b:6
[Ketubot 73b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/73b:6)

אָמַר רַבָּה: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּטָעוּת שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים. אֲבָל בְּטָעוּת אִשָּׁה אַחַת — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵין צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba said: The dispute** between Rav and Shmuel **is in** the case of **an error** concerning **two women.** The same man married one woman on condition that she had no vows incumbent upon her and then married another woman without specification. Rav and Shmuel disagree whether the condition he explicitly stated for the first woman should be seen as proof that he is particular about this with regard to the second one as well, to the point that the betrothal is invalid if the condition was not fulfilled. **But in** the case of **an error** concerning **one woman,** where he betroths her with a condition, marries her without specification, and subsequently discovered that the condition was not fulfilled, **all agree,** including Rav, **that she does not require a bill of divorce from him.**


###### Ketubot 73b:7
[Ketubot 73b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/73b:7)

אֲמַר (לֵיהּ) אַבָּיֵי: וְהָא מַתְנִיתִין דְּטָעוּת אִשָּׁה אַחַת הִיא, וְקָמוֹתְבִינַן תְּיוּבְתָּא מִינַּיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said to him: But the mishna** discusses **an error** concerning **one woman,** as a second woman is not mentioned, **and we raise an objection from it** against Shmuel, implying that Rav and Shmuel have a dispute in this case as well. How, then, can you say that dispute is in the case of an error concerning two women?


###### Ketubot 73b:8
[Ketubot 73b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/73b:8)

אֶלָּא אִי אִתְּמַר הָכִי אִתְּמַר, אָמַר רַבָּה: מַחְלוֹקֶת בְּטָעוּת אִשָּׁה אַחַת כְּעֵין שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים. אֲבָל בְּטָעוּת אִשָּׁה אַחַת גְּרֵידְתָּא — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather,** the previous explanation must be retracted and instead the Gemara says: **If** the above statement of Rabba **was said, it was said as follows: Rabba said** that **the dispute** between Rav and Shmuel **is with regard to** a case of **an error** concerning **one woman similar to** an error concerning **two women.** He betrothed one woman conditionally and then divorced her, and subsequently married her again without specification. In this case, Rav and Shmuel dispute whether the assumption is that he intended to nullify the initial condition with the second betrothal or whether he married her the second time based upon the conditions of the first betrothal. **But in** the case of a simple **error only** concerning **one woman,** where he betroths her with a condition, marries her without specification, and then discovers that the condition was not fulfilled, **all agree** that **she does not require a bill of divorce from him.**


###### Ketubot 73b:9
[Ketubot 73b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/73b:9)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: קִידְּשָׁהּ בְּטָעוּת, וּפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה, וְכֵן קָטָן שֶׁקִּידֵּשׁ, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁשָּׁלַח סִבְלוֹנוֹת לְאַחַר מִיכֵּן — אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, שֶׁמֵּחֲמַת קִדּוּשִׁין הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שָׁלַח. וְאִם בָּעֲלוּ — קָנוּ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמַר: אִם בָּעֲלוּ לֹא קָנוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye raised an objection to** Rabba’s statement from a *baraita*: In cases where the man **betrothed her in error, or** he betrothed her with an item worth **less than the value of a *peruta*, and similarly** in a case where there was **a minor boy who betrothed** a woman, **even if** the man **later sent presents [*sivlonot*]** to the bride after he became an adult, **she is not betrothed, because he sent** them **on the basis of the original betrothal. And if** the men in any of these cases **engaged in sexual intercourse** with the woman after betrothal at the appropriate time, **they have acquired** the women as their wives, since they presumably intended the intercourse to serve as betrothal. **Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael:** Even **if they engage in sexual intercourse, they have not acquired** the women as wives, since they presumably engaged in these relations based upon the earlier betrothal, which was invalid.


###### Ketubot 73b:10
[Ketubot 73b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/73b:10)

וְהָא הָכָא דְּטָעוּת אִשָּׁה אַחַת הִיא, וּפְלִיגִי. מַאי לָאו טָעוּת נְדָרִים?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Noting that the first case in the *baraita* is where a man betrothed a woman in error, Abaye asks: **But here** in this *baraita*, **where** the first case **is an error** concerning **one woman, and** the first *tanna* and Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda **disagree; what, is it not that** the intention of the phrase: **Betrothed** her in error, is referring to an **error** in the condition with regard to **vows,** where he mistakenly believed she didn’t have any vows incumbent upon her? This would constitute a refutation of Rabba’s statement that all agree that in a case of an error concerning one woman she is not betrothed.


###### Ketubot 73b:11
[Ketubot 73b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/73b:11)

לָא, טָעוּת פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה. פָּחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה בְּהֶדְיָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ: קִידְּשָׁהּ בְּטָעוּת וּפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה! פָּרוֹשֵׁי קָא מְפָרֵשׁ: קִידְּשָׁהּ בְּטָעוּת כֵּיצַד? כְּגוֹן שֶׁקִּידְּשָׁהּ בְּפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No,** here it is referring to a halakhic **error,** that he betrothed a woman with an item worth **less than the value of a *peruta*.** The Gemara asks: Concerning the case where the betrothal is with an item worth **less than the value of a *peruta*,** the *baraita* **teaches it explicitly** as a separate case with the following words: If **he betrothed her in error, or** if he betrothed her with an item worth **less than the value of a *peruta*.** The Gemara answers: **It is explaining** what it stated earlier: **What is** the case of one who **betrothed her in error? For example, when he betrothed her with** an item worth **less than the value of a *peruta*,** as he did not engage in sexual intercourse with her based on such a betrothal.


###### Ketubot 73b:12
[Ketubot 73b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/73b:12)

בְּמַאי קָא מִיפַּלְגִי? מָר סָבַר: אָדָם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בְּפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה, וְגָמַר וּבָעַל לְשֵׁם קִדּוּשִׁין. וּמַר סָבַר: אֵין אָדָם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין קִדּוּשִׁין תּוֹפְסִין בְּפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה, וְכִי קָא בָעַל, אַדַּעְתָּא דְּקִדּוּשִׁין הָרִאשׁוֹנִים בָּעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **With regard to what do they disagree?** The Gemara answers: One **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds** that **a person knows that betrothal does not take effect with** an item worth **less than the value of a *peruta*. Consequently,** he **decides to engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of betrothal** and therefore acquires the woman as his wife through these relations. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, **holds** that **a person does not know that betrothal does not take effect with** an item worth **less than the value of a *peruta*, and when he** later **engages in sexual intercourse, he does so on the basis of the original betrothal,** so no new betrothal takes place.


###### Ketubot 73b:13
[Ketubot 73b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/73b:13)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: ״הֲרֵינִי בּוֹעֲלִיךְ עַל מְנָת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה אַבָּא״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא רָצָה הָאָב — מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: רָצָה הָאָב מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת, לֹא רָצָה הָאָב אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. וְהָא הָכָא, דְּכִי טָעוּת אִשָּׁה אַחַת דָּמֵי, וּפְלִיגִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye again **raised an objection to** Rabba’s statement from a *baraita*: If a man said to a woman: **I am engaging in sexual intercourse with you** for the purpose of betrothal **on condition that** my **father will desire** our betrothal, and then he married her without specification, **although the father did not desire** it, **she is** nevertheless **betrothed** through this act of intercourse. **Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon:** If **the father desires** it, **she is betrothed,** and if **the father does not desire** it, **she is not betrothed,** since he engaged in intercourse with her based on the initial condition. **But here it is similar to a mistake** concerning **one woman, and they disagree** whether the betrothal is valid.


###### Ketubot 73b:14
[Ketubot 73b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/73b:14)

הָתָם בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, מָר סָבַר ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁיִּרְצֶה הָאָב״ — עַל מְנָת שֶׁיִּשְׁתּוֹק הָאָב, וְהָא שָׁתֵיק לֵיהּ. וּמָר סָבַר ״עַל מְנָת שֶׁיֹּאמַר אַבָּא ׳הֵן׳״, וְהָא לָא אָמַר אַבָּא ׳הֵן׳.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **There, they disagree about this:** One **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds that: On condition that** my **father will desire** it, means: **On condition that** my **father is silent. Consequently,** if his father does not protest, the betrothal is valid, **and he was** indeed **silent about it. And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda, **holds** that it means: **On condition that** my **father says yes, and he did not say yes.** Therefore, the dispute is about the significance of the father’s silence in this case.


###### Ketubot 73b:15
[Ketubot 73b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/73b:15)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ: מוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בִּקְטַנָּה שֶׁהִשִּׂיאָהּ אָבִיהָ, וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה וְהִיא יְתוֹמָה בְּחַיֵּי הָאָב, וְהֶחְזִירָהּ — שֶׁחוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Abaye again **raised an objection to** Rabba’s statement from a *baraita*: **The Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer concerning a minor girl who was married off by her father and** then **divorced** while she was still a minor, **and is** therefore treated by the *halakha* as **an orphan in the lifetime of the father,** since the *halakha* is that the father is no longer able to marry her off to someone else, **and** while she was still a minor, her former husband **remarried her,** and he then died without children, **that she performs *ḥalitza* and may not** instead **enter into levirate marriage.**


###### Ketubot 73b:16
[Ketubot 73b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/73b:16)

מִפְּנֵי שֶׁגֵּירוּשֶׁיהָ גֵּירוּשִׁין גְּמוּרִין, וְאֵין חֲזָרָתָהּ חֲזָרָה גְּמוּרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: This is **because her divorce was a full-fledged divorce,** since the father has authority to receive her bill of divorce from her husband, **and her return** to her husband afterward **is not a full-fledged return,** since she remarries her husband while still a minor, and her father no longer has authority to marry her off, and marriage to a minor girl by her own consent is not considered a full-fledged marriage. She is consequently prohibited from entering into a levirate marriage based on the prohibition against a divorcée marrying her former husband’s brother.


###### Ketubot 73b:17
[Ketubot 73b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/73b:17)

בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — שֶׁגֵּירְשָׁהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה, וְהֶחְזִירָהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה. אֲבָל גֵּירְשָׁהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה וְהֶחְזִירָהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא גְּדוֹלָה, אוֹ שֶׁהֶחְזִירָהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא קְטַנָּה וְגָדְלָה אֶצְלוֹ וָמֵת — אוֹ חוֹלֶצֶת אוֹ מִתְיַבֶּמֶת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **In what** case **is this statement said? When he divorced her while she was** still **a minor girl and** then **remarried her while she was** still **a minor girl. But** if **he divorced her while she was** still **a minor girl, and** then **remarried her when she was an adult woman, or** if **he remarried her while she was** still **a minor girl and she became an adult woman** while married **to him,** the second marriage is binding, and she has the status of a full-fledged married woman. **And** therefore, if **he died, either she performs *ḥalitza* or she enters into levirate marriage** like any other widow.