## Ketubot Daf 74a

###### Ketubot 74a:1
[Ketubot 74a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/74a:1)

מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אָמְרוּ: חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַיבֶּמֶת. וְהָא הָכָא, דִּכְטָעוּת אִשָּׁה אַחַת דָּמֵי, וּפְלִיגִי!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**In the name of Rabbi Eliezer they said** that even in this case **she performs *ḥalitza*, but she may not enter into levirate marriage.** This dispute seems to hinge on whether, when he engaged in sexual intercourse with her as an adult, he did so for the purpose of betrothal, or whether he relied upon the invalid betrothal performed when she was a minor. **But here,** this should be considered **similar to an error** concerning **one woman, and** yet they **disagree.**


###### Ketubot 74a:2
[Ketubot 74a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/74a:2)

הָתָם נָמֵי בְּהָא קָמִיפַּלְגִי, מָר סָבַר: אָדָם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין קִידּוּשֵׁי קְטַנָּה כְּלוּם, וְגָמַר וּבָעַל לְשֵׁם קִידּוּשִׁין, וּמַר סָבַר: אֵין אָדָם יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁאֵין קִידּוּשֵׁי קְטַנָּה כְּלוּם, וְכִי קָא בָעַל — אַדַּעְתָּא דְּקִידּוּשִׁין הָרִאשׁוֹנִים קָא בָעַל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this claim: This is not the nature of the disagreement. Rather, **there too** they **disagree** over a possible halakhic error: One **Sage,** the first *tanna*, **holds** that **a person knows that the betrothal of a minor girl is nothing, and** consequently, after she reaches adulthood, **he decides to engage in sexual intercourse for the purpose of betrothal.** Therefore, if the husband dies she may enter into levirate marriage. **And** one **Sage,** Rabbi Eliezer, **holds that a person does not know that the betrothal of a minor girl is nothing, and** therefore **when he engages in sexual intercourse** with her after she reaches adulthood, **he does so on the basis of the initial betrothal,** which is not effective according to Torah law, and therefore she cannot enter into levirate marriage.


###### Ketubot 74a:3
[Ketubot 74a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/74a:3)

אִתְּמַר נָמֵי, אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ עַל תְּנַאי וּבָעַל — [דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל] אֵינָהּ צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט. אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב אִיקָא בַּר אֲחָתֵיהּ: חֲלִיצָה מוּטְעֵת כְּשֵׁירָה. אֵיזוֹ הִיא חֲלִיצָה מוּטְעֵת? אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: כֹּל שֶׁאוֹמֵר לוֹ ״חֲלוֹץ לָהּ, וּבְכָךְ אַתָּה כּוֹנְסָהּ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was also stated** in accordance with Rabba’s opinion, that there is no dispute with regard to an error concerning one woman: **Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One who betrothed** a woman **conditionally and engaged in sexual intercourse** without specifying that he is voiding the condition, **all agree** that **she does not require a bill of divorce from him. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, son of** Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov’s **sister, raised an objection to** his opinion from a *baraita* that states: **A mistaken *ḥalitza* is valid.** The *amora’im* asked: **What is** meant by the term: **A mistaken *ḥalitza*? Reish Lakish said: Any** situation **when** someone **says to** a man whose married brother died childless [*yavam*] not well versed in *halakha*: **Perform *ḥalitza* with her and by** doing **so you will** thereby **marry her.** Although he did not intend to release their bond with this *ḥalitza*, it is nevertheless effective.


###### Ketubot 74a:4
[Ketubot 74a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/74a:4)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אֲנִי שׁוֹנֶה: בֵּין שֶׁנִּתְכַּוֵּון הוּא וְלֹא נִתְכַּוְּונָה הִיא, בֵּין שֶׁנִּתְכַּוְּונָה הִיא וְלֹא נִתְכַּוֵּון הוּא חֲלִיצָתָהּ פְּסוּלָה, עַד שֶׁיִּתְכַּוְּונוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם. וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ חֲלִיצָתָהּ כְּשֵׁרָה? אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כֹּל שֶׁאוֹמֵר לוֹ ״חֲלוֹץ לָהּ עַל מְנָת שֶׁתִּתֵּן לְךָ מָאתַיִם זוּז״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yoḥanan said: I teach** with regard to the *halakhot* of *ḥalitza*: **Whether he intended** to release her through *ḥalitza* **and she did not intend** it, or **whether she intended** this outcome **and he did not intend** it, **her *ḥalitza* is invalid;** it will always be invalid **until they both intend** the appropriate outcome. **And you say** that in that case, when he intended to marry her and not to release her, that **her *ḥalitza* is valid? Rather, Rabbi Yoḥanan said** that in fact, in such a case, the *ḥalitza* would be invalid, and the term: A mistaken *ḥalitza*, concerns **any** situation **where** someone **says to** the *yavam*: **Perform *ḥalitza* with her on condition that she gives you two hundred dinars** as payment, and afterward she refuses to give him the money.


###### Ketubot 74a:5
[Ketubot 74a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/74a:5)

אַלְמָא כֵּיוָן דַּעֲבַד מַעֲשֶׂה — אַחוֹלֵי אַחֲלֵיהּ לִתְנָאֵיהּ. הָכָא נָמֵי, כֵּיוָן דִּבְעַל — אַחוֹלֵי אַחֲלֵיהּ לִתְנָאֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara returns to our issue: **Apparently,** it can be seen from here that **since he performed an action,** the *halakha* views this as though **he** explicitly **waived his condition,** for although he stipulated a condition, once he actually performs *ḥalitza* the condition is ignored. If so, **here too,** with regard to a conditional betrothal, **since he engaged in sexual intercourse, he has waived his condition,** which contradicts Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov’s view.


###### Ketubot 74a:6
[Ketubot 74a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/74a:6)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ בַּר בֵּי רַב: שַׁפִּיר קָא אָמְרַתְּ? מִכְּדֵי כֹּל תְּנַאי מֵהֵיכָא גָּמְרִינַן — מִתְּנַאי בְּנֵי גָד וּבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**He said to him: Student of the academy,** have **you spoken well?** The reason why the *ḥalitza* is valid is not because he waived his condition, but rather because the condition was invalid to begin with. **After all, from where** do **we learn** through tradition **all** the laws of **conditions? From the conditions** made with **the descendants of Gad and the descendants of Reuben.** Moses made a condition with the tribes of Gad and Reuben: If they would go with the rest of the nation to fight in the battles for the land of Canaan on the western side of the Jordan, they would receive their inheritance on the eastern side, as they requested (see Numbers, chapter 32).


###### Ketubot 74a:7
[Ketubot 74a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/74a:7)

תְּנָאָה דְּאֶפְשָׁר לְקַיּוֹמֵיהּ עַל יְדֵי שָׁלִיחַ, כִּי הָתָם — הָוֵי תְּנָאֵיהּ תְּנָאָה. דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר לְקַיּוֹמֵיהּ עַל יְדֵי שָׁלִיחַ, כִּי הָתָם — לָא הָוֵי תְּנָאָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara derives the *halakhot* of contractual conditions from that incident, and these include the rule that **a condition that can be fulfilled by means of an agent, as** was done **there,** when Moses transferred responsibility for implementing the condition to Joshua and the Elders, and such **a condition is** a valid **condition.** Whereas a condition **that cannot be fulfilled by means of an agent as** was done **there is not** a valid **condition.** Accordingly, since *ḥalitza* cannot be performed by means of an agent, the condition is of no effect and the *ḥalitza* is valid. There is therefore no proof from here that a husband who performs an action waives his condition.


###### Ketubot 74a:8
[Ketubot 74a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/74a:8)

וְהָא בִּיאָה, דְּלָא אֶפְשָׁר לְקַיּוֹמַיהּ עַל יְדֵי שָׁלִיחַ כִּי הָתָם, וְקָא הָוֵי תְּנָאָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **But sexual intercourse** is something **that cannot be fulfilled by means of an agent as** was done **there,** in the case of the descendants of Gad and the descendants of Reuben, **and** yet **it is** considered a valid **condition.** If a man says that he is engaging in intercourse with a woman for the purpose of betrothal on condition that a certain stipulation be fulfilled, if that condition is broken the betrothal is invalid.


###### Ketubot 74a:9
[Ketubot 74a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/74a:9)

הָתָם, מִשּׁוּם דְּאִיתַּקּוּשׁ הֲוָיוֹת לַהֲדָדֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **There,** in the case of betrothal, there is a special reason for this law, **because** the different ways of **becoming** betrothed **are juxtaposed to each other.** The Torah describes betrothal with the term becoming, as in the expression: “And she becomes another man’s wife” (Deuteronomy 24:2). Betrothal can be performed through the transference of money or an item of value, through a document, or through sexual intercourse. All three forms are juxtaposed with one another. Conditions can be stipulated for betrothal performed via transference of money or through a document, since these methods of betrothal can be fulfilled through an agent. Therefore, a condition may also be stipulated for betrothal through sexual intercourse, although that cannot be fulfilled through an agent.


###### Ketubot 74a:10
[Ketubot 74a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/74a:10)

אָמַר רַב עוּלָּא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר עוּלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּמִלְוָה וּבָעַל, עַל תְּנַאי וּבָעַל, בְּפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה וּבָעַל — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Ulla bar Abba said** that **Ulla said** that **Rabbi Elazar said:** In the case of **one who betroths** a woman **with a loan** by forgiving a debt she owes him, which does not effect betrothal, **and** subsequently **engages in sexual intercourse** with her; or one who betroths a woman **conditionally** and the condition was not fulfilled, **and** he subsequently **engages in sexual intercourse** with her; or one who betroths a woman **with** an item worth **less than the value of a *peruta*, and** he subsequently **engages in sexual intercourse** with her, in all of these cases, **all agree** that **she requires a bill of divorce from him.** Although the initial betrothal was invalid, they are betrothed due to the subsequent sexual intercourse.


###### Ketubot 74a:11
[Ketubot 74a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/74a:11)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי מְנַחֵם אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ בְּפָחוֹת מִשָּׁוֶה פְּרוּטָה וּבָעַל, צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט. בְּהָא הוּא דְּלָא טָעֵי, אֲבָל בְּהָנָךְ טָעֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Yosef bar Abba said** that **Rabbi Menaḥem said** that **Rabbi Ami said:** In the case of **one who betroths** a woman **with** an item worth **less than the value of a *peruta* and** subsequently **engages in sexual intercourse** with her, **she requires a bill of divorce from him.** This is because **it is in this** matter **that he does not err.** He knows that betrothal must be performed with an item worth at least a *peruta*, and he therefore must have engaged in intercourse with her for the purpose of betrothal. **But with regard to** those **other** cases, i.e., a loan or a condition, he does **err.** He engages in intercourse based upon his initial betrothal, and therefore she does not require a bill of divorce.


###### Ketubot 74a:12
[Ketubot 74a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/74a:12)

אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּעוּלָּא: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ עַל תְּנַאי וּבָעַל — צְרִיכָה הֵימֶנּוּ גֵּט. זֶה הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה, וְלֹא הָיָה כֹּחַ בַּחֲכָמִים לְהוֹצִיאָהּ בְּלֹא גֵּט.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Kahana said in the name of Ulla:** In the case of **one who betroths** a woman **conditionally** and the condition was not fulfilled, **and** he subsequently **engages in sexual intercourse** with her, **she requires a bill of divorce from him,** in accordance with Rabbi Elazar. The Gemara relates: **This was an incident** that actually occurred. A man betrothed a woman conditionally and then engaged in sexual intercourse with her without specification, **and the Sages did not have** the **power to allow her to leave** her husband **without a bill of divorce,** since they could not definitively rule that the betrothal was invalid. Therefore, they forced him to give her a bill of divorce.


###### Ketubot 74a:13
[Ketubot 74a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/74a:13)

לְאַפּוֹקֵי מֵהַאי תַּנָּא. דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: ״וְהִיא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה״ — אֲסוּרָה. הָא נִתְפָּשָׂה — מוּתֶּרֶת. וְיֵשׁ לְךָ אַחֶרֶת שֶׁאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא נִתְפָּשָׂה, מוּתֶּרֶת. וְאֵיזוֹ זוֹ? שֶׁקִּידּוּשֶׁיהָ קִידּוּשֵׁי טָעוּת, שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ בְּנָהּ מוּרְכָּב עַל כְּתֵיפָהּ,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara comments: This statement comes **to exclude** the opinion **of this *tanna*,** as **Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael:** The verse states with regard to a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful [*sota*]: **“And she was not seized”** (Numbers 5:13), i.e., she was not raped. That is, she is **forbidden** to her husband since she willingly committed adultery with another man. **Consequently,** a woman who in fact **was seized** is **permitted** to her husband. **And you have another** woman **who, although she was not seized** but rather engaged in sexual intercourse willingly, is nevertheless **permitted** to her husband and is not considered a *sota*. **And who is this?** This is referring to one **whose betrothal was a mistaken betrothal, as even if her son** from this marriage **is riding on her shoulders,**