## Ketubot Daf 77a

###### Ketubot 77a:1
[Ketubot 77a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/77a:1)

וְנִכְפֶּה — כְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר דָּמֵי. וְהָנֵי מִילֵּי דִּקְבִיעַ לֵיהּ זְמַן, אֲבָל לָא קְבִיעַ לֵיהּ — כְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי דָּמֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And an epileptic is considered like a hidden blemish,** for it is possible that nobody is aware of her ailment. The Gemara comments: **And this applies** only **if** the sickness comes **at regular intervals,** as the woman and her family can conceal her illness. **But** if the attacks do **not** appear **at regular** intervals and can occur at any time, this **is considered like a visible blemish,** as it is impossible that her condition is unknown to others.


###### Ketubot 77a:2
[Ketubot 77a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/77a:2)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאִישׁ שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בּוֹ מוּמִין — אֵין כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּמוּמִין הַקְּטַנִּים, אֲבָל בְּמוּמִין הַגְּדוֹלִים — כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** In the case of **a man who developed blemishes** after marriage, the court **does not force him to divorce** his wife. **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what** case **is this statement said?** It is said **with regard to minor blemishes. However, with regard to major blemishes,** which will be defined later in the Gemara, the court **does force him to divorce** her.


###### Ketubot 77a:3
[Ketubot 77a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/77a:3)

**גְּמָ׳** רַב יְהוּדָה תָּנֵי נוֹלְדוּ. חִיָּיא בַּר רַב תָּנֵי הָיוּ. מַאן דְּאָמַר נוֹלְדוּ, כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן הָיוּ — (דְּקָסָבְרָה) [דְּהָא סְבַרָה] וְקַבִּילָה. מַאן דְּאָמַר הָיוּ, אֲבָל נוֹלְדוּ — לֹא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** **Rav Yehuda teaches** the mishna in accordance with the version quoted above: The man **developed** blemishes after marrying his wife. Conversely, **Ḥiyya bar Rav teaches:** The man **had** blemishes prior to the marriage. The Gemara clarifies the difference between the two opinions: **The one who says** that the man who **developed** blemishes after marriage does not have to divorce his wife says that the same *halakha* applies **all the more so** to one who **had** blemishes beforehand, **as she was aware** of them **and accepted** them. However, **the one who says** that the mishna is referring to one who **had** blemishes prior to his marriage would say that only in that case he is not compelled to divorce her, **but** if **they developed** after the marriage this is **not** the *halakha*, as she did not marry him under such conditions.


###### Ketubot 77a:4
[Ketubot 77a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/77a:4)

תְּנַן, אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּמוּמִין קְטַנִּים, אֲבָל בְּמוּמִין גְּדוֹלִים — כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״נוֹלְדוּ״, הַיְינוּ דְּשָׁאנֵי בֵּין גְּדוֹלִים לִקְטַנִּים. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״הָיוּ״ — מָה לִי גְּדוֹלִים מָה לִי קְטַנִּים? הָא סְבַרָה וְקַבִּילָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learned** in the mishna: **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what** case **is this statement said?** This is said **with regard to minor blemishes, but with regard to major blemishes** the court **forces him to divorce** her. The Gemara poses a question: **Granted, according to the one who says** that the correct version is: **Developed** blemishes, **this is** the reason **that there is a difference between major and minor** blemishes, as only major blemishes are grounds for divorce. **But according to the one who says** that the correct version is: **Had** blemishes, **what** difference is it **to me** whether they were **major** blemishes, and **what** difference is it **to me** whether they were **minor** ones? Either way, **she was aware** of them **and accepted** them.


###### Ketubot 77a:5
[Ketubot 77a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/77a:5)

כִּסְבוּרָה הִיא שֶׁיְּכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל, וְעַכְשָׁיו אֵין יְכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן מוּמִין גְּדוֹלִים? פֵּירֵשׁ רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל: [כְּגוֹן] נִיסְמֵית עֵינוֹ, נִקְטְעָה יָדוֹ, וְנִשְׁבְּרָה רַגְלוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: In the case of major blemishes she can claim **that she** initially **thought that she could accept** a husband with such blemishes, **but now** that she is married she realizes that she **cannot accept** such an arrangement. The Gemara inquires: **And what are** these **major blemishes** of a husband that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel considers grounds for divorce? **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel explained: For example,** if **his eye was blinded,** or **his hand cut off, or his leg broken.**


###### Ketubot 77a:6
[Ketubot 77a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/77a:6)

אִתְּמַר, רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: הֲלָכָה כְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. רָבָא אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה כְּדִבְרֵי חֲכָמִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**It was stated: Rabbi Abba bar Yaakov** said that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The *halakha* is in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. Rava** said that **Rav Naḥman said: The *halakha* is in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis** that there is no difference between minor and major blemishes.


###### Ketubot 77a:7
[Ketubot 77a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/77a:7)

וּמִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן הָכִי? וְהָא אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁשָּׁנָה רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּמִשְׁנָתֵנוּ — הֲלָכָה כְּמוֹתוֹ, חוּץ מֵעָרֵב, וְצַיְדָן, וּרְאָיָה אַחֲרוֹנָה. אָמוֹרָאֵי נִינְהוּ וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara poses a question: **And did Rabbi Yoḥanan** actually **say so,** that the *halakha* follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel? **But Rabba bar bar Ḥanna said** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Wherever Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taught in our Mishna, the *halakha* is in accordance with him, apart from** three cases: The *halakha* of **a guarantor** (*Bava Batra* 173b); the *halakha* he stated with regard to the divorce case in **Sidon** (*Gittin* 74a); and the **latter** of his disputes with the Rabbis with regard to the halakhot of **evidence** (*Sanhedrin* 31a). Since Rabbi Yoḥanan issued a statement that the *halakha* is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in all but three exceptional cases, why would it be necessary for him to issue a special ruling in the present discussion? The Gemara answers: **They are *amora’im*, and** they disagree **with regard to** the opinion **of Rabbi Yoḥanan.** Rabbi Abba bar Yaakov maintains that Rabbi Yoḥanan did not issue a general directive, but rather provided a separate ruling for each case.


###### Ketubot 77a:8
[Ketubot 77a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/77a:8)

**מַתְנִי׳** וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁכּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא: מוּכֵּה שְׁחִין, וּבַעַל פּוֹלִיפּוּס, וְהַמְקַמֵּץ, וְהַמְצָרֵף נְחוֹשֶׁת, וְהַבּוּרְסִי. בֵּין שֶׁהָיוּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִישְּׂאוּ, וּבֵין מִשֶּׁנִּישְּׂאוּ נוֹלְדוּ. וְעַל כּוּלָּן אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִתְנָה עִמָּהּ, יְכוֹלָה הִיא שֶׁתֹּאמַר: ״סְבוּרָה הָיִיתִי שֶׁאֲנִי יְכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל, וְעַכְשָׁיו אֵינִי יְכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** **And these** are the defects **for which** the court **forces him to divorce** her: One **afflicted with boils; or one who has a polyp; or one who** works as **a gatherer, or one who** works as **a melder of copper, or one who** works as **a tanner** of hides, all of whose work involves handling foul-smelling materials. **Whether** he **had** these defects **before they** got **married, or whether they developed after they** got **married,** the court forces them to divorce. **And with regard to all of these, Rabbi Meir said: Even though he stipulated with her** ahead of time that he suffers from this particular ailment or this is his line of work, **she can** nevertheless demand a divorce and **say: I thought I could accept** this issue **but now** I realize **I cannot accept** it.


###### Ketubot 77a:9
[Ketubot 77a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/77a:9)

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: מְקַבֶּלֶת הִיא עַל כׇּרְחָהּ, חוּץ מִמּוּכֵּה שְׁחִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּמִקָּתוֹ. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּצַיְדוֹן בְּבוּרְסִי אֶחָד שֶׁמֵּת, וְהָיָה לוֹ אָח בּוּרְסִי. אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: יְכוֹלָה הִיא שֶׁתֹּאמַר ״לְאָחִיךָ הָיִיתִי יְכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל, וּלְךָ אֵינִי יְכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And the Rabbis say:** If she initially agreed **she must accept it against her will, apart from** a situation in which her husband is **afflicted with boils.** In that case the Rabbis concede that he must divorce her, **because** the disease **consumes** his flesh when they engage in marital relations. The mishna relates an additional account: **An incident** occurred **in Sidon involving a certain tanner who died** childless, **and he had a brother** who was also **a tanner.** This brother was required to enter into levirate marriage with the widow. **The Sages said: She can say: I could accept** living with a tanner **for your brother but I cannot accept it for you,** and therefore he must perform *ḥalitza* with her.


###### Ketubot 77a:10
[Ketubot 77a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/77a:10)

**גְּמָ׳** מַאי ״בַּעַל פּוֹלִיפּוּס״? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: רֵיחַ הַחוֹטֶם. בְּמַתְנִיתָא תָּנָא: רֵיחַ הַפֶּה. רַב אַסִּי מַתְנִי אִיפְּכָא. וּמַנַּח בַּהּ סִימָנָא: שְׁמוּאֵל לָא פָּסֵיק פּוּמֵּיהּ מִכּוּלֵּיהּ פִּירְקִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara inquires about several unclear terms which appear in the mishna: **What is one who has a polyp? Rav Yehuda said** that **Shmuel said:** This is one who has **a** foul **odor of the nose. It was taught in a *baraita*:** A polyp is **a** foul **odor of the mouth. Rav Asi teaches the reverse,** that Shmuel is the one who said a polyp is odor of the mouth. **And he provided a mnemonic** device **for** his opinion: **Shmuel did not close his mouth from our entire chapter,** meaning that he studied it and commented on it extensively. This statement was formulated in a way that contains a hint that Shmuel’s opinion involves the mouth.


###### Ketubot 77a:11
[Ketubot 77a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/77a:11)

וְהַמְקַמֵּץ. מַאי ״מְקַמֵּץ״? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: זֶה הַמְקַבֵּץ צוֹאַת כְּלָבִים. מֵיתִיבִי: ״מְקַמֵּץ״ זֶה בּוּרְסִי! וּלְטַעְמָיךְ תִּיקְשֵׁי לָךְ מַתְנִיתִין: ״הַמְקַמֵּץ וְהַמְצָרֵף נְחוֹשֶׁת וְהַבּוּרְסִי״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna taught, in the list of defects for which the husband is forced to divorce his wife: **Or one who** works as **a gatherer.** The Gemara asks: **What is** the meaning of **a gatherer? Rav Yehuda said: This** is referring to **one who gathers dog excrement** for use in tanning. The Gemara **raises an objection** from a *baraita*: **A gatherer, this** is **a tanner.** The Gemara responds: **And according to your reasoning, the mishna** itself **should present a difficulty for you,** as it states: **One who** works as **a gatherer, or one who** works as **a melder of copper, or one who** works as **a tanner** of hides, which indicates that the mishna holds that the gatherer and the tanner are not the same.


###### Ketubot 77a:12
[Ketubot 77a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/77a:12)

בִּשְׁלָמָא מַתְנִיתִין לָא קַשְׁיָא: כָּאן בְּבוּרְסִי גָּדוֹל, כָּאן בְּבוּרְסִי קָטָן. אֶלָּא לְרַב יְהוּדָה קַשְׁיָא! תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּתַנְיָא: ״מְקַמֵּץ״ זֶה בּוּרְסִי, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: זֶה הַמְקַמֵּץ צוֹאַת כְּלָבִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **Granted, the mishna** is **not difficult,** as one can say that **here,** where the tanner is listed separately from the one who gathers, it is referring **to a large**-scale **tanner,** and **there,** when the *baraita* states that a gatherer is a tanner, it is speaking **of a** small-scale **tanner. But according to Rav Yehuda it is difficult.** The Gemara answers: **It is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*, as it is taught** in a *baraita*: **A gatherer, this** is **a tanner, and some say: This** is **one who gathers dog excrement.** Rav Yehuda follows this latter opinion.


###### Ketubot 77a:13
[Ketubot 77a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/77a:13)

וְהַמְצָרֵף נְחוֹשֶׁת וְהַבּוּרְסִי. מַאי ״מְצָרֵף נְחוֹשֶׁת״? רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר: חָשְׁלֵי דּוּדֵי. רַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה אָמַר: זֶה הַמְחַתֵּךְ נְחוֹשֶׁת מֵעִיקָּרוֹ. תַּנְיָא כְּווֹתֵיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר בַּר חָנָה: אֵיזֶהוּ ״מְצָרֵף״? זֶה הַמְחַתֵּךְ נְחוֹשֶׁת מֵעִיקָּרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The mishna teaches: **And a coppersmith and a tanner.** The Gemara poses a question: **What is** the meaning of **a coppersmith? Rav Ashi said: A kettle smith,** that is, one who beats copper in order to make kettles; his handling of copper leaves him with a bad odor. **Rabba bar bar Ḥanna said: This is one who hews copper from its source** in the ground. The Gemara comments: It **is taught** in a *baraita* **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabba bar bar Ḥanna: Who is a coppersmith? This is one who hews copper from its source.**


###### Ketubot 77a:14
[Ketubot 77a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/77a:14)

אָמַר רַב: הָאוֹמֵר ״אֵינִי זָן וְאֵינִי מְפַרְנֵס״ — יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתוּבָּה. אֲזַל רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אַמְרַהּ לִשְׁמַעְתָּא קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל. אָמַר: אַכְּסוּהּ שְׂעָרֵי לְאֶלְעָזָר. עַד שֶׁכּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא — יִכְפּוּהוּ לָזוּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ As the mishna discusses situations in which the court forces the husband to divorce his wife, the Gemara mentions a similar case. **Rav said:** A husband **who says: I will not sustain** my wife **and I will not provide a livelihood** for her, **must divorce** her **and give her** the payment of her **marriage contract. Rabbi Elazar went** and **recited** this ***halakha* before Shmuel.** Shmuel **said: Feed [*akhsuha*] barley,** animal fodder, **to Elazar.** In other words, he has spoken nonsense, as **rather than forcing him to divorce** her, it would be better for them **to force him to sustain** his wife.


###### Ketubot 77a:15
[Ketubot 77a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/77a:15)

וְרַב: אֵין אָדָם דָּר עִם נָחָשׁ בִּכְפִיפָה. כִּי סְלֵיק רַבִּי זֵירָא, אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ לְרַבִּי בִּנְיָמִין בַּר יֶפֶת דְּיָתֵיב וְקָאָמַר לַהּ, מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: עַל דָּא אַכְּסוּהּ שְׂעָרִין לְאֶלְעָזָר בְּבָבֶל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And** how does **Rav** respond to this argument? He bases his ruling on the principle that **a person does not reside in a basket,** i.e., in close quarters, **with a snake.** In other words, a woman cannot share her life with a man who provides for her needs only when compelled to do so by the court. The Gemara relates: **When Rabbi Zeira ascended** to Eretz Yisrael, **he found Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet sitting and reciting** this *halakha* of Rav’s **in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan. He said to him: On account of this** matter **they fed Elazar with barley in Babylonia.**


###### Ketubot 77a:16
[Ketubot 77a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/77a:16)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: אֵין מְעַשִּׂין אֶלָּא לִפְסוּלוֹת. כִּי אַמְרִיתַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אֲמַר: כְּגוֹן אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, וּגְרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְנָתִין וּלְמַמְזֵר. אֲבָל נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה וְשָׁהָה עִמָּהּ עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים וְלֹא יָלְדָה — אֵין כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara continues to discuss cases in which a husband is compelled to divorce his wife. **Rav Yehuda said** that **Rav Asi said:** The court **forces** men to divorce their wives **only** if they were married **to** women **unfit** to marry them. **When I recited this** *halakha* **before Shmuel, he said:** This applies to cases such as, **for example, a widow** married **to a High Priest, a divorcée or a *yevama* who underwent *ḥalitza* [*ḥalutza*]** married **to a common priest, a daughter born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [*mamzeret*], or a Gibeonite woman** married **to an Israelite,** or **a daughter of an Israelite** married **to a Gibeonite or to a *mamzer*.** In all of these cases the marriage is prohibited by Torah law. **But** if someone **married a woman and stayed with her** for **ten years and she did not give birth,** although he is guilty of neglecting the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, the court **does not force him** to divorce her.


###### Ketubot 77a:17
[Ketubot 77a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/77a:17)

וְרַב תַּחְלִיפָא בַּר אֲבִימִי אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: אֲפִילּוּ נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה וְשָׁהָה עִמָּהּ עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים וְלֹא יָלְדָה — כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ. תְּנַן, אֵלּוּ שֶׁכּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא: מוּכֵּה שְׁחִין וּבַעַל פּוֹלִיפּוּס. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְרַב אַסִּי: דְּרַבָּנַן קָתָנֵי, דְּאוֹרָיְיתָא לָא קָתָנֵי. אֶלָּא לְרַב תַּחְלִיפָא בַּר אֲבִימִי, לִיתְנֵי נָשָׂא אִשָּׁה וְשָׁהָה עִמָּהּ עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים וְלֹא יָלְדָה — כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Taḥalifa bar Avimi** said that **Shmuel said: Even** in the case of someone who **married a woman and stayed with her** for **ten years and she did not give birth,** the court **forces him** to divorce her, as he is in violation of a positive mitzva. The Gemara poses a question: **We learned** in the mishna: **And these are** the defects **for** which the court **forces him to divorce** his wife: One **afflicted with boils or one who has a polyp. Granted, according to Rav Asi,** only cases in which the court compels a divorce **by rabbinic** law **are taught** in the mishna, but those that are **by Torah** law, such as a widow married to a High Priest, **are not taught. However, according to Rav Taḥalifa bar Avimi, let** the mishna also **teach** that if he **married a woman and stayed with her** for **ten years and she did not give birth,** the court **forces him** to divorce her, as this is also a rabbinic enactment.


###### Ketubot 77a:18
[Ketubot 77a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ketubot/r/77a:18)

אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן, לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא בְּמִילֵּי, הָא בְּשׁוֹטֵי. מַתְקֵיף לַהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא: ״בִּדְבָרִים לֹא יִוָּסֶר עָבֶד״! אֶלָּא אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: הָא וְהָא בְּשׁוֹטֵי,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman said:** This is **not difficult,** as in **this** case the mishna discusses someone who is forced to divorce his wife **by verbal** means alone, but in **that** case it is referring to compelling him **by** beating him with **rods.** Although the court does compel a man to divorce his wife if she has not had children, the court does so only by speaking with him. **Rabbi Abba strongly objects to this:** Can there be a *halakha* of coercion by verbal means alone? But the verse states: **“A servant will not be corrected by words”** (Proverbs 29:19). **Rather, Rabbi Abba said:** Both **this and that** are referring to coercion **by** beating him with **rods,**