Gittin 35b — the Talmud in English

and we valued them [

we valued all these]

at five maneh.

And when

the woman

comes to you

in Babylonia,

collect the remainder

that still remains of the debt of her ketubah!

Behold, we have found explicitly that even a divorced woman takes a vow in order to collect her ketubah. And this is difficult for Shmuel, who said: But a divorced woman is made to swear!?

Rav Ashi said:

It is not difficult; actually, the divorced woman does not take a vow. And there she was not a divorced woman, but rather a widow,

and that

divorce document mentioned there

was a get yevamin!

That is to say: the woman fell for yibbum before her husband’s brothers, and one of the brothers arose and gave her a get, thereby disqualifying her for yibbum from all the brothers. [Although according to Torah law the bond of yibbum is not removed by a get, but only by chalitza, this get is effective by rabbinic enactment, to prohibit her through yibbum to all the brothers of the deceased.] And since she became prohibited to all of them, she came to collect her ketubah from the property of her first husband.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabban Gamaliel the Elder instituted: that she should take a vow

to the orphans whatever they wish, and collect her ketubah:

Rav Huna said: They taught

that she collects her ketubah through a vow

only when

she still

has not married

a second time.

But

if she has already

married

another man and has come to collect her ketubah,

she is not made to take a vow,

because, since she has married, she is not concerned to take a vow even if she has already collected her ketubah, since she relies upon the fact that her husband will annul her vow.

And since the vow is not effective for her, she does not collect her ketubah at all, for a widow is not made to swear; and Rav Huna holds like Rav, that she is not made to swear even outside the court, and she has no means by which to collect her ketubah.

And we inquire concerning this: But if she

married, for what reason do we not

rely upon her vow—is it not because

the husband annuls

the vow for her? And if so,

when she has not married either,

she should not be concerned to take a vow, because she will rely upon the fact that

when she marries [

when she marries],

the

the

husband will annul it!

And we answer: Since at the time of the vow she had not yet married him, her husband cannot annul it for her after he marries her, for we hold:

a husband does not annul

vows

that preceded [

that preceded the marriage]!

And we nevertheless raise a difficulty: Even if she has not married,

let us be concerned

lest she go to a sage, and he permit it

her vow [lest she go to a sage who will permit her vow]; that is to say: lest she rely upon the fact that tomorrow she will go to a sage and he will permit it for her, and she is not concerned to take a vow!?

And we answer:

He holds

Rav Huna:

One who comes to ask a sage concerning his vow

must specify

before him

the vow,

and say how he took this vow! And if she specifies to the sage that she took it for the orphans, he will certainly not permit her vow. For he will not wish to enable her to collect her ketubah deceitfully.

But

Rav Naḥman

disagreed with Rav Huna and

said:

A widow takes a vow and collects her ketubah,

even

if she has already

married.

And we wonder: But if she

married, surely

she will rely upon the fact that

the husband annuls it for her,

and what benefit will her vow provide?

And we answer:

We make her take the vow in public!

And Rav Naḥman holds: A vow taken in public has no annulment; but Rav Huna holds: A vow taken in public has an annulment, and therefore he disagrees and holds that when she has married, she does not take a vow.

We raise an objection

against Rav Huna from that which was taught in a beraita: A widow who

married collects

the

her ketubah

from the orphans,

if she took a vow!

Is it not

that

she took the vow now

at the time of collection, after she married? It is thus proven that even after she married she takes a vow, and this is difficult for Rav Huna!?

And we reject this:

No,

this is not the meaning of the beraita that said “unless she took a vow”; rather, the intention of the beraita is

that she took the vow originally,

before she married, and now, after the marriage, she comes to collect on the basis of that vow. In this case there is no concern that the husband will annul it, for he does not annul vows that preceded his marriage.

And we nevertheless raise a difficulty:

But it was taught:

If she

married, she takes a vow

now

and collects

the

her ketubah!

It is thus proven that she takes a vow even after her marriage, and it nevertheless remains difficult for Rav Huna!?

And we answer: Rather, it is a dispute

among tannaim!

As to whether a vow taken in public has an annulment or not.

For there is one who says: A vow taken in public has an annulment,

and Rav Huna holds like him. Therefore, if she married, she should not take a vow and collect her ketubah, since the husband can annul it for her.

And there is one who says:

A vow taken in public

has no annulment,

and Rav Naḥman and the tannai of the beraita above hold likewise. Therefore, even after she has married, she should take a vow in public in order to collect her ketubah, since the husband cannot annul it.

They raised a question before them:

One who comes before a sage to ask concerning his vow, does he

need to specify

before him

the vow,

and tell him in what manner and why he took the vow? For example, in the case of a widow, must she specify that she took the vow for the orphans?

Or

perhaps

he need not

specify the vow! And although he does not specify in what manner he took the vow, the sage permits it for him.

And amoraim disagree concerning this:

Rav Naḥman said: He need not

specify the vow; that is to say, he need not specify why he took the vow! And

Rav Pappa said: He must

specify the vow!

And the Gemara explains the reason for each one’s position:

Rav Naḥman said: “

he need not

specify the vow,” that is to say: he need not specify why he took the vow ; for if you say that he must specify it,

sometimes the one who takes the vow cuts off [

omits]

from

the one who takes the vow

his speech,

and he does not specify all the details, and

the sage annuls only what he heard,

and no more! For he annuls only on the basis of the details that he heard, and since he omitted a particular detail, the vow is not permitted, for he did not permit it on that basis. And it emerges that he violates the prohibition of a vow. Therefore, it is preferable that he not specify anything at all, and then the sage permits it for him in every manner.

Rav Pappa said: “

he must

specify the vow”; his reason is

because

we are concerned lest he took a vow concerning

a matter of prohibition [

concerning a prohibited matter]! For example, for the sake of collecting a ketubah, or he said: “All the fruits in the world shall be prohibited to me if I collect my ketubah, or if I commit such-and-such a transgression,” and he comes to have his vow permitted. If he does not specify it, the sage will permit his vow.

And we raise a difficulty against Rav Naḥman from that which

we learned:

A

priest who marries women

who are disqualified for priesthood

through a transgression,

such as a divorced woman, a prostitute, or a woman born of a union disqualified for priesthood, is

disqualified

by rabbinic enactment from the Temple service,

until he vows that he will derive no benefit

from that woman, and through this he will be compelled to divorce her!

And it was taught concerning it

in a beraita: It is not necessary to wait until he divorces her; rather, he

takes a vow

to derive no benefit from her,

and serves

in the Temple, and when he completes his service, he

descends

from the service

and divorces

her!

And if you say: “

he need not specify the vow,”

let us be concerned lest he go to a sage, and he permit it for him

his vow [let us be concerned that he will now take the vow so that we may appoint him to the service, intending to go to a sage after the service and not divorce her]!

Rather, it is necessarily the case that he must specify before the sage that he took a vow to derive no benefit from her because she is prohibited to him. Through this, the sage will not permit his vow for him, and this is difficult for Rav Naḥman, who said: “He need not specify the vow”!?