Ketubot 72a — the Talmud in English

Since

there is a locking of her before him,

that is, he prevents her from having the possibility of rejoicing.

Rather,

when he vowed to prohibit her from going

to the house of mourning, what locking of her before him is there?

And we answer:

The tanna—

tomorrow she will die, and no creature will eulogize her.

And some say: No creature will carry her

[bury her]. And therefore he must divorce her and give her the ketuba.

And incidentally, the Gemara brought:

It was taught: Rabbi Meir would say: What is the meaning of that which is written: “It is better to go to the house of mourning than to go to the house of feasting, for that is the end of every person, and the living person should take it to heart”?

What is the meaning of “and the living person should take it to heart”?

And Rabbi Meir explains: He should take to heart

matters of death.

And he should think: Just as

they eulogized

this deceased person, so

will they eulogize him.

[They will also eulogize me], and just as

they buried

him, so also

will they bury him.

And just as

they raised

[voices of weeping over him], so also

will they raise their voices over him.

And just as

they accompanied

[the deceased to the grave], so

will they accompany him.

And just as

they lifted

[him in order to bury him], so also

will they lift him.

The general principle is: He should remind himself of the day of his death.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And if he was making a claim on account of something else, he is permitted.”

And the Gemara explains:

What is “something else”?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel

that he vowed to prohibit her from going there,

because of promiscuous people who are commonly found there.

Rav Ashi said: We said

that he is permitted to prohibit her by vow

only when it has been established.

That is, when that house of mourning or feasting had been established as a place of promiscuous people.

But

if

it has not been established, he has no authority

to prohibit her, and he must divorce her and give her the ketuba.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And if he said to her, ‘On the condition that you say

to so-and-so what you said to me, or what I said to you ... he must divorce her and give her the ketuba.’”

And

we ask: Why must he divorce her?

Let her say

[what he said to her]?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

It is referring to a case in which he said to her

matters of disgrace.

And therefore he must divorce her and give her the ketuba.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Or that she should fill and pour out into the refuse heap,

he must divorce her and give her the ketuba.”

And

we ask: Why must he divorce her?

Let her do

[what he said to her] ?

And we answer:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel,

it is referring to a case in which he prohibited her by vow

to fill and overturn.

[That is, to turn herself over after intercourse, in order to destroy the semen so that she should not conceive].

And therefore he must divorce her, either because of the prohibition involved in the matter, or even if she does this in a manner involving no prohibition; in any event, he must divorce her so that she will be able to bring children into the world .

And

in the metanita

[in the beraita]

the tanna

explained more clearly: It is referring to a case in which he prohibited her by vow

to fill ten jugs of water and pour them into the refuse heap.

And we ask:

Granted according to Shmuel,

who interpreted the Mishna as referring to a case in which he prohibited her by vow to fill and overturn,

for that reason he must divorce her and give her the ketuba.

But according

to the interpretation of the

metanita, what difference does it make to her? Let her do

[what he said to her]?

And we answer:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

She is not obligated to do this for him,

because she appears to be foolish.

Rav Kahana said: One who prohibits his wife by vow from asking, and from lending,

a sieve, a sifter, a millstone, and an oven, must divorce her and give her the ketuba.

Because

she gives herself a bad name among her neighbors.

It was taught likewise: One who prohibits his wife by vow from asking and from lending a sieve, a sifter, a millstone, and an oven must divorce her and give her the ketuba, because she gives herself a bad name among her neighbors .

And likewise, if she vowed

not to ask and not to lend a sieve, a sifter, a millstone, and an oven, and not to weave fine garments for his sons, she must leave without her ketuba, because she gives him a bad name among his neighbors .

Mishna:

And these are

the women who

leave

without a ketuba: one who transgresses the religion of Moses and the religion of the Jews .

And which is the religion of Moses ?

She feeds him produce from which tithes have not been separated,

or other forbidden foods,

and she has intercourse with him while she is menstruating, does not separate ḥalla for him, and makes vows and does not fulfill them .

And which is the religion of the Jews

[which the daughters of Israel accepted upon themselves, to conduct themselves according to practices of modesty, even though it is not written in the Torah]?

She leaves with her head uncovered, spins in the marketplace, and speaks with every person.

And the reason for all of them is promiscuity.

Abba Shaul says: Also one who curses his parents in his presence.

It will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Tarfon says: Also the loud-voiced woman.

And who is the loud-voiced woman?

When she speaks inside her house and her neighbors hear her voice.

It will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: And these are the women who leave without a ketuba,

“She feeds him produce from which tithes have not been separated.”

And we ask:

What are the circumstances?

[How is it being discussed]?

If he knew

that it was produce from which tithes had not been separated,

let him separate !

And

if he did not know, how did he know

now that she caused him to stumble ?

And we answer:

It is necessary—

she said to him, “So-and-so, a kohen

separated the tithe for me from the pile,”

[he separated the tithe for me from this produce],

and he went and asked him, and it was found to be false

[he asked the kohen, and it was found to be a lie].

We learned further: “And these are the women who leave without a ketuba,

‘and she has intercourse with him while she is menstruating.’”

And we ask:

What are the circumstances?

[How is it being discussed]?

If he knew about her

that she was menstruating,

let him withdraw!

And

if he did not know, should we rely upon her

when she says, “I am pure”?

And from where is it established that she is believed?

For Rav Ḥinnana bar Kahana said in the name of Shmuel: From where is it established that a menstruating woman counts for herself? As it is stated: “And she shall count for herself seven days”; “for herself”

means for herself .

And we answer:

It is necessary: She said to him—

“So-and-so, a sage, declared the blood pure for me,” and he went and asked him, and it was found to be false.

And if you wish, say: It is in accordance with Rav Yehuda.

For Rav Yehuda said:

A woman who

has been established as menstruating among her neighbors,

for example, they saw her that day wearing menstruation garments,

her husband receives lashes because of her on account of menstruation.

And here too, it is referring to a case in which they saw her wearing menstruation garments, so there is circumstantial evidence that she was menstruating when he had intercourse with her. He did not know when he had intercourse with her, and afterward he learned of it. And therefore she forfeited her ketuba .

We learned in the Mishna: “And these are the women who leave without a ketuba ...

‘and she does not separate ḥalla for him.’”

And we ask:

What are the circumstances?

[How is it being discussed]?

If he knew, let him withdraw!

If he did not know, how did he know?

It is necessary: She said to him, “So-and-so, the kneader

[the craftsman who kneads the dough]

separated the ḥalla for me,” and he went and asked him, and it was found to be false.

We learned in the Mishna: “And these are the women who leave without a ketuba ...

‘and she makes vows and does not fulfill them’”:

And the Gemara asks: Why must she leave without a ketuba? After all, she did not cause her husband to stumble in a transgression?

And the Gemara explains: Because

the Master said: Because of the sin of vows, children die.

As it is stated

[Ecclesiastes 5:5]

“Do not let your mouth cause your flesh to sin;

why should God be angry at your voice and destroy the work of your hands

?” And what is the work of a person’s hands? You must say: His sons and daughters.

That is: One who sins with his mouth, such as one who makes a vow and does not fulfill it, is punished by the death of his children.

And therefore he can divorce her without a ketuba, since she causes his children to die .

Rav Naḥman said: From here

[we learn the punishment of one who makes a vow and does not fulfill it]:

It is written (Jeremiah 2:30):

“In vain I struck your children,”

And we deduce:

“In vain”—over matters of vanity.

[That is, over the failure to fulfill vows].

It was taught: Rabbi Meir would say: Anyone who knows that his wife makes vows and does not fulfill them should go back and make her vow.

And we ask:

“Make her vow”? What does he thereby repair for her?

[What benefit is there in this]?

Rather, he should go back and anger her, so that she will make a vow in his presence and he will annul it,

so that she should not stumble through the sin of vain vows; then he has no mitzva to divorce her .

They said to him: A person cannot dwell with a snake in one basket.

That is, he cannot avoid stumbling because of her. Therefore, it is a mitzva for him to divorce her.

It was taught: Rabbi Yehuda would say: Anyone who knows that his wife does not separate ḥalla for him should go back and separate after her.

Then he has no mitzva to divorce her.

They said to him: A person cannot dwell with a snake in one basket.

And we say:

The one who teaches this with regard to that

[the one who teaches Rabbi Yehuda’s statement concerning one who knows that his wife does not separate ḥalla],

all the more so with regard to the other,

that is, certainly also concerning vows, which are not so common, the husband may anger her so that she will make a vow and he will annul it.

But the one who teaches it with regard to the other,

[concerning vows], holds that specifically with regard to the concern over vows Rabbi Meir’s advice is effective, since vows are uncommon,

but this,

that is, concerning ḥalla,

sometimes it happens and he eats.

And he may not rely on the fact that he will separate afterward, since the mitzva of separating ḥalla is not imposed upon him; we are concerned that he will forget to separate . And it is a mitzva for him to divorce her.

We learned in the Mishna—

“And which is the religion of the Jews? She leaves with her head uncovered.”

And we ask: Is

her head uncovered

the religion of the Jews? Is it not

a Torah prohibition?!

As it is written

concerning a sota—

“And he shall uncover the woman’s head,” and the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael said:

From here there is

a warning to the daughters of Israel that they should not go out with an uncovered head

from

the Torah .

And we resolve -

It is speaking of a case where she did not go out with her head completely uncovered, but rather she went out with a kelata [a type of basket that has a receptacle below, in order to place it on the head] on her head.