Ketubot 72a (עב.) — the Talmud in English

Since

there is the element of preventing her

that is, he prevents her from having the opportunity to rejoice.

Rather,

when he forbade her by vow to go

to the house of mourning, what element of preventing her is there?

And we answer:

The tanna—

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

And some say: No creature will attend her burial

burial. Therefore, he must divorce her and give her the ketuba.

And incidentally, the Gemara cites:

It was taught in a beraita: 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 man, and the living will take it to heart”?

What is the meaning of “and the living will 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 too

will they bury him.

And just as

they raised cries

of weeping over him, so too

will they raise cries 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 too

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 forbade her by vow for another reason, he is permitted.”

And the Gemara explains:

What is meant by “another reason”?

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said

that he forbade her by vow to go there

because licentious people are commonly found there.

Rav Ashi said: We said

that he is permitted to forbid her by vow

only where it has been established.

That is, where that house of mourning or house of feasting had become established as a place frequented by licentious people.

But

if

it has not been established, he has no authority

to forbid her, and he must divorce her and give her ketuba.

We learned in the Mishna:

“And if he said to her, on the condition that you tell

so-and-so what you said to me or what I said to you … he must divorce her and give her ketuba”:

And

we ask: Why must he divorce her?

Let her say

what he said to her?

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said:

This is referring to a case where he said to her

matters of disgrace.

Therefore, he must divorce her and give her ketuba.

We learned in the Mishna:

“Or that she must fill and empty into the garbage heap

he must divorce her and give her ketuba.”

And

we ask: Why must he divorce her?

Let her do

what he told her

—Since every woman is obligated to do her husband’s will. Students of Rabbenu Yona And we answer:

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said:

This is referring to a case where he forbade her by vow

to fill and overturn.

That is, that she should turn herself over after intercourse in order to destroy the semen so that she would not become pregnant.

Therefore, he must divorce her, either because of the prohibition involved, or even if she would do this in a manner that entails no prohibition; in any event, he must divorce her so that she can bring children into the world.

And

in the metanita

the beraita,

the tanna

explained it more clearly: This is referring to a case where he forbade her by vow

to fill ten buckets of water and empty them into the garbage heap.

And we ask:

Granted according to Shmuel,

who interpreted the Mishna as referring to a case where he forbade her by vow to fill and overturn,

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

But according

to the explanation of the

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

what he told her?

And we answer:

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

She is not obligated to do this for him,

because she appears to be insane.

Rav Kahana said: One who forbids his wife by vow from borrowing and from lending

a sifter, a sieve, a mill, or an oven must divorce her and give her ketuba.

Because

she gives herself a bad reputation among her neighbors.

It was taught likewise: One who forbids his wife by vow from borrowing and from lending a sifter, a sieve, a mill, or an oven must divorce her and give her ketuba, because she gives herself a bad reputation among her neighbors .

And likewise, if she herself vows not to borrow and not to lend

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

Mishna:

And these are

the women who

leave

without a ketuba: One who transgresses the religion of Moses or Jewish practice .

And what is the religion of Moses ?

She feeds him produce from which the tithes have not been taken,

or other forbidden foods,

has intercourse with him while she is a menstruant, does not set aside ḥalla for him, or makes vows and does not fulfill them .

And what is Jewish practice

that the daughters of Israel accepted upon themselves, to conduct themselves according to the ways 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.

The reason for all of these is licentiousness.

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

This will be explained in the Gemara.

Rabbi Tarfon says: Also a loud-voiced woman.

And who is a loud-voiced woman?

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

This 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 the tithes have not been taken.”

And we ask:

What are the circumstances?

How is this case possible?

If he knew

that the tithes had not been taken,

let him abstain !

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 koen

prepared my grain heap”

that is, he separated the tithe from this produce on my behalf—

and he went and asked him, and it was found to be a lie

that is, he asked the koen, and the statement was found to be false.

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

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

And we ask:

What are the circumstances?

How is this case possible?

If he knew about her

that she was a menstruant,

let him abstain!

And

if he did not know, let him rely upon her

when she says, “I am pure”?

And from where do we know that she is believed?

For Rav Ḥinnana bar Kahana said that Shmuel said: From where is it derived that a menstruant 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 my blood pure,” and he went and asked him, and it was found to be a lie.

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

For Rav Yehuda said:

A woman who

has become established among her neighbors as a menstruant,

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

her husband is flogged because of her for the transgression involving a menstruant.

Here too, this is referring to a case where they saw her wearing menstruation garments, so there is supporting evidence that she was a menstruant when he had intercourse with her. He did not know when he had intercourse with her, and afterward he learned of it. Therefore, she forfeited her ketuba.

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

‘and does not set aside ḥalla for him.’”

And we ask:

What are the circumstances?

How is this case possible?

If he knew, let him abstain!

If he did not know, how did he know?

It is necessary, as she said to him, ‘So-and-so, the dough-kneader

the craftsman who kneads the dough

prepared my dough,’ and he went and asked him, and it was found to be a lie.

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

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

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 give your mouth to 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 by making a vow and failing to fulfill it, is punished by the death of his children.

Therefore, he may 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 have I struck your children,”

And we infer:

“In vain”—over matters of vanity.

That is, over the failure to fulfill vows.

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

And we ask:

Make her take a vow?! How does that rectify the situation?

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 can annul it,

so that she will not stumble through the sin of vain vows. In that case, he is not obligated to divorce her.

They said to him: A person cannot live with a snake in the same basket.

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

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

In that case, he is not obligated to divorce her.

They said to him: A person cannot live with a snake in the same basket.

And we say:

The one who taught this

who transmitted Rabbi Yehuda’s statement concerning one who knows that his wife does not set aside ḥalla,

all the more so teaches that one

that is, certainly, with regard to vows, which are not quite as common, the husband may anger her so that she will make a vow and he can annul it.

But the one who taught that

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

but this

that is, with regard to ḥalla,

sometimes it happens that he will come and eat.

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

We learned in the Mishna:

“And what is Jewish practice? She leaves with her head uncovered.”

And we ask: Is

her head being uncovered

really Jewish practice? Is it not

a matter of Torah law?!

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 not to go out with their heads uncovered

by

Torah law .

And we answer -

The case is one in which she did not go out with her head completely uncovered; rather, she went out with a kalta [a type of basket with a receptacle at the bottom, so that it could be placed on the head] on her head.