Ketubot 72b (עב:) — the Talmud in English

And according to Torah law,

a kela is perfectly acceptable,

and this does not constitute going out with an uncovered head; but with regard to

Jewish practice, even a kela is prohibited.

Rabbi Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: “A kela does not constitute going out with an uncovered head.”

And this implies that it is permitted even according to Jewish practice.

He considered this

in light of his statement

Rabbi Zeira: Where?

That is, where is she permitted to go out wearing a kela, even according to Jewish practice?

If we say in the marketplace,

it is certainly prohibited, for

that is Jewish practice.

Rather, in a courtyard?

And this implies that she is permitted to go out only with a kela, but without a kela she is prohibited.

If so, you have not left a single daughter of Abraham our forefather who can remain married to her husband!

For it was their practice to walk in the courtyard with their heads uncovered, since no one was there to see them.

And we answer

: Abaye said—and some say Rav Kahana said:

This is referring to a woman who is walking

from one courtyard to another, by way of an alleyway,

in which case they permitted her to go out wearing a kela.

We learned further in the Mishna: “And what is Jewish practice

and she spins in the marketplace”:

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said:

They prohibited a woman who spins in the marketplace only

when she exposes her arms to people.

This is due to promiscuity.

Rav Ḥisda said in the name of Avimi: This is referring to a woman who spins a red thread opposite her face.

That is, she spins, and the thread descends opposite the lower part of her face. This is an immodest practice.

We learned further in the Mishna:

“And she speaks with every man.”

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said:

She forfeits her ketuba only

when she engages in playful conduct with young men.

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: Once I was walking behind Rav Ukva,

one time I walked behind Rav Ukva],

and I saw a certain Arab woman who was sitting, releasing her spindle and spinning a red thread opposite her face.

I saw an Arab woman who was sitting, unwinding her spindle, and spinning while the thread hung down in front of the lower part of her face],

When she saw us, she cut the thread from her spindle and threw it,

when she saw us, she unwound the thread from her spindle and threw it toward us],

saying to me: “Young man,

young man],

give me a spindle!”

Rav Ukva said something about her

—that is, Rav Ukva made a certain remark about her.

What did he say about her?

Ravina said: He said about her that she spins in the marketplace.

That is, the Sages said that a woman such as this one goes out without a ketuba because of “she spins in the marketplace.”

The Rabbis say: He said about her that she speaks with every man.

That is, a woman such as this one would go out without a ketuba because of “she speaks with every man.”

In the Mishna—

“Abba Shaul says: Also one who curses his parents in his presence.” Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said:

This applies not only when she curses his parents in his presence, but also

when she curses his ancestors in the presence of their descendants

—that is, his father in the presence of his son— she goes out without a ketuba, because she has insulted her husband.

And your mnemonic is:

that grandchildren are considered like children, as it is written:

“Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine like Reuben and Simeon.”

Rabba said

in explanation of Rabbi Yehuda’s statement: This is referring, for example, to a woman who said to him,

“May a lion devour the old man”

may a lion eat the old man]

in the presence of his son.

That is, she said this in the presence of her husband’s son.

We learned further in the Mishna:

“Rabbi Tarfon says: Also a loud-voiced woman.”

The Gemara explains:

What is meant by “a loud-voiced woman”?

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: When she raises her voice over matters of marital relations.

That is, when he speaks with her about matters of conjugal relations, she quarrels with him and raises her voice so that her neighbors hear her, and he is embarrassed by the matter.

In a metanita

—an external beraita—

the tanna taught:

“When she engages in intercourse in this courtyard and her voice is heard in another courtyard.”

Since intercourse causes her pain, she cries out.

And

we challenge this: If it is because intercourse is difficult for her,

should it not be taught among the blemishes in our Mishna?

Is this not a blemish?

Rather, it is clear as we answered initially,

—rather, one must certainly explain it as in the first answer—namely, that she raises her voice over matters of marital relations.

Mishna:

With regard to one who betroths a woman on the condition that she has no vows, and vows are found upon her,

that is, it becomes clear that at the time of the betrothal she was prohibited by a vow from deriving one of the world’s benefits,

she is not betrothed

at all, and she does not even require a bill of divorce, since the condition was not fulfilled.

However, if he

took her in

—that is, married her—

without qualification,

and did not stipulate a condition,

and vows were found upon her, she goes out without her ketuba.

Nevertheless, she requires a bill of divorce.

And likewise, if he betrothed her

on the condition that she has no blemishes, and blemishes were found upon her, she is not betrothed

at all.

However, if he

took her in without qualification, and blemishes were found upon her, she goes out without her ketuba.

But he must give her a bill of divorce.

And what are the blemishes?

All the blemishes that disqualify kohanim

as explained in tractate Bekhorot, page 43,

disqualify women as well.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: One who betroths a woman on the condition that she has no vows.

The Gemara raises a difficulty

and

asks: Is it not the case that

we also learned in connection with betrothal

—in tractate Kiddushin 20a—

a case of this kind,

in the wording of our Mishna? Why, then, was the Mishna repeated in tractate Ketubot as well?

And we answer:

Here, in Ketubot, it was necessary for him to teach it.

That is, the tanna taught the Mishna because of the law of the ketuba stated in it: “He took her in without qualification, and vows were found upon her; she goes out without her ketuba.” And incidentally, he

taught

the law of

betrothal

—“One who betroths a woman on the condition that she has no vows, and vows are found upon her, she is not betrothed”—

along with the laws of the ketuba.

There, in Kiddushin, the law of betrothal was necessary for him to teach.

That is, the tanna taught the Mishna because of the law of betrothal stated in it: “One who betroths a woman on the condition that she has no vows, and vows are found upon her, she is not betrothed.” And incidentally, he

taught

the law of

the ketuba

—“He took her in without qualification … she goes out without her ketuba”—

along with the law of betrothal.

Rav Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: When they said

in the Mishna that the husband is particular about the vows, they were referring only to vows involving affliction of the soul, such as when she vows

not to eat meat, not to drink wine, and not to adorn herself with colored garments.

But with regard to other vows, he is not particular.

And likewise,

it was taught

in a beraita

also as follows: When they said this, they were referring to vows involving affliction of the soul.

For example, when she vows

not to eat meat, not to drink wine, and not to adorn herself with colored garments.

He considered this

in discussing this statement

Rav Pappa: With regard to which clause?

That is, with regard to which part of the Mishna was this statement made?

If we say

if it is said]

the first clause

of the Mishna—“One who betroths a woman on the condition that she has no vows, and vows are found upon her, she is not betrothed”—and Rabbi Yoḥanan said with regard to this law that if vows are found upon her that are not vows involving affliction of the soul, she is betrothed,

this cannot be said,

since he was particular,

—the husband was particular that she have no vows whatsoever—

even with regard to any matter,

—other vows—

as well

the betrothal should be invalidated, even though they are not vows involving affliction of the soul.

Rather,

certainly it refers

to the latter clause—“He took her in without qualification, and vows were found upon her; she goes out without her ketuba.” Rav Pappa held that the latter clause is an independent statement, referring to a case in which the husband made no stipulation at the time of the betrothal. Nevertheless, if vows were subsequently found upon her, he can remove her without paying her ketuba.

And concerning this Rabbi Yoḥanan said that he may remove her only if vows involving affliction of the soul were found upon her; but with regard to other vows, he cannot remove her.

Rav Ashi said: Actually,

Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement was made with regard

to the first clause.

For he said: “Behold, you are betrothed to me on the condition that you have no vows.”

And

although he explicitly stipulated, “on the condition that you have no vows,” nevertheless his words did not include every type of vow. Rather,

with regard to matters about which people are generally particular, his being particular is considered a valid stipulation,

but

with regard to matters about which people are not generally particular, his being particular is not considered a valid stipulation. Therefore, with regard to vows that do not involve affliction of the soul, the betrothal takes effect.

Therefore, when the vows do not involve affliction of the soul, the betrothal takes effect.

It was stated

in the beit-midrash:

If he betrothed her on the condition

that she have no vows,

and

afterward

took her in

—that is, brought her under the wedding canopy—

without qualification.

He did not reiterate the condition at the time of the marriage, and vows were found upon her.

Rav said:

Even though the condition was not fulfilled,

she requires a bill of divorce from him.

The reason for this will be explained below.

And Shmuel said: She does not require a bill of divorce from him.

Since the condition was not fulfilled, the betrothal was retroactively nullified.

Abaye said: