Ketubot 72b — the Talmud in English

And according to Torah law,

a kalta is entirely satisfactory,

and there is no issue of uncovered head in this, whereas with regard to

Jewish custom, even a kalta is likewise forbidden.

Rabbi Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: “A kalta does not involve the issue of uncovered head.”

And it follows that it does not involve even the issue of Jewish custom.

He considered it

he discussed his words]

Rabbi Zeira: Where?

That is to say: To where is she permitted to go out with a kalta, even with regard to Jewish custom?

If we say, in the marketplace,

it is certainly forbidden, for

that is Jewish custom.

Rather, in the courtyard,

and it follows that specifically with a kalta is she permitted to go out, but without a kalta she is forbidden;

if so, you have left no daughter of Abraham our father who sits under her husband?

For it was their practice to walk in the courtyard with an uncovered head, since there were no people seeing there.

And we answer:

Abaye said—and some say Rav Kahana:

It is speaking when she goes

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

then they permitted her to go out with a kalta.

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

and she spins in the marketplace”:

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

They prohibited a woman who spins in the marketplace only

when she exposes her arms to people.

Because of licentiousness.

Rav Hisda said in the name of Avimi: When she spins a rose opposite her face.

That is to say: She spins, and the thread descends opposite the lower part of her face. And this is a way of licentiousness.

We learned further in the Mishna:

“And she speaks with every man.”

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

She forfeits her ketuba only

when she jokes with young men.

Rabba bar bar Hana said: Once I was going after Rav Ukva,

[One time I went after Rav Ukva],

I saw a certain Arab woman who was sitting, throwing down her spindle and spinning a rose opposite her face.

[I saw a certain Arab woman who was sitting and releasing her spindle, and spinning as the thread descended opposite 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 released her spindle and threw it toward us],

she said to me: “Young man,

[lad],

give me the spindle!”

Rav Ukva said something about her

[Rav Ukva said something concerning her].

What did he say about her?

Ravina said: He said about her, “She spins in the marketplace.”

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

The Rabbis say: He said about her, “She speaks with every man.”

That is to say, one such as this 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 in the name of Shmuel,

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

when she curses his ancestors in the presence of his progenitors

[that is, his father in the presence of his son] , she goes out without a ketuba. Because of the dishonor of the husband.

And your sign

that children’s children are like children, as it is written—

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

Rabba said

to explain the words of Rabbi Yehuda: It is such as when

she said to him, “May a lion eat the old man”

[may a lion eat grandfather]

in the presence of his son.

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

We learned further in the Mishna:

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

The Gemara explains:

What is a loud-voiced woman?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: When she makes her voice heard concerning matters of conjugal relations.

That is to say: When he speaks with her about matters of conjugal relations, she quarrels with him and makes it heard to her neighbors, and he is embarrassed by the matter.

In a baraita

[an external baraita]

it was taught—

when she engages in relations in this courtyard and her voice is heard in another courtyard.

Since intercourse is painful for her, she cries out.

And

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

let us teach it with regard to defects in the Mishna!

Is this not a defect?

Rather, it is clear as we answered at first,

[rather, one must certainly answer as in the first answer], as when she makes her voice heard concerning matters of conjugal relations.

Mishna:

One who betroths a woman on the condition that she has no vows, and vows are found upon her,

that is to say, it becomes clear that at the time of the betrothal she was prohibited by vow from one of the pleasures of the world,

she is not betrothed

at all, and she does not even need to be given a bill of divorce, since the condition was not fulfilled.

But if

he married her

[that is, he married her]

without specification,

and he did not stipulate,

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

But in any event she requires a bill of divorce.

And likewise, if he betrothed her

on the condition that she has no defects, and defects were found in her, she is not betrothed

at all.

But if

he married her without specification, and defects were found in her, she goes out without a ketuba.

But he must give her a bill of divorce.

And what are the defects?

All the defects that disqualify kohanim

as explained in tractate Bekhorot, page 43,

disqualify women.

Gemara:

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

And the Gemara asks—

and

does it not

also teach with regard to betrothal

[in Kiddushin 20a]

a case like this,

[in the wording of our Mishna], and why was the Mishna repeated and taught also in tractate Ketubot?

And we answer:

Here, Ketubot was necessary for it.

That is to say, the tanna taught the Mishna because of the law of the ketuba taught in it—“he married her without specification and vows were found upon her, she goes out without a ketuba.” And in connection with this,

the tanna

also taught the law of

betrothal [“one who betroths a woman on the condition that she has no vows, and vows were found upon her, she is not betrothed”]

“If a man betroths a woman on the condition that she has no vows, and she is found to have vows, she is not betrothed,”

along with Ketubot.

There, betrothal was necessary for it.

That is to say, the tanna taught the Mishna because of the law of betrothal taught in it—“one who betroths a woman on the condition that she has no vows, and vows were found upon her, she is not betrothed,” and in connection with this

the tanna

also taught the law of

Ketubot [“he married her without specification ... she goes out without a ketuba”],

“If he married her without qualification ... she leaves without a marriage contract”],

along with betrothal.

Rav Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: With regard to which vows did they say

in the Mishna that the husband is particular about them? Only vows involving suffering of the soul, such as when she vowed

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 baraita

likewise: With regard to which vows did they say? Matters involving suffering of the soul.

For example, when she vowed

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

He considered it

[he discussed this statement]

Rav Pappa: With regard to what?

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

If we say

[if it is said]

with regard to the first clause

of the Mishna—“one who betroths a woman on the condition that she has no vows, and vows were found upon her, she is not betrothed”—and Rabbi Yohanan said concerning this law that if vows that do not involve suffering of the soul were found in her, she is betrothed,

it cannot be said so,

since he was particular,

[for the husband was particular that no vows at all be found upon her],

even every matter,

[other vows]

also

the betrothal would be invalidated, even though they are not vows involving suffering of the soul.

Rather,

certainly

with regard to the last clause—“he married her without specification and vows were found upon her, she goes out without a ketuba,” and Rav Pappa holds that the last clause is an independent matter, speaking of a case in which the husband did not stipulate at the time of the betrothal. Nevertheless, if vows were subsequently found upon her, he may remove her without a ketuba.

And concerning this Rabbi Yohanan said that he removes her only if vows involving suffering of the soul were found in her, but with regard to other vows he may not remove her.

Rav Ashi said: It is always

the words of Rabbi Yohanan that were said

with regard to the first clause.

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

And

even though he explicitly stipulated, “on the condition that you have no vows,” nevertheless his words did not include all vows, but rather

a matter about which people are particular—his particularity is particularity,

[with matters about which it is customary to be particular, his being particular counts], and

a matter about which people are not particular—his particularity is not particularity .

Therefore, with regard to vows that do not involve suffering of the soul, the betrothal took effect.

It was stated,

it was said in the beit-midrash:

He betrothed her on a condition

that she have no vows ,

and

afterward

he married her

[that is, he brought her under the wedding canopy]

without specification.

And he did not repeat 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.

And his reason will be explained below.

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

Because the condition was not fulfilled, and the betrothal was retroactively invalidated.

Abaye said: