Ketubot 73a — the Talmud in English

Do not say: Rav’s reason is

Do not say: Rav’s reason is that she requires a get from him, m [unclear: the source fragment ends mid-word]

since he took her in without specification,

and did not repeat his condition a second time, perhaps

he waived his condition

waived the condition and he is obligated to give her a ketuba if he wishes to divorce her.

Rather, Rav’s reason is that a person does not make his intercourse intercourse of licentiousness.

That is to say, even though he still insists upon his condition, nevertheless he does not wish his intercourse to be intercourse of licentiousness, and therefore he has intercourse for the purpose of betrothal.

However, he is not obligated to give her a ketuba, since he still stands by his condition that there not be vows upon her, and it is found that she causes the divorce to herself. And wherever the woman causes her divorce to herself, she does not receive a ketuba.

And we raise a difficulty: If we say that Rav and Shmuel disagreed over this reasoning, whether a person makes his intercourse intercourse of licentiousness or not,

then

already

they disagreed about it once.

They already disagreed about this elsewhere; why, then, did they again disagree in this sugya?

And where did they disagree?

For it was stated

a statement was said in the beit-midrash:

a minor

an orphan, who was married off by her mother and brothers, and whose betrothal is rabbinic, and the practical consequence is

that

she can perform mi'un with regard to her betrothal and leave without a get. But she

did not perform mi'un. And she came of age.

And after she came of age, her first husband had intercourse with her. And she performed mi'un with him, and

proceeded and married

another man.

Rav said: She does not require a get from the second man.

Since a person knows that the betrothal of a minor is nothing, and he does not wish to make his intercourse intercourse of licentiousness, therefore, when she came of age and her first husband had intercourse with her, his intention was to betroth her through this intercourse with a fully effective betrothal. Therefore, what she did by performing mi'un with him afterward was of no effect, and she is a married woman, and the betrothal of the second man does not take hold in her.

And Shmuel said: She requires a get from the second man.

Since everyone who has intercourse does so on the basis of the initial betrothal, and her first husband did not intend to betroth her through his intercourse with her, and since her marriage was only rabbinic, the betrothal of the second man therefore took hold in her.

But Shmuel agrees that she is forbidden to the second man by rabbinic law, as explained in tractate Nida. (52a.

And if so, it is still difficult: for what purpose did Rav and Shmuel disagree a second time, also in our sugya?

And we answer:

It is necessary!

For if it had been stated concerning that case,

if Rav and Shmuel had disagreed only concerning a minor who did not perform mi'un,

I might have said: specifically

in that case Rav said

that he has intercourse for the purpose of betrothal,

because there is no condition.

He did not stipulate that there would be no betrothal; therefore, certainly, when he again had intercourse with her after she came of age, he intended to have intercourse for the purpose of betrothal, for everyone knows that there is nothing in the act of a minor.

But in this case

where he betrothed the woman on condition that there not be vows upon her and took her in without specification,

where there is a condition, say that he agrees with Shmuel,

that he does not wish to overturn his condition, for he does not desire a woman with vows, and she is not betrothed.

And if it had been stated concerning this case,

and if Rav and Shmuel had disagreed only in the matter before us, when he explicitly stipulated,

I might have said: only

in this case Shmuel said

that she is not betrothed, since he explicitly stipulated.

But in that case,

that is, in the case of a minor who did not perform mi'un,

say that he agrees with Rav,

that a person does not make his intercourse intercourse of licentiousness.

And therefore

it is necessary.

Rav and Shmuel needed to disagree twice.

The Gemara raised a difficulty against Shmuel’s words:

We learned

in our Mishna:

“He took her in without specification, and vows were found upon her; she leaves without a ketuba.”

The Gemara infers:

It is the ketuba that she does not require; but she requires a get.

Is it not so

is this referring to when

he betrothed her on condition and took her in without specification?!

And it is explained that she requires a get, in accordance with Rav’s view.

A refutation of Shmuel!