Ketubot 73b — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara answers:

No!

The Mishna is speaking when

he betrothed her without specifying and brought her into his house without specifying.

Only then does she require a get.

But

if

he betrothed her conditionally and brought her into his house without specifying, likewise she does not require a get.

In accordance with the words of Shmuel.

And we raise an objection: If so,

rather than teach

at the beginning

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

which implies that he also brought her into his house conditionally,

let it teach

a greater innovation: that even if

he brought her into his house without specifying and vows were found upon her, she is not betrothed,

in accordance with the words of Shmuel;

and all the more so this case,

where he brought her into his house conditionally?

And we answer:

This is also what it says.

This is indeed the intention of the Mishna:

“One who betroths a woman on condition that she has no vows, and brings her into his house without specifying, and vows are found upon her, she is not betrothed.

But if

he betrothed her without specifying and brought her into his house without specifying, she leaves without a ketubah.”

The Gemara discusses: We learned in the Mishna that if he betrothed her without specifying and brought her into his house without specifying, and vows were found upon her, she leaves without a ketubah.

And we inferred:

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

And what is different about the ketubah, that she does not require it?

Because

he said, “I do not want a woman who has vows.”

And I did not marry you on that understanding.

If so, she should likewise not require a get?

For it is a mistaken transaction, and the betrothal was annulled retroactively?

Rabba said,

Indeed, according to the strict law she does not require a get, but

she requires a get by their words, [A0041]by rabbinic enactment, so that people will not say, “A married woman leaves without a get.”

so that people will not say: “A married woman has left without a bill of divorce.”

And Rav Hisda likewise said: She requires a get by their words.

Rava said,

in another manner:

The tanna is uncertain.

That is, the tanna was uncertain whether an ordinary person is particular about a woman who has vows.

And therefore,

with regard to money, [A0051]to obligate him to pay the ketubah, he ruled

that is, to obligate him to pay the marriage contract, he ruled

leniently.

And we do not extract a ketubah from him in a case of uncertainty, for the one who seeks to extract from his fellow bears the proof.

But

with regard to prohibition,

to require her to obtain a get, he ruled

stringently.

The Gemara returns to explain the dispute between Rav and Shmuel in additional ways, apart from Abaye’s explanation:

Rabba said: The dispute

between Rav and Shmuel, in the case where he betrothed her conditionally and brought her into his house without specifying, is only

in the mistaken case of two women.

For example: He betrothed one woman conditionally, and afterward brought another woman into his house without specifying, and did not stipulate.

Shmuel held: Since he had already revealed his mind that he did not want a woman who had vows, the betrothal was annulled, and she leaves without a get.

And Rav held: She requires a get, since perhaps this woman whom he has now married is dear to him, and he is not particular about her if he finds vows in her.

But in the mistaken case of one woman, [A0066]where he betrothed one woman conditionally and brought her into his house without specifying,

that is, he betrothed one woman on a condition and married that same woman without stipulation,

everyone agrees that she does not require a get from him,

since he relied upon his first condition.

He said

(to him) Abaye: But this Mishna, which is a mistaken case of one woman, and we raise a refutation from it against him [A0071]—but the members of the bet midrash previously challenged Shmuel’s words from our Mishna, even though the Mishna deals with the mistaken case of one woman, proving that in their view Rav and Shmuel also disagree in the mistaken case of one woman—?

[the members of the house of study previously challenged Shmuel’s view from our Mishna, even though the Mishna deals with the mistaken identity of one woman; this proves that, in their view, Rav and Shmuel disagree even in a case involving one woman] ?

Rather, if it was stated, it was stated as follows, [A0074]if these words were stated, they were stated thus:

[if these matters were said, this is how they were said:]

Rabba said: The dispute

between Rav and Shmuel is only

in the mistaken case of one woman resembling two women,

for example, if he betrothed a woman conditionally, divorced her before marrying her, and afterward brought her into his house a second time without a condition.

And in this they disagree: According to Rav, she requires a get from him, since he did not rely upon his first condition, and he brought her into his house without specifying. And according to Shmuel, she does not require a get, because he certainly brought her into his house on the basis of his first condition.

But in the entirely ordinary mistaken case of one woman, everyone agrees that she does not require a get from him.

Since the condition was not fulfilled, and he certainly brought her into his house on the basis of his first condition.

And the Mishna too deals with a case in which he betrothed her conditionally, divorced her, and again brought her into his house without specifying.

He challenged him [A0084]Abaye challenged him

[he challenged him]

Abaye,

for we learned in the Tosefta:

“If he betrothed her in error, or with less than the value of a peruta, and likewise if a minor betrothed, even though he sent betrothal gifts [A0088]gifts to his bride

[gifts to his bride]

afterward [A0090]that is, after he grew up, or after he betrothed her with less than the value of a peruta, or after he betrothed her in error,

[that is, after he came of age, or after he betrothed her with less than the value of a peruta, or after he betrothed her mistakenly],

she is not betrothed.

Because

he sent them on account of the first betrothal.

But the first betrothal did not take effect.

And if he had intercourse with her, they acquired her.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael:

Even

if he had intercourse with her, they did not acquire her.”

Their dispute will be explained below.

And Abaye infers:

But here, this is a mistaken case of one woman, and they disagree,

the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon, whether, when he had intercourse with her, she is betrothed.

What, is it not a mistake concerning vows?! [A0104]Does the Tosefta not deal with a case in which he stipulated that she should have no vows, and she had vows? This proves that it is not according to Rabba, and that even in the mistaken case of one woman there is reason to say that if he had intercourse with her, she is betrothed?

[Is the Tosefta not dealing with a case in which he stipulated that she have no vows, and she did have vows?] This proves that Rava’s statement is not correct, and that even in a case involving the mistaken identity of one woman, it is possible to say that if he had relations with her, she becomes betrothed.

And we answer:

No!

The Tosefta does not deal with a case in which he stipulated, but with

a mistake involving less than the value of a peruta.

But if he stipulated, she is never betrothed.

And we raise an objection: How can the words of the Tosefta be explained—“he betrothed her in error”—as referring to an error involving

less than the value of a peruta,

when

it explicitly teaches it

later in the beraita:

“He betrothed her in error, or with less than the value of a peruta”?

And we answer:

It is explaining it: “He betrothed her in error”—how so? For example, he betrothed her with less than the value of a peruta.

But the tanna is not dealing with a case in which he betrothed her conditionally.

The Gemara explains:

In what do they disagree?

In what do the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon disagree?

One master holds, [A0123]the first tanna:

[the first tan­ na]:

A person knows that betrothal does not take effect with less than the value of a peruta, and

therefore, when he had intercourse with her afterward,

he resolved and had intercourse with her for the sake of betrothal.

And one master holds, [A0128]Rabbi Shimon:

[Rabbi Shimon]:

A person does not know that betrothal does not take effect with less than the value of a peruta, and when he has intercourse, he has intercourse on the basis of the first betrothal.

He challenged him, [A0131]“the one who says to a woman:

[Abaye challenged Rava’s statement]: We learned: "

‘I am having intercourse with you

on condition that my father agrees,’ even though the father did not agree, she is betrothed.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Shimon: If the father agreed, she is betrothed. If the father did not agree, she is not betrothed.”

And Abaye infers,

but here, [A0137]here he explicitly stipulated, and nevertheless Rabbi Shimon held that the betrothal took effect, and the reason is certainly that a person does not make his intercourse an act of promiscuity,

[here he explicitly stipulated a condition, and nevertheless Rabbi Shimon holds that the betrothal took effect; this is certainly because a person does not make his relations relations of promiscuity],

which resembles the mistaken case of one woman, and

nevertheless

they disagree,

the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon. This proves that it is not as Rabba said?

And we answer:

There, this is what they disagree about:

One [A0145]the first tanna

[the first tan­ na]

holds,

when he said, “Be betrothed to me

on condition that my father agrees,”

his intention was

“on condition that my father remain silent.” And he did remain silent.

And therefore the betrothal took effect.

And one [A0153]Rabbi Shimon

[Rabbi Shimon]

holds,

his intention was:

“on condition that my father say, ‘Yes’; but my father did not say, ‘Yes.’”

And therefore the betrothal did not take effect.

But elsewhere, when he stipulated and had intercourse, according to everyone the betrothal did not take effect, as Rabba said. Rather, it is the mistaken case of one woman resembling two women. As above.

He challenged him [A0160]Abaye challenged Rava’s words: We learned in Yevamot: One who divorces his wife, and takes her back, and dies without sons, she is permitted to the levir, like any woman.

[Abaye challenged Rava’s statement]: We learned in tractate Yevamot: If a man divorces his wife, then remarries her, and dies childless, she is permitted to his brother for levirate marriage like any other woman.

But Rabbi Eliezer forbids her, as a decree because of an orphan during the father’s lifetime.

And the Gemara explains:

“The Sages agree with Rabbi Eliezer

that she performs halitza but does not perform levirate marriage,

in the case of a minor whom her father married off, and she was divorced, and she is an orphan during her father’s lifetime, and he took her back: she performs halitza but does not perform levirate marriage, because her divorce is a complete divorce, but her taking back is not a complete taking back,

since her second marriage took effect only by rabbinic law, and it follows that she is still the divorced wife of his brother.

When do these words apply? When he divorced her while she was a minor and took her back while she was a minor.

And he died before she grew up.

But if he divorced her while she was a minor and took her back while she was an adult,

and the marriage took effect by Torah law,

or if he took her back while she was a minor, and she grew up with him,

and he had intercourse with her after she grew up, presumably for the sake of betrothal,

and he died, she either performs halitza or performs levirate marriage.”