Ketubot 74b — the Talmud in English

She performs mi'un

and goes away.

And she does not require a get.

And since she does not require a get, even if she had relations willingly while under her husband, she is permitted to him, since she is not betrothed to him at all, and her status is like that of an unmarried woman who had relations [with another man] .

Thus, Rabbi Yishmael held that a person makes his intercourse intercourse of promiscuity, and did not have relations for the sake of betrothal .

Our Rabbis taught:

One who betroths a woman on condition that she has no vows, and she had vows upon her at the time of the betrothal, and

she went to a sage, and he permitted it, she is betrothed .

But if he betrothed her on condition that she has no blemishes, and she had blemishes upon her at the time of the betrothal, and she went

to a physician, and he cured her, she is not betrothed.

And

what is the difference between a sage and a physician?

A sage uproots the vow from its origin.

And if so, it becomes clear retroactively that she never had vows upon her.

But a physician heals only from this point onward,

and since at the time of the betrothal she had blemishes upon her, the betrothal did not take effect .

And

we challenge this:

Be

hold,

it was taught:

One who betroths a woman on condition that she has no vows or blemishes, and she went

to a sage and he permitted it,

or

to a physician and he cured her, she is not betrothed.

Even though a sage uproots the vow retroactively?

And we answer:

Rava said: It is not difficult. This one is Rabbi Meir; that one is Rabbi Elazar.

And the Gemara explains:

This

is what we say: “She is betrothed”

according to

Rabbi Meir

it is,

who says: A person wants his wife to be humiliated in court,

and he is not particular that she should go to permit her vows before a sage; therefore, if he permitted it for her, she is betrothed.

This is Rabbi Elazar, who says: A person does not want his wife to be humiliated in court,

and even if the sage permits her vow, she is not betrothed, since he is particular that she not be humiliated in court, and he did not betroth her with this in mind.

And the Gemara explains where we find their disagreement concerning the question of whether a person wants his wife to be humiliated in court.

What is it?

As we learned —

“One who divorces his wife because of a vow,

[because she was prone to vows] —

may not take her back.

And likewise, if he divorced her because he divorced her on account of a bad name that had gone out concerning her —

he may not take her back .

Rabbi Yehuda says: Any vow known to many people,

that is, which she made in the presence of ten,

he may not take her back.

So that the daughters of Israel should not be wanton with vows. And since if she made the vow in the presence of ten, there is no annulment for her vow, she transgressed excessively, and they penalized her.

But if

many people did not know of it,

and it has an annulment, they did not penalize her; and if the husband wishes,

he may take

her back.

Rabbi Meir says: Any vow that requires inquiry by a sage,

that is, one which the husband cannot annul for her, such as one that is not among the matters between him and her —

he may not take her back.

Because of the complication: lest he later say, “Had I known that a sage could permit the vow, I would not have divorced you. Rather, I would have sent you to the sage so that he would permit the vow for you. And I would not have been concerned that you would be humiliated in court.”

And one that does not require inquiry by a sage,

that is, a vow which the husband can annul —

he may take her back.

Since there is no concern for a complication: if he wishes to keep her, he can annul her vow for her.

Rabbi Elazar said: They prohibited

a vow

that requires

inquiry by a sage

only because of

a vow

that does not require.”

The Gemara explains the Mishna:

What is the reason of Rabbi Yehuda,

who said, “Any vow known to many people, he may not take her back,” and from where does he derive that a vow made in the presence of many people has no annulment?

As it is written

concerning the Gibeonites —