Ketubot 74b (עד:) — the Talmud in English

She refuses the marriage

and leaves him.

And she does not require a bill of divorce.

And since she does not require a bill of divorce, even if she willingly engages in intercourse with another man while married to him, she remains permitted to him, since she was never betrothed to him at all; her status is that of an unmarried woman who engaged in intercourse .

Thus, Rabbi Yishmael held that a man may render his intercourse promiscuous intercourse, rather than having intercourse for the sake of betrothal .

The Sages taught:

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

she went to a Sage, and he released her from them, she is betrothed .

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

to a physician, who healed her, she is not betrothed.

And

what is the difference between a Sage and a physician?

A Sage uproots the vow from its outset.

If so, it becomes clear retroactively that she never had any vows.

But a physician heals only from that point onward,

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

And

we raise an objection:

The

re

it was taught:

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

to a Sage, and he released her from them,

or

to a physician, who healed her, she is not betrothed.

Even though a Sage uproots the vow retroactively?

And we answer:

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

The Gemara explains:

This

is the one concerning which we say, “she is betrothed”

according to

Rabbi Meir

;

he says that a man is willing for his wife to be humiliated in court,

and he is not particular about her going to a Sage to have her vows released. Therefore, if he released her from them, she is betrothed.

This is Rabbi Elazar, who says that a man is not willing for his wife to be humiliated in court;

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

The Gemara explains where we find their dispute concerning the question of whether a man is willing for 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 one who made vows] —

may not take her back.

And likewise, if he divorced her because of a bad reputation that had emerged concerning her —

he may not take her back .

Rabbi Yehuda says: Any vow of which many people knew,

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

he may not take her back.

This is so that Jewish women would not become promiscuous with regard to vows. And since, if she made the vow in the presence of ten people, there is no annulment for her vow, she transgressed to an excessive degree, and they penalized her.

But if

many people did not know of it,

and it can be annulled, they did not penalize her, and if the husband wishes, he may

take

her back.

Rabbi Meir says: Any vow that requires the examination of a Sage,

meaning one that the husband cannot annul for her, such as a vow that does not concern matters between him and her —

he may not take her back.

This is due to concern about a potential mishap: perhaps he will later say, “Had I known that a Sage could release her from the vow, I would not have divorced you. Rather, I would have sent you to a Sage to have him release you from the vow, and I would not have been concerned that you would be humiliated in court.”

But one that does not require the examination of a Sage,

meaning a vow that the husband can annul —

he may take her back.

There is no concern about a potential mishap, since if he wishes to keep her as his wife, he can annul her vow.

Rabbi Elazar said: They did not prohibit

a vow that

requires

the examination of a Sage

except because of

a vow

that does not require.”

The Gemara explains the Mishna:

What is Rabbi Yehuda’s reason,

who said, “Any vow of which many people knew, he may not take her back,” and from where does he derive that a vow made in the presence of many people cannot be annulled?

As it is written

concerning the Gibeonites —