Ketubot 75a — the Talmud in English

“And the Children of Israel did not strike them, because the princes of the assembly had sworn to them,”

and it is proven that a vow known to many has no annulment, for if it were not so, why did they not annul their vow? !

And how many are “many”

before how many is it considered “a vow known to many”?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Three.

And his proof is from that which is written concerning a menstruant woman, “many days,” and we expound:

“Days”—

two; “many”—

three.

And it is explained that the expression “many” refers to three.

Rav Yitzḥak said: Ten.

And his proof is from that which is written concerning the Gibeonites—

“assembly” is written with regard to them,

and an assembly is no fewer than ten.

And the Gemara continues to explain the continuation of the Mishna:

“Rabbi Meir says: With regard to every vow that requires the investigation of a Sage, he may not take her back. Rabbi Elazar says: They prohibited only one who requires it because he does not require it.”

And the Gemara explains—

With regard to what do they disagree?

Rabbi Meir holds: A man wants his wife to be humiliated in court.

And if she vowed a vow that requires a Sage to release it, he does not object to her going to the Sage, and if he divorces her, there is no concern about the spreading of defamatory rumors.

Rabbi Elazar holds: A man does not want his wife to be humiliated in court.

The Gemara returns to reconcile that which we said: “She went to a Sage and he released it; she is not betrothed”:

Rava said: Here we are dealing with an important woman, for he said: “I do not want to become forbidden to her relatives.”

That is to say: Even according to the one who says, “A man wants his wife to be humiliated in court,” here the husband can claim: “I do not desire a woman who vows, and I also do not want to give her a divorce, so that I will not become forbidden to her relatives, for she is the daughter of distinguished people; and therefore I do not want the betrothal to take effect at all.”

If so, in the latter clause, which teaches: “But if he went to a Sage and he released it, or to a physician and he cured him, she is betrothed,” let it teach: “She is not betrothed,” and let it say—

here we are dealing with an important man, for she said: “I do not want to become forbidden to his relatives,”

and why did we establish the first clause and the latter clause in two different ways?

And we answer:

She is satisfied with any kind of man,

as Reish Lakish said, for Reish Lakish said: “It is better to sit as a pair than to sit as a widow

it is always preferable to sit as two rather than to sit as a widow ".

Abaye said: “Even if her husband is a sesame seed of a man, she places her chair among the prominent women

even one whose husband is as small as a sesame seed is not ashamed of him, and she places her chair among the important women, for she has a husband ".

Rav Pappa said: “Even if her husband is a dyer, she sits at the threshold of the doorway and

even one whose husband works at a contemptible craft is not ashamed to sit and speak with him openly ".

Rav Ashi said: “Even if her husband is of a blemished family, she does not require lentils for the pot

even if her husband is from a defective family, the woman does not demand even potatoes for soup from him; the main thing is that his name is associated with her ".

A tanna taught—

and all of them,

that is, all those whose husbands are contemptible,

commit adultery and attribute it to their husbands.

And they are satisfied with any sort of husband in order to attribute their disgrace to him.

We learned in the Mishna:

“All blemishes that disqualify

among kohanim disqualify among women.”

Afterward

a tanna taught: They added to them

to the blemishes disqualifying women that are in the Mishna these blemishes:

sweat, a mole, and bad breath.

And it implies that these blemishes do not disqualify kohanim.

And we object:

But

is it true that

do these not disqualify among kohanim?!

But did we not learn

concerning the disqualifications of a firstborn—

“the old, the ill, and the defiled,” and we learned: “These blemishes, whether permanent or passing, disqualify in a person

that is, in kohanim ".

And it is explained that defilement disqualifies even among kohanim, and the Gemara understood that “defilement” means sweat?

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Ḥanina said: It is not difficult. Here, it is with passing sweat; there, it is with sweat that does not pass.

That is to say: Indeed, sweat that does not pass disqualifies even a kohen, but sweat that does not pass disqualifies only among women. And with this the Mishna innovated: “They added to them sweat.”

Rav Ashi said: Are you comparing sweat to defilement?!

Can one compare the sweat stated with regard to women to the defilement stated with regard to kohanim?!

There, with regard to kohanim,

ordinary sweat does not disqualify, since

it is possible

to

remove

it

it is possible to remove it

during the service

with the sourness of wine,

by means of alcohol,

and bad breath as well—for it is possible that he puts pepper in his mouth,

and removes the odor at that time,

and performs the service.

And the defilement stated with regard to kohanim means that his entire body emits a foul odor.

But with regard to a woman,

with whom he lives all the time

it is impossible,

and therefore any sweat disqualifies her.

The Gemara returns to explain the blemishes that disqualify women but do not disqualify kohanim:

This “mole”—

what is it like?

If it has hair, it disqualifies both here and there!

That is, both among kohanim and among women. Yet in the Mishna it implies that there is a mole that disqualifies only among women.

And

And if it does not have hair, if it is a large mole—

it disqualifies both here and there. If it is a small mole—

it disqualifies neither here nor there?

For it was taught—

“A mole that has hair, this is

a blemish. If it has no hair, [if it is] large—

this is a blemish. [If it is] small—

this is not a blemish.”

And what is a large one?

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel explained: Up to the size of an Italian issar.”

And if so, with regard to which mole is it said that it disqualifies only among kohanim and not among women?

Rav Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: With regard to

Rav Yosei son of Rabbi Ḥanina said: With a small mole that

stands upon her forehead.

And this mole disqualifies only among kohanim and not among women.

And we object: If it stands upon her

forehead,

is it not that

he saw it and was appeased?

And why can he remove her?

Rav Pappa said: It is standing for her beneath the covering of her head, and sometimes it is visible and sometimes it is not visible

sometimes it is visible and sometimes it is not, and it is possible that he did not see it before the marriage.

Rav Ḥisda said: I heard this matter from a great man—and who is he? Rabbi Sheila

this matter I heard from a great man, and he is Rav Sheila:

if a dog bit her and the place became a scar,

even though the size of the scar is less than an Italian issar,

this is a blemish.

Since a scar from a dog bite is exceedingly repulsive.

Further,

Rav Ḥisda said: A deep voice in a woman is a blemish.

As it is said: “For your voice is pleasant and your appearance is comely,”

for the beauty of a woman is when her voice is pleasant.

Since we learned matters concerning blemishes in a woman, the Gemara brought additional statements concerning this subject:

Rabbi Natan of Birya taught: “Between a woman’s breasts is a handbreadth.”

And he did not explain what he meant.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, understood

understood

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava,

while sitting

before Rav Ashi,

that Rabbi Natan’s intention was

to say—

a handbreadth is to her advantage.

That is, it is attractive if there is a handbreadth between her breasts.

Rav Ashi said to him:

On the contrary

it was taught with regard to blemishes!

For if there is a handbreadth between her breasts, it is a blemish.

And how much

is attractive for her?

Abaye said: Three fingerbreadths.

It was taught: Rabbi Natan says: Any woman whose breasts are coarser than those of her companions, this is a blemish.

And how much

larger than those of her companions must they be for it to be a blemish?

Rav Meyasha, grandson

grandson

of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, said:

If they are larger by

a handbreadth

than usual, this is a blemish.

But

And we object:

Can there be such a thing?

Is it possible for them to be so large?

And we answer:

Yes! For Rabba bar bar Ḥana said: I saw one Arab woman who cast her breasts behind her and nursed her son.

Thus it is possible for her breasts to be so large.

Since the Gemara brought a statement in the name of Rav Meyasha, another statement in his name was brought:

It is said in Psalms—

“And concerning Zion it shall be said: ‘This man and that man were born in her,’ and He, the Most High, will establish her.”

That is: In the future, when the verse that is written, “And they shall bring all your brothers as an offering to the Lord,” is fulfilled, wherever one of the Children of Zion is found, the nations will praise him.

Rav Meyasha, grandson of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, said:

What is the explanation of the repetition “this man and that man” stated in the verse?

To teach us,

one who was born in her, and one who longs to see her,

has the virtue of a son of Zion.

Abaye said: And one of them,

of the Children of Zion

is superior

clever and learned

to two of us.

Like two of the Children of Babylonia, since the merit of the Land assists him.

Rava said: And one of us,

of the Children of Babylonia,

when he goes up there,

to the Land of Israel,

is superior to two of them.

when Rabbi Yirmeya was in Babylonia, he did not understand the words of the Sages], but

For Rabbi Yirmeya, when he was here, did not know what the Sages were saying,

when Rabbi Yirmeya was in Babylonia, he did not understand the words of the Sages, but

when he went up there

when he went up to the Land of Israel, he became so wise that

he called us Babylonians fools.

Mishna:

Our Mishna discusses a woman in whom blemishes were found after she was betrothed, and the husband claims that his acquisition was a mistaken acquisition and does not want to give her a marriage contract. Whereas the woman or her father claim that the blemishes arose in her only after the betrothal, when she was already in his possession, and he is obligated to give her a marriage contract.

If she had blemishes while she was still in her father’s house,

that is, the blemishes were found before the husband brought her into his house, while she was still his betrothed—

the father,

who came to claim his daughter’s marriage contract,

must bring proof

for his words—

that

only

from

the time

that only from the time she became betrothed did she have these blemishes, and his field was inundated.

That is: The husband’s fortune caused it, and his wife became defective.

But without proof, he cannot extract money from the husband’s presumed possession.

But if

she entered the husband’s possession,

that is, the blemishes were found in her after the marriage,

the husband must bring proof that before she became betrothed she had these blemishes, and his acquisition was a mistaken acquisition,

since he married her on the understanding that she had no blemishes.

But without proof, he cannot remove her without a marriage contract.

These are

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: When are these words applicable

that the husband can claim that his acquisition was a mistaken acquisition?

With regard to hidden blemishes.

For he did not know of them beforehand.