Ketubot 75a (עה.) — the Talmud in English

“But the children of Israel did not smite them, because the leaders of the assembly had sworn to them”,

which proves that a vow made in the presence of many cannot be dissolved; for if this were not so, why did they not dissolve their vow? !

And how many constitute “many” [

in whose presence is a vow considered “a vow known to many”]?

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Three.

And his proof is from that which is written with regard to a menstruating woman: “many days,” and we expound it:

“Days”—

two; “many”—

three.

Thus, it is clear that the expression “many” refers to three.

Rav Yitzḥak said: Ten.

And his proof is from that which is written with regard to the Gibeonites:

The word “assembly” is written concerning them,

and an assembly consists of no fewer than ten.

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 a vow that does not require [the investigation of a Sage].”

The Gemara explains:

With regard to what do they disagree?

Rabbi Meir holds that a man is willing for his wife to be humiliated in court.

If she made a vow that requires a Sage to dissolve it, he does not object to her going to a Sage; and if he divorces her, there is no concern that people will cast aspersions on her.

Rabbi Elazar holds that a man is not willing for his wife to be humiliated in court.

The Gemara returns to reconcile the statement: “If she went to a Sage and he dissolved it, she is not betrothed”:

Rava said: Here we are dealing with an important woman, concerning whom he says: ‘I do not want to become forbidden to her relatives.’

That is, even according to the one who says that a man is willing for his wife to be humiliated in court, here the husband can claim: “I do not want a woman who makes vows, and I also do not want to give her a divorce, lest I become forbidden to her relatives, since she is the daughter of distinguished people. Therefore, I do not want the betrothal to take effect at all.”

If so, with regard to the latter clause, which teaches: “But if he went to a Sage and he dissolved it, or to a doctor 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, concerning whom she says: “I do not want to become forbidden to his relatives,”

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

And we answer:

She is satisfied with any man,

in accordance with the statement of Reish Lakish, 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 as small as a sesame seed, she places her chair among the women of importance [

even if her husband is insignificant like a sesame seed, she is not ashamed of him and places her chair among distinguished women, for she has a husband] .”

Rav Pappa said: “Even if her husband is a contemptible man, she sits on the threshold of the entrance and converses with him [

even if her husband works at a disgraceful trade, she is not ashamed to sit and speak with him openly] .”

Rav Ashi said: “Even if her husband is a disreputable man, she does not require him to provide even lentils for the pot [

even if her husband comes from a flawed family, the woman does not demand even lentils from him for the soup; the main thing is that his name is associated with hers] .”

A tanna taught—

and all of them,

that is, all those whose husbands are contemptible,

commit adultery and attribute it to their husbands.

They are content with any husband so that they can attribute their disgrace to him.

We learned in the Mishna:

“All defects that disqualify

kohanim disqualify women.”

Afterward,

a tanna taught: They added to them [

to the defects that disqualify women, as stated in the Mishna] these defects:

sweat, a mole, and bad breath.

This implies that these defects do not disqualify kohanim.

And we challenge this:

But

if

these defects do not disqualify kohanim?!

But didn’t we learn

with regard to blemishes that disqualify a firstborn:

“The old, the ill, and the malodorous”? And we learned: “These defects, whether permanent or passing, disqualify a person

that is, kohanim .”

It is clear that malodor disqualifies even kohanim. Did the Gemara understand that malodor means sweat?

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina said: This is not difficult. Here it is referring to passing sweat; there it is referring to sweat that does not pass.

That is: indeed, sweat that does not pass disqualifies even a kohen, but sweat that does not pass disqualifies only women. [unclear: the source repeats “sweat that does not pass”; the first occurrence appears to require “passing sweat.”] In this way the Mishna innovates: “They added to them sweat.”

Rav Ashi said: Are you comparing sweat to malodor?! [

Can one compare the sweat mentioned with regard to women to the malodor mentioned with regard to kohanim?]

There, with regard to kohanim,

since

it

to

can

it

be removed

during the service

with wine vinegar, [

by means of alcohol],

and as for bad breath as well, he can hold a pepper in his mouth,

thereby removing the odor at that time,

and perform the service.

The malodor mentioned with regard to kohanim, however, means that his entire body emits a foul odor.

But with regard to a woman,

with whom he lives constantly,

this is not possible,

and therefore any sweat disqualifies her.

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

This “mole”—

what is it like?

If it has hair, it disqualifies her in both cases!

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

And

if it has no hair, if it is a large mole—

it disqualifies her in both cases; if it is a small mole—

it disqualifies her in neither case?

As it was taught:

“A mole that has hair, this is

a defect. If it has no hair and is large—

this is a defect. If it is small—

this is not a defect.”

And what is considered large?

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

If so, with regard to what kind of mole did we say that it disqualifies only women and not kohanim?

Rav Yosei bar Ḥanina said: With regard to

a small mole that

is situated on her forehead.

And this mole disqualifies only kohanim and not women.

And we challenge this: If it is situated on her

forehead,

does that not mean that

he saw it and was appeased?

Why, then, can he divorce her?

Rav Pappa said: It is situated beneath her head covering, and sometimes it is visible and sometimes it is not visible [

sometimes it can be seen and sometimes it cannot], 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, namely Rav Sheila]:

If a dog bit her and the place became scarred,

even though the scar is smaller than an Italian issar coin,

this is a defect.

For a scar from a dog bite is exceedingly repulsive.

Furthermore,

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

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

which teaches that a woman’s beauty is enhanced when her voice is pleasant.

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

Rabbi Natan of Beira taught: “The distance between a woman’s breasts is a handbreadth.”

He did not explain what he meant.

Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, understood [

interpreted]

while he was sitting before Rav Ashi,

that Rabbi Natan’s intention was

to say—

a handbreadth is advantageous.

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

Rav Ashi said to him:

On the contrary,

it is taught with regard to defects!

If there is a handbreadth between her breasts, it is a defect.

And how much

is attractive for her?

Abaye said: Three fingerbreadths.

It was taught: Rabbi Natan says: Any woman whose breasts are larger than those of her peers, this is a defect.

And how much

larger than those of her peers must they be for it to be a defect?

Rav Meshisha, grandson [

grandson]

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

If they are

a handbreadth

larger than usual, this is a defect.

And

we challenge this:

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 an 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 cited a statement in the name of Rav Meshisha, it cites another statement in his name:

It is stated in Psalms:

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

That is: In the future, when the verse will be fulfilled: “And they shall bring all your brethren as an offering to the Lord,” wherever one finds a descendant of Zion, the nations will praise him.

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

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

To teach us:

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

possesses the distinction of a child of Zion.

Abaye said: And one of them [

of the children of Zion]

is superior [

more astute and more learned]

to two of us. [

to two of the people of Babylonia], because the merit of the Land assists him.

Rava said: And one of us, [

one of the people of Babylonia],

when he ascends there, [

to Eretz Yisrael],

is superior to two of them.

to the Land of Israel],

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 ascended there [

when he ascended to Eretz Yisrael], he became so wise that

he called us Babylonians fools.

Mishna:

Our Mishna discusses a woman in whom defects were discovered after she was betrothed, and the husband claims that his purchase was a mistaken transaction and that he does not wish to give her her ketuba. The woman or her father, however, claim that the defects developed only after the betrothal, when she was already under his authority, and that he is obligated to give her her ketuba.

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

that is, if the defects were discovered before the husband brought her into his home, while she was still betrothed—

the father,

who comes to claim his daughter’s ketuba,

must bring proof

of his claim—

that these defects were present only

from the time she became betrothed, and that

his

field was flooded.

That is, the husband’s fortune caused his wife to become defective.

Without proof, however, he cannot extract money from the husband’s presumptive possession.

But if she

entered the husband’s domain,

that is, if the defects were discovered after the marriage,

the husband must bring proof that these defects were present before she became betrothed, and that his purchase was a mistaken transaction,

since he married her on the assumption that she had no defects.

Without proof, however, he cannot divorce her without paying her ketuba.

These are

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Sages say: When are these words stated—

when the husband can claim that his purchase was a mistaken transaction?

With regard to concealed defects,

which he did not know about beforehand.

applicable, that the husband may claim that the transaction was based on a mistaken assumption?

With regard to concealed blemishes,

of which he had not known beforehand.