Ketubot 77a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara adds:

Rav Naḥman said, ![](pamud.bmp "

precise page location")

and one who has epilepsy

[one afflicted with the falling illness, for whom there is a certain time when he suddenly falls to the ground]

is considered like hidden blemishes.

Since she can take care not to go out into the street at that time, and the husband does not know of this blemish.

And this applies only when its time is fixed.

When there is a fixed time at which the illness attacks her, and she is careful not to leave her house at that time.

But

if

its time is not fixed,

she cannot conceal the blemish, and

it is considered like a visible blemish.

And certainly he saw it and was reconciled to it.

Mishna:

A man in whom blemishes developed,

and his wife demands that he divorce her, since she cannot bear his blemishes. And in the Gemara they dispute whether this is speaking when they already existed before the marriage or whether they developed afterward,

they do not compel him to divorce.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said —

When are these words stated? With regard to minor blemishes. But with regard to major blemishes, they compel him to divorce .

And the Gemara will explain which are minor blemishes and which are major blemishes.

Gemara:

We learned: “A man in whom blemishes developed ...,”

Rav Yehuda taught: “developed,”

that is, they came into existence after the marriage .

But

Ḥiyya bar Rav taught —

“existed,”

meaning that if they existed before the betrothal, he is not obligated to take her out, since she saw the blemishes and accepted them.

And the Gemara says: For

the one who says

that the Mishna speaks when blemishes

developed

in him after the marriage, and nevertheless he need not take her out because of them ,

all the more so

if

they existed

before the marriage, he is not obligated to give her a ketuba,

for she considered and accepted

[she saw the blemishes and accepted them].

But for

the one who says

that the Mishna speaks when

they existed

before the marriage, and then he is not obligated to take her out, since she saw the blemishes and was reconciled to them,

this applies when they existed before the marriage;

but if they developed

after the marriage,

no.

And they compel him to divorce her, because she says: “I cannot live with him.”

And the Gemara raises an objection:

We learned

in our Mishna:

“Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: When are these words stated? With regard to minor blemishes. But with regard to major blemishes, they compel him to divorce.”

Granted, according to the one who says, “developed,”

and even if they developed after the marriage he is not obligated to take her out,

this is why there is a difference between

blemishes

that are major and those that are minor.

Since with major blemishes she can say: “I do not have the strength to bear them.”

But according to the one who says, “existed,”

and the reasoning is that she saw the blemishes before the marriage and was reconciled to them,

what difference is it whether they are major, and what difference is it whether they are minor? Surely

she always

considered and accepted,

and even with major blemishes he is not obligated to take her out!

And we answer: Even when they existed before the marriage, she can claim:

“I thought that I could bear them, but now I cannot bear them .”

».

And she can make this claim only with regard to major blemishes, but not with regard to minor blemishes.

The Gemara returns to explain the Mishna —

And what are these major blemishes?

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel explained: For example, his eye was blinded, his hand was cut off, or his leg was broken .

It was stated

a statement in the study hall:

Rav Abba bar Yaakov said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan —

The halakha is according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.

Rava said in the name of Rav Naḥman —

The halakha is according to the words of the Sages,

who say that even with major blemishes he is not obligated to take her out.

And it is proven from Rabbi Yoḥanan’s words that the halakha follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel only in our Mishna, and not everywhere.

And we raise an objection —

Did Rabbi Yoḥanan really say this?!

But Rabbah bar bar Ḥana said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan: Everywhere that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taught in our Mishna, the halakha follows him, except for

the law of

a guarantor

[explained in Bava Batra 173b],

and

concerning the incident that occurred in

Sidon

[in Gittin 74a],

and

concerning the law of

the final proof

[in Sanhedrin 31a].

And we answer —

The amoraim differ according to Rabbi Yoḥanan.

[The amoraim disputed Rabbi Yoḥanan’s position, and Rav Abba bar Yaakov understood Rabbi Yoḥanan’s position to be that the halakha follows Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel only here.]

Mishna:

And these are

the blemishes

that

if he is afflicted with them,

they compel him to divorce

according to everyone:

One afflicted with boils, one with polypus, one who gathers dog excrement, one who smelts copper, and a tanner,

all of these will be explained in the Gemara.

Whether they existed before they married, or whether they developed after they married,

since these blemishes are especially foul-smelling.

And concerning all of them Rabbi Meir said: Even though he stipulated with her

that she married on this condition,

she can say, “I thought that I could bear it, but now I cannot bear it.”

And the Sages say:

If he stipulated,

she accepts it against her will. Except for one afflicted with boils, because it causes him to melt away.

For she can say, “Now I cannot bear it,” since every day his illness becomes heavier upon him, because when she has relations with him, she causes his flesh to melt away. This is not so with the others mentioned in the Mishna, for they remain as they are in one condition; and since she considered and accepted at that time, she can no longer say, “He is repulsive to me” . (Students of Rabbeinu Yonah).

There was an incident in Sidon involving a certain tanner who died, and he had a brother who was a tanner,

and the brother wanted to perform yibbum with the wife of his deceased brother.

The Sages said: She can say, “With your brother I could bear it

even though he was a tanner, because his character traits were so good that I was reconciled to bearing him,

but with you I cannot bear it,

for I do not desire your other character traits”

” (Students of Rabbeinu Yonah).

(Students of Rabbeinu Yonah).

Gemara:

The Gemara explains:

What is one with polypus?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: A smell from the nose.

In a baraita

[in the baraita]

the tannai taught —

A smell from the mouth.

Rav Asi taught the reverse

[that Shmuel said, “A smell from the mouth,” and in the baraita the tannai taught, “A smell from the nose”].

And he placed a sign by it

[so that we would remember that Shmuel said, “A smell from the mouth”] —

Shmuel’s mouth never stopped from the entire chapter

“And one who gathers”:

And the Gemara explains:

What is “one who gathers”?

Rav Yehuda said: This is one who gathers dog excrement.

[For the purpose of washing clothes.]

And we raise an objection:

It was objected,

did we not learn in the Tosefta —

“One who gathers — this is a tanner”?

And

we discussed it: And

according to your reasoning, the Mishna should be difficult for you,

for we learned in it

“one who gathers, one who smelts copper, and a tanner,”

which proves that they are two different things.

Granted, the Mishna is not difficult,

for it is possible to say:

Here

[that is, a tanner]

is with regard to a major tanner. Here

[one who gathers]

is with regard to a minor tanner.

But for Rav Yehuda it is difficult!?

And we answer:

It is a dispute between tannaim.

[The tannaim disputed this matter.]

For it was taught: “One who gathers” —

this is a tanner.

And some say —

this is one who gathers dog excrement.

And Rabbi Yehuda held like him.

“And one who smelts copper and a tanner”:

The Gemara explains:

What is one who smelts copper?

Rav Ashi said: Those who hammer copper pots.

[Those who flatten copper. And their smell is terrible and dreadful.]

Rabbah bar bar Ḥana said: This is one who cuts copper from its source.

[He mines copper, and his face is always black and ugly. (Tosafot Rid).]

It was taught in support of Rabbah bar bar Ḥana: “Who is a smelter? One who cuts copper from its source.”

Rav said: One who says, “I will not feed and I will not provide sustenance ”

must take her out and give her a ketuba .

Rabbi Elazar went and stated the teaching before Shmuel.

[Rabbi Elazar went and stated this law before Shmuel.]

He said

Shmuel —

“Feed Elazar barley”

[feed him barley like an animal, since there is no substance to his words].

Before compelling him to take her out, compel him to provide sustenance !

And Rav

held,

“A person does not dwell with a snake in one basket” .

And therefore there is no point in compelling him to provide sustenance; rather, they compel him to take her out.

When Rabbi Zeira ascended

[when Rabbi Zeira went up to the Land of Israel],

he found

[he met]

Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet sitting and stating it

Rav’s law

in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan.

He said to him —

“For this

[for these words]

they fed Elazar barley in Babylonia!”

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav Asi,

as a matter of Torah law,

they do not force

[they do not compel him to divorce]

except those disqualified.

When I stated it before Shmuel, he said —

For example, a widow married to a High Priest, a divorcee or a ḥalutza married to an ordinary priest, a mamzeret or a netina married to an Israelite, or an Israelite woman married to a netin or a mamzer.

But if he married a woman, remained with her for ten years, and she did not give birth —

they do not compel him

to take her out and fulfill procreation, since he can fulfill it through another wife.

And Rav Taḥlifa bar Avimi said in the name of Shmuel: Even if he married a woman, remained with her for ten years, and she did not give birth —

they compel him

to fulfill the mitzva of procreation.

We learned,

we learned in the Mishna:

“These are those whom they compel to take out: one afflicted with boils and one with polypus.”

And the Gemara asks: Why did the tannai not also teach those whom they compel to take out, mentioned above in the words of Rav Asi and Rav Taḥlifa?

Granted, according to Rav Asi,

who says that they compel him to take her out only when she is disqualified, it can be said that he taught only those whom they compel to take out

by rabbinic law

[that is, husbands with blemishes]

in the Mishna.

But those whom they are obligated to take out

by Torah law

[that is, those disqualified],

he did not teach.

But according to

the words of

Rav Taḥlifa bar Avimi,

who says that they compel him even in order to fulfill the mitzva of procreation, and this compulsion is rabbinic [for by Torah law he may marry an additional wife; rather, they compel him to divorce her because as long as he is married to her he will not want to take another wife. Rashi],

let him teach

in the Mishna also —

“If he married a woman, remained with her for ten years, and she did not give birth, they compel him”?

Rav Naḥman said: It is not difficult.

This

is what Rav Taḥlifa said, that they compel one who remained ten years without children: this is only compulsion

with words.

This

is with blows. The tannai in the Mishna taught only one whom they compel to take out his wife with blows.

Rabbi Abba raised an objection against him,

but is it not stated in Proverbs:

“With words a slave will not be corrected”

[a recalcitrant slave is not addressed with words of admonition; rather, he is immediately lashed with forceful blows until he listens to his master], and how can verbal compulsion help us?

Rather, Rabbi Abba said: Both this and that are with blows.