הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִלֵּהָנוֹת לוֹ, עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, יַעֲמִיד פַּרְנָס. יָתֵר מִכֵּן, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, חֹדֶשׁ אֶחָד יְקַיֵּם, וּשְׁנַיִם, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה. וּבְכֹהֶנֶת, שְׁנַיִם יְקַיֵּם, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה:
With regard to one who vows and obligates his wife, prohibiting her from benefiting from him or his property, if his vow will remain in effect for up to thirty days, he must appoint a trustee [parnas] to support her. But if the vow will remain in effect for more than this amount of time, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. Rabbi Yehuda says: If the husband is an Israelite, then if his vow will remain in effect for up to one month, he may maintain her as his wife; and if it will be two months, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. But if he is a priest, then he is given extra time: If the vow will remain in effect for up to two months, he may maintain her, and if it will be three months, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. The reason for this is that it is prohibited for a priest to marry a divorcée, including his own ex-wife, and therefore if he divorces her and later regrets his decision he will not be able to take her back.
הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תִטְעֹם אַחַד מִכָּל הַפֵּרוֹת, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, יוֹם אֶחָד יְקַיֵּם, שְׁנַיִם, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה. וּבְכֹהֶנֶת, שְׁנַיִם יְקַיֵּם, שְׁלֹשָׁה, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה:
One who vows and obligates his wife, requiring her not to taste a particular type of produce, must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he is an Israelite, then if the vow will remain in effect for one day he may maintain her as his wife, but if it will be two days he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. And if he is a priest, then if the vow will be in effect for two days he may maintain her; for three days he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract.
הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תִתְקַשֵּׁט בְּאַחַד מִכָּל הַמִּינִין, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, בַּעֲנִיּוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן קִצְבָּה. וּבַעֲשִׁירוֹת, שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם:
One who vows and obligates his wife, requiring her not to adorn herself with a particular type of perfume, must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. Rabbi Yosei says that one must distinguish between different types of women: For poor women, this applies only when he did not establish a set amount of time for the vow, and for wealthy women, who are accustomed to adorning themselves more elaborately, if she is prohibited from doing so for thirty days, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract.
הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תֵלֵךְ לְבֵית אָבִיהָ, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא עִמָּהּ בָּעִיר, חֹדֶשׁ אֶחָד יְקַיֵּם. שְׁנַיִם, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהוּא בְעִיר אַחֶרֶת, רֶגֶל אֶחָד יְקַיֵּם. שְׁלֹשָׁה, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה:
With regard to one who vows and obligates his wife not to go to her father’s house, when her father is with her in the same city, if the vow is to be in effect up to one month, he may maintain her as his wife. If the vow is for two months, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. And when her father is in a different city, if the vow is to be in effect until at most one pilgrim Festival, i.e., until the next pilgrim Festival, he may maintain her as his wife. Although the wife often visits her parents during the Festival, she is capable of refraining one time. For three Festivals, however, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract.
הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ שֶׁלֹּא תֵלֵךְ לְבֵית הָאֵבֶל אוֹ לְבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנּוֹעֵל בְּפָנֶיהָ. וְאִם הָיָה טוֹעֵן מִשּׁוּם דָּבָר אַחֵר, רַשָּׁאי. אָמַר לָהּ, עַל מְנָת שֶׁתֹּאמְרִי לִפְלוֹנִי מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְתְּ לִי אוֹ מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְתִּי לָךְ, אוֹ שֶׁתְּהֵא מְמַלְּאָה וּמְעָרָה לָאַשְׁפָּה, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה:
Additionally, one who vows and obligates his wife not to go to a house of mourning to console the mourners, or to a house of feasting for a wedding, must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. Why is this so? Because it is as if he were locking a door in front of her. And if he claimed he did so due to something else, meaning he is concerned about inappropriate conduct there, he is permitted to do so. If he said to her: The vow will be void on condition that you tell so-and-so what you told me, or what I told you, or on condition that she fill something up and pour it into the refuse, he must divorce her and give her the payment of her marriage contract. The Gemara will explain all of these cases thoroughly.
וְאֵלּוּ יוֹצְאוֹת שֶׁלֹּא בִכְתֻבָּה, הָעוֹבֶרֶת עַל דַּת מֹשֶׁה וִיהוּדִית. וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא דַּת מֹשֶׁה, מַאֲכִילָתוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעֻשָּׂר, וּמְשַׁמַּשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה, וְלֹא קוֹצָה לָהּ חַלָּה, וְנוֹדֶרֶת וְאֵינָהּ מְקַיֶּמֶת. וְאֵיזוֹהִי דַת יְהוּדִית, יוֹצְאָה וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ, וְטוֹוָה בַשּׁוּק, וּמְדַבֶּרֶת עִם כָּל אָדָם. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, אַף הַמְקַלֶּלֶת יוֹלְדָיו בְּפָנָיו. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר, אַף הַקּוֹלָנִית. וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא קוֹלָנִית, לִכְשֶׁהִיא מְדַבֶּרֶת בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתָהּ וּשְׁכֵנֶיהָ שׁוֹמְעִין קוֹלָהּ:
And these are examples of women who may be divorced without payment of their marriage contract: A woman who violates the precepts of Moses, i.e., halakha, or the precepts of Jewish women, i.e., custom. The Mishna explains: And who is categorized as a woman who violates the precepts of Moses? This includes cases such as when she feeds him food that has not been tithed, or she engages in sexual intercourse with him while she has the legal status of a menstruating woman, or she does not separate a portion of dough to be given to a priest [ḥalla], or she vows and does not fulfill her vows. And who is considered a woman who violates the precepts of Jewish women? One who, for example, goes out of her house, and her head, i.e., her hair, is uncovered; or she spins wool in the public marketplace; or she speaks with every man she encounters. Abba Shaul says: Also one who curses his, i.e., her husband’s, parents in his presence. Rabbi Tarfon says: Also a loud woman. And who is defined as a loud woman? When she speaks inside her house and her neighbors hear her voice.
הַמְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ נְדָרִים וְנִמְצְאוּ עָלֶיהָ נְדָרִים, אֵינָהּ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת. כְּנָסָהּ סְתָם וְנִמְצְאוּ עָלֶיהָ נְדָרִים, תֵּצֵא שֶׁלֹּא בִכְתֻבָּה. עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ מוּמִין וְנִמְצְאוּ בָהּ מוּמִין, אֵינָהּ מְקֻדֶּשֶׁת. כְּנָסָהּ סְתָם וְנִמְצְאוּ בָהּ מוּמִין, תֵּצֵא שֶׁלֹּא בִכְתֻבָּה. כָּל הַמּוּמִין הַפּוֹסְלִין בַּכֹּהֲנִים, פּוֹסְלִין בַּנָּשִׁים:
In the case of one who betroths a woman on condition that there are no vows incumbent upon her, and it was subsequently discovered that there are vows incumbent upon her, she is not betrothed. This is because if the condition is not fulfilled, the betrothal is nullified. If he married her without specification and it was subsequently discovered that vows were incumbent upon her, she may be divorced without payment of her marriage contract, since he discovered a deficiency about which she had not initially informed him. However, this does not invalidate the betrothal, since he did not make any explicit condition. If he betrothed her on condition that she has no blemishes, and it was subsequently discovered that she did have blemishes, she is not betrothed. But if he married her without specification, and it was subsequently discovered that she had blemishes, she may be divorced without payment of her marriage contract. The mishna clarifies what qualifies as a blemish: All of the blemishes that are listed in tractate Bekhorot involving significant physical deformities that disqualify priests from service similarly disqualify betrothal of women, as a mistaken transaction.
הָיוּ בָהּ מוּמִין וְעוֹדָהּ בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ, הָאָב צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁמִּשֶּׁנִּתְאָרְסָה נוֹלְדוּ בָהּ מוּמִין הַלָּלוּ וְנִסְתַּחֲפָה שָׂדֵהוּ. נִכְנְסָה לִרְשׁוּת הַבַּעַל, הַבַּעַל צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁעַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְאָרְסָה הָיוּ בָהּ מוּמִין אֵלּוּ וְהָיָה מִקָּחוֹ מֶקַּח טָעוּת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר. אֲבָל בְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן. וְאִם יֵשׁ מֶרְחָץ בְּאוֹתָהּ הָעִיר, אַף מוּמִין שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעֹן, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא בוֹדְקָהּ בִּקְרוֹבוֹתָיו:
If she has blemishes and she is still in her father’s house, as she has not yet gotten married, the father must bring proof that these blemishes appeared on her after she became betrothed, and therefore his field was flooded, i.e., it is the husband’s misfortune, since she developed the problem after the betrothal. But if she has already gotten married and entered the husband’s domain when her blemishes are discovered, the husband must bring proof that she had these blemishes before she was betrothed, and consequently the transaction of betrothal was a mistaken transaction. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. But the Rabbis say: In what case is this statement, that a husband can claim to have found blemishes in his wife, on account of which he wants to void the betrothal, said? With regard to hidden blemishes. But with regard to visible blemishes, he cannot claim that the betrothal was in error, as he presumably saw and accepted them before the betrothal. And if there is a bathhouse in the city, where all the women go to bathe, even with regard to hidden blemishes he cannot make this claim, because he examines her through the agency of his female relatives. He would have asked one of his relatives to look over the woman he is about to marry.
הָאִישׁ שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בוֹ מוּמִין, אֵין כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בַּמּוּמִין הַקְּטַנִּים. אֲבָל בַּמּוּמִין הַגְּדוֹלִים, כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא:
In the case of a man who developed blemishes after marriage, the court does not force him to divorce his wife. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement said? It is said with regard to minor blemishes. However, with regard to major blemishes, which will be defined later in the Gemara, the court does force him to divorce her.
וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁכּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא, מֻכֵּה שְׁחִין, וּבַעַל פּוֹלִיפּוֹס, וְהַמְקַמֵּץ, וְהַמְצָרֵף נְחֹשֶׁת, וְהַבֻּרְסִי, בֵּין שֶׁהָיוּ בָם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִשְּׂאוּ וּבֵין מִשֶּׁנִּשְּׂאוּ נוֹלָדוּ. וְעַל כֻּלָּן אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהִתְנָה עִמָּהּ, יְכוֹלָהּ הִיא שֶׁתֹּאמַר, סְבוּרָה הָיִיתִי שֶׁאֲנִי יְכוֹלָהּ לְקַבֵּל, וְעַכְשָׁיו אֵינִי יְכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, מְקַבֶּלֶת הִיא עַל כָּרְחָהּ, חוּץ מִמֻּכֵּה שְׁחִין, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּמִקָּתוֹ. מַעֲשֶׂה בְצִידוֹן בְּבֻרְסִי אֶחָד שֶׁמֵּת וְהָיָה לוֹ אָח בֻּרְסִי, אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים, יְכוֹלָה הִיא שֶׁתֹּאמַר, לְאָחִיךָ הָיִיתִי יְכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל, וּלְךָ אֵינִי יְכוֹלָה לְקַבֵּל:
And these are the defects for which the court forces him to divorce her: One afflicted with boils; or one who has a polyp; or one who works as a gatherer, or one who works as a melder of copper, or one who works as a tanner of hides, all of whose work involves handling foul-smelling materials. Whether he had these defects before they got married, or whether they developed after they got married, the court forces them to divorce. And with regard to all of these, Rabbi Meir said: Even though he stipulated with her ahead of time that he suffers from this particular ailment or this is his line of work, she can nevertheless demand a divorce and say: I thought I could accept this issue but now I realize I cannot accept it. And the Rabbis say: If she initially agreed she must accept it against her will, apart from a situation in which her husband is afflicted with boils. In that case the Rabbis concede that he must divorce her, because the disease consumes his flesh when they engage in marital relations. The mishna relates an additional account: An incident occurred in Sidon involving a certain tanner who died childless, and he had a brother who was also a tanner. This brother was required to enter into levirate marriage with the widow. The Sages said: She can say: I could accept living with a tanner for your brother but I cannot accept it for you, and therefore he must perform ḥalitza with her.