Jerusalem Talmud Kiddushin 2.4

משנה: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין עָלֶיהָ נְדָרִים וְנִמְצְאוּ עָלֶיהָ נְדָרִים אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. כְּנָסָהּ סְתָם וְנִמְצְאוּ עָלֶיהָ נְדָרִים תֵּצֵא שֶׁלֹּא בַּכְּתוּבָּה. שֶׁכָּל הַמּוּמִין הַפּוֹסְלִין בַּכֹּהֲנִים פּוֹסְלִין בַּנָּשִׁים.

MISHNAH: If somebody performed preliminary marriage with a woman on condition that she had no obligation of vows on her and it turns out that she had vows to fulfill, she is not preliminarily married. If he married her definitively without inquiry and she had vows to fulfill, she should leave without ketubah. For all defects which disqualify a priest disqualify a woman.

הלכה: הַמְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת הַאִשָּׁה כול׳. תַּנִּינָן מוּמִין. בְּאֵילּוּ נְדָרִים אָמְרוּ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְשֵׁם רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹצָדָק. נָדְרָה שֶׁלֹּא לוֹכַל בָּשָׂר וְשֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁתּוֹת יַיִן וְשֶׁלֹּא לִלְבּוֹשׁ בִּגְדֵּי צִבְעוֹנִין. אָמַר רִבִּי זְעִירָא. כְּלֵי פִשְׁתָּן הַדַּקִּים הַבָּאִין מִבֵּית שְׁאָן כִּכְלֵי צְבוּעִין הֵן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָא בְּשֶׁאָמַר לָהּ. עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין עָלַיִךְ נְדָרִים. אֲבָל אִם אָמַר לָהּ. עַל מְנָת שֶׁאֵין לִיךְ נֵדֶר. אֲפִילוּ נָדְרָה שֶׁלֹּא לֶאֱכוֹל חָרוּבִין נֵדֶר הוּא.

HALAKHAH: “If somebody performed preliminary marriage with a woman etc. We have stated defects. Which vows? Rebbi Joḥanan in the name of Rebbi Simeon ben Yoṣadaq: If she vowed not to eat meat, or not to drink wine, or not to wear dyed garments. Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the fine linen garments which come from Bet She‘an have the status of dyed garments. Rebbi Yose said, the Mishnah deals with the case that he said to her, “on condition that you have no obligation of vows on you.” But if he said to her, “on condition that you have no vow on you,” then even if she made a vow not to eat carob fruit it is a vow.

הָלְכָה אֶצֶל הַזָּקֵן וְהִתִּיר לָהּ הֲרֵי זוֹ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. אֶצֶל הָרוֹפֵא וְרִיפְּאָה אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. מַה בֵין זָקֵן מַה בֵין רוֹפֵא. זָקֵן עוֹקֵר אֶת הַנֵּדֶר מֵעִיקָּרוֹ. רוֹפֵא אֵינוֹ מְרַפֵּא אֶלָּא מִיכָּן וּלְהַבָּא. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵי. אֲפִילוּ הָלְכָה אֶצֶל הַזָּקֵן וְהִתִּיר לָהּ אֵינָהּ מְקוּדֶּשֶׁת. מַתְנִיתָא דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר. דְּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. בְּדִין הָיָה אֲפִילוּ נֵדֶר שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ חָכָם שֶׁהַזָּקֵן עוֹקֵר הַנֵּדֶר מֵעִיקָּרוֹ. וְלָמָּה אָסְרוֹ נֵדֶר שֶׁהוּא צָרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם. מִפְּנֵי נֵדֶר שֶׁאֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ חֲקִירַת חָכָם. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. מוּתֶּרֶת לְהִינָּשֵׂא בְלֹא גֵט. וְאִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֲסוּרָה לְהִינָּשֵׂא בְלֹא גֵט. הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מֵימַר. מָאן דָּמַר. מוּתֶּרֶת לְהִינָּשֵׂא בְלֹא גֵט. רִבִּי לָעְזָר. וּמָאן דָּמַר. אֲסוּרָה לְהִינָּשֵׂא בְלֹא גֵט. רַבָּנִין. כּוּלָּהּ רַבָּנִין. מָאן דְּאָמַר. אֲסוּרָה לְהִינָּשֵׂא בְלֹא גֵט. רַבָּנִין. מָאן דְּאָמַר. מוּתֶּרֶת לְהִינָּשֵׂא בְלֹא גֵט. שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁהִיא יוֹדַעַת שֶׁאִם הוֹלֶכֶת הִיא אֶצֶל הַזָּקֵן וְהוּא מַתִּיר לָהּ אֶת נִדְרָהּ וְהִיא אֵינָהּ הוֹלֶכֶת. לְפוּם כֵּן מוּתֶּרֶת לְהִינָּשֵׂא בְלֹא גֵט. מַאי טַעֲמָא דְמָאן דָּמַר. אֲסוּרָה לְהִינָּשֵׂא בְלֹא גֵט. שֶׁלֹּא תֵלֵךְ אֶצֶל הַזָּקֵן וְיַתִּיר לָהּ אֶת נִדְרָהּ וְקִידּוּשִׁין חָלִין עָלֶיהָ לְמַפְרֵעַ וְנִמְצְאוּ בָנֶיהָ בָּאִין לִידֵי מַמְזֵירוּת. לְפוּם כֵּן אֲסוּרָה לְהִינָּשֵׂא בְלֹא גֵט.

“If she went to an Elder and he dissolved her vow, she is preliminarily married. To a doctor and he healed her, she is not preliminarily married.” What is the difference between the Elder and the doctor? The Elder uproots the vow from its start; the doctor heals only for the future. Some Tannaïm state: Even if she went to an Elder and he dissolved her vow, she is not preliminarily married. The baraita follows Rebbi Eleazar, as we have stated there: “Rebbi Eleazar said, it would have been logical about a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage, because the Elder uproots the vow from its start. Why did they forbid a vow which has to be investigated by a Sage? Because of a vow which does not have to be investigated by a Sage. Some Tannaïm state: She is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce. Some Tannaïm state: She is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce. They wanted to say that he who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce is Rebbi Eleazar, and he who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce are the rabbis. Everything follows the rabbis. He who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, the rabbis. He who says, she is allowed to marry without a bill of divorce: Since she knows that if she went to an Elder, he would dissolve her vow, since she does not go therefore she can be married without a bill of divorce. What is the reason of him who says, she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce, that she should not go to an Elder who would dissolve her vow, then the preliminary marriage would become retroactively valid for her and it would turn out that her children became bastards. Therefore she is forbidden to marry without a bill of divorce.

כְּנָסָהּ סְתָם. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. מַתְנִיתָא בְּשֶׁקִּידְּשָׁהּ עַל תְּנַאי וּכְנָסָהּ סְתָם. אֲבָל אִם קִידְּשָׁהּ סְתָם וּכְנָסָהּ סְתָם יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. אֲפִילוּ קִידְּשָׁהּ סְתָם וּכְנָסָהּ סְתָם אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. וְאָמַר רִבִּי חִיָיה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. וּצְרִיכָה מִמֶּנּוּ גֵט אֲפִילוּ קִידְּשָׁהּ עַל תְּנַאי וּכְנָסָהּ עַל תְּנַאי. רִבִּי זְעוּרָא בְעָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי מָנָא. קִידְּשָׁהּ סְתָם וְגֵירְשָׁהּ מִן הָאֵירוּסִין מָה אָמַר בָּהּ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הָיוּ בָהּ מוּמִין וְעוֹדָהּ בְּבֵית אָבִיהָ הָאָב צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָיה. הָא אִם הֵבִיא רְאָיָיה יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. מַה חֲמִית לְמֵימַר. בְּשֶׁקִּידְּשָׁהּ סְתָם וְגֵירְשָׁהּ מִן הָאֵירוּסִין. מָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין מִן דְּבַתְרָה. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. בְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר. אֲבָל בְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעוֹן. וְאִם בְּמַתְנֶה אַף מוּמִין שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי טוֹעֵן הוּא. אָמְרִין חֲבֵרַיָיא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. אֱמוֹר דְּבַתְרָה וּתְהֵא פְלִיגָא עַל רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. נִכְנְסָה לִרְשׁוּת הַבַּעַל הַבַּעַל צָרִיךְ לְהָבִיא רְאָיָיה. הָא אִם הֵבִיא הַבַּעַל רְאָיָיה אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. וְהֵיךְ רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. רִבִּי כֹהֵן בְּשֵׁם רַבָּנִין דְּקַיסָרִין. מַתְנִיתָא בְּשֶׁכָּנַס וְלֹא בָעַל. מַה דְּאָמַר רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בְּשֶׁכָּנַס וּבָעַל. אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. נִתְרַצָּה לוֹ בִּבְעִילָה.

“If he married her definitively without inquiry”. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Mishnah deals with the case that he married her preliminarily conditionally but definitively silently. But if he married her preliminarily silently and definitively silently, she can claim her ketubah. Rebbi Joḥanan said, even if he married her preliminarily silently and definitively silently, she has no ketubah. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: But she needs a bill of divorce from him even if he married her preliminarily conditionally but definitively silently. Rebbi Ze‘ira asked before Rebbi Mana: In case he married her preliminarily silently and divorced her after the preliminary marriage, what does Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish say? Let us hear from the following: “If she had bodily defects, as long as she is in her father’s house, the father has to prove.” This implies that if he proved his case, she can claim her ketubah. What do you see to say, if he married her preliminarily silently and divorced her after the preliminary marriage! Where do we hold? Since afterwards [it is stated]: “When was this said? For hidden defects, but he has no claim about visible defects.” If he. made it conditional, could he not also claim for visible ones? But did not the colleagues say before Rebbi Yose: Should we say that the following statement disagrees with Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish? “Once she entered her husband’s domain, the husband has to prove.” This implies that if the husband proved his case, she has no claim to ketubah. But by the statement of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish, she has a claim to ketubah. Rebbi Cohen in the name of the rabbis of Caesarea: The Mishnah deals with the case that he definitively married her but did not sleep with her; Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish speaks about the case that he definitively married her and slept with her; I am saying that she was acceptable to him since he took her to bed.

שֶׁכָּל הַמּוּמִין הַפּוֹסְלִים בַּכֹּהֲנִים פּוֹסְלִין בַּנָּשִׁים. הוֹסִיפוּ עֲלֵיהֶן בָּאִשָּׁה רֵיחַ הַפֶּה וְרֵיחַ הַזֵּיעָה וְשׁוּמָא שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ שִׂיעֵר. רִבִּי חָמָא בַּר עוּקְבָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲנִינָה. בְּעוֹר הַפָּנִים שָׁנוּ. וְהָתַנִּינָן. בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. בְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּסֵּתֶר. אֲבָל בְּמוּמִין שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לִטְעוֹן. וָזוֹ לֹא מִן הַמּוּמִין שֶׁבַּגָּלוּי הוּא. תִּיפְתָּר בְּהַהִיא דְּמִטָּמְרָה לָהּ תַּחַות קֳלוֹסִיתָהּ דְרֹאשָׁהּ. תַּנֵּי. שׁוּמָא שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהּ שִׂיעֵר בֵּין גְּדוֹלָה בֵּין קְטַנָּה בֵּין בַּגּוּף בִּין בַּפָּנִים הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם. וְשֶׁאֵין בָּהּ שִׂיעֵר. בְּפָנִים מוּם. בַּגּוּף אֵינָהּ מוּם. בַּמֶה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים. בִּקְטַנָּה. אֲבָל בִגְדוֹלָה בֵּין בַּגּוּף בֵּין בַּפָּנִים הֲרֵי זֶה מוּם. עַד כַּמָּה הִיא גְדוֹלָה. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר. עַד כְּאִיסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי. רִבִּי לָעְזָר בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי חֲנִינָה. כְּגוֹן הָדֵין דֵּינָר קוֹרְדִיָינָא שִׁיעוּרוֹ כַּחֲצִי זָהוּב כָּל שֶׁהוּא. רִבִּי רְדִיפָה רִבִּי יוֹנָה רִבִּי יִרְמְיָה שָׁאַל. אִשָּׁה קָרַחַת [וְשִׁיטָּה] שֶׁלְּשִׂיעֵר מַקֶּפֶת מֵאוֹזֶן לָאוֹזֶן. בָּעֵיי מִישְׁמְעינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הוֹסִיפוּ עֲלֵיהֶן בָּאִשָּׁה רֵיחַ הַפֶּה וְרֵיחַ הַזֵּיעָה וְשׁוּמָא שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ שִׂיעֵר. וְלָא אַדְכְּרוֹן קָרְחָה. סָבְרִין מֵימַר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מוּם. אָתָא רִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בְרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵה בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן בְּשָם רִבִּי נִיסָא. מוּם הוּא. לֹא אֲתִינָן מִיתְנֵי אֶלָּא דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא כֵעוּר בָּזֶה וּבָזֶה מוּם בָּזֶה וְאֵין מוּם בָּזֶה. אֲבָל דָּבָר שֶׁהוּא נוֹיי בָזֶה וּמוּם בָּזֶה כְּגוֹן הָדָא קָרְחָתָה אַף עַל גַּב דְּהוּא מוּם לֹא תַנִּינָתָהּ. תֵּדַע לָךְ שֶׁהִיא כֵן. הֲרֵי זָקָן הֲרֵי נוֹיי בָאִישׁ וּמוּם בָּאִשָּׁה. וְלֹא תַנִינָן. יֶתֶר עֲלֵיהֶם בָּאִשָּׁה זָקָן. הֲרֵי דַדִּים הֲרֵי נוֹי בָאִשָּׁה וּמוּם בָּאִישׁ. וְלֹא תַנֵּיִנָתָהּ. יֶתֶר עֲלֵיהֶן בָּאִישׁ דַּדִּים.

“And all defects which disqualify a priest disqualify a woman. They added to them for women mouth odor, sweat odor, and a hairless mole.” Rebbi Ḥamai bar Uqba in the name of Rebbi Yose ben Ḥanina: They taught this about the skin of the face. But did we not state: “When was this said? For hidden defects, but he has no claim about visible defects.” Is this not of the visible defects? Explain it if she hid it under her headgear. It was stated: “A mole with hairs is a defect, whether it be large or small, whether it be on the body or on the face. Without a hair it is a defect on the face but not on the body. When has this been said? If it is small. But if it is large, it is a defect whether it be on the body or on the face. How big is large? Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, up to an Italic as.” Rebbi Eleazar bar Ḥanina said, for example such a Gordianic denar: its measure is half a ubiquitous gold piece. Rebbi Radifa, Rebbi Jonah: Rebbi Jeremiah asked: A bald woman with a row of hair going from one ear to the other? They wanted to understand it from the following: “They added to them for women mouth odor, sweat odor, and a hairless mole.” They did not mention baldness. They wanted to conclude that it is not a defect. There came Rebbi Samuel the son of Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun: Rebbi Nasa said, it is a defect. It is listed only if it is ugly for both sexes. But something which is beautiful in one sex but ugly in the other, like a bald pate, even though it is a defect it was not listed. You should know that this is so because a beard is beautiful for a man and a defect for a woman, and we did not state: In addition, for a woman a beard. There are breasts which are beautiful for a woman and a defect for men, and we did not state: In addition, for a man women’s breasts.