Torah Community Connections

Week 64 - Tuesday - 13 February 2001

KETUBOT: CHAPTER 7: MISHNAH 8

If there were defects in her and she is still in her father's house -- the father must bring proof that these defects arose in her after she became betrothed, and "his field was inundated." If she entered her husband's authority -- the husband must bring proof that she had these defects before she was betrothed, and his acquisition was an erroneous acquisition; the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say, To what does this refer? To hidden defects; but regarding exposed defects, he cannot claim. And if there is a bathhouse in the same city -- even defects which are hidden he cannot claim, because he examines her through his relatives.

Kehati

Our mishnah discusses the case of a woman in whom bodily defects were found, and it is not known whether she was afflicted with them before or after her betrothal.

If there were defects -- found -- in her -- after she was betrothed -- and she is still in her father's house -- i.e., before marriage, and her bridegroom claims that she was afflicted with these defects before they became betrothed, making this an erroneous acquisition, and he wants to divorce her without paying her ketubah. The father, however, claims that his daughter did not possess these bodily defects prior to her betrothal and is therefore entitled to her ketubah, the father must bring proof -- supporting his statement, that these defects arose after she was betrothed, and "his -- the husband's -- field was inundated" -- i.e., he was the victim of bad luck and the defects came about after he had betrothed her when she was already his wife; in such a case she receives the sum of her ketubah. If, however, the father cannot substantiate his claim, the husband may divorce her without paying her ketubah; according to the Gemara, this is so because we say, "Here they were found, here they were," i.e., since these defects were found in her father's house, we presume they were there even before her betrothal.

If she entered her husband's authority -- and bodily defects were found after the marriage, and her husband wants to divorce her without a ketubah, the husband must bring proof -- for his claim -- that she had these defects before she was betrothed -- to him, and his acquisition was an erroneous acquisition -- and she may be divorced without paying her ketubah. If, however, he lacks any proof, we say, "Here they were found, here they were" -- we found the defects under her husband's authority and thus presume they arose under his authority; the words of Rabbi Meir.

But the Sages say, To what does this refer -- when is the husband entitled to divorce her without her ketubah by claiming that he found defects and his was thus an erroneous acquisition? -- to -- in the case of -- hidden defects -- in a concealed part of her body, for he can claim ignorance of them. But regarding exposed defects -- which can be seen, he cannot claim -- that his was an erroneous acquisition, because he certainly saw that she had defects and accepted them.

And if there is a bathhouse in the same city -- and he could have asked his female relatives who bathe with her if she has any defects, even defects -- on her body -- which are hidden he cannot claim -- ignorance of them so that his was an erroneous acquisition, because he examines her through his relatives -- he can ask his female relatives who bathe with her whether she has any defects. The Gemara explains, "It is presumed that a person drinks from a cup only if he first examines it"; therefore, even if there were bodily defects before the betrothal, his claim is invalid, for he certainly examined her by means of his female relatives prior to wedding her, and was aware of the defects and accepted them; hence, if he divorces her he must pay her ketubah.

KETUBOT: CHAPTER 7: MISHNAH 9

A man in whom defects arose, they do not compel him to divorce. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, To what does this refer? To minor defects; but regarding major defects -- they compel him to divorce.

Kehati

In the previous mishnayot we learned about bodily defects which disqualify a woman, so that if she possessed them prior to the erusin and her husband did not know about them, she is divorced and does not receive her ketubah. Our mishnah deals with the bodily defects possessed by the husband, that prompts his wife to demand a get.

A man in whom defects arose -- after marriage and certainly if he had them before, and his wife knew and accepted them, if she demands to be divorced and he is unwilling, they do not compel him to divorce -- her.

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says, To what does this refer -- when do they not compel the husband to divorce his wife? To -- the case of -- minor defects -- which the wife can tolerate. But in the case of major defects -- e.g., blindness, or the loss of an arm or a leg (Gemara), which the wife is unable to tolerate, they compel him to divorce -- his wife, and to pay her ketubah. The Gemara explains that according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, in a case of major defects, even if the husband possessed these defects before marriage, and his wife knew about them and accepted them, they nevertheless compel him to divorce her, for she can say, "I thought that I could tolerate them, but now I cannot." The halakhah does not follow Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, so that even if major defects arose, in him, they do not compel him to divorce her (Rambam, Hil. Ishut 25:11).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives