Yerushalmi Ketubot 7:6 ירושלמי כתובות ז׳:ו׳

MISHNAH: The following leave without ketubah: Any one violating the laws of Moses or Jews. What is the law of Moses? She feeds him what is not tithed, or makes him sleep with her when she is menstruating, or does not cut ḥallah⁵⁸In all these cases, she causes him to commit a sin punishable by extirpation. One recommends to the husband to divorce her since “nobody should live with a snake in the same basket” [Babli 72a; Yerushalmi Demai2:2 (Note 129; 22d l. 59)]., or makes vows which she does not keep. And what is the law of Jews: She leaves home with her hair in disorder⁵⁹In both Talmudim, this is interpreted that she leaves home with her hair uncovered., or spins in public⁶⁰It seems that it was a common sign of a free woman engaged in prostitution to appear as if spinning in public (in the Babli, 72b, if she is spinning with a rose on her ear), in contrast to slave girls used as prostitutes who were exhibited naked in front of brothels., or speaks with everybody⁶¹This also could be interpreted as a way of soliciting.. Abba Saul says, also one who curses his parents in his presence. Rebbi Tarphon says, also the big-voiced.
What is the big-voiced? Any who speaks inside her house and her neighbors hear her voice.

HALAKHAH: “The following leave without ketubah,” etc. “What is the big-voiced,” etc. And all with witnesses. “X tithed⁶²The same argument in the Babli, 72a., X saw the stains⁶³She said to her husband that she showed her stained underwear to a rabbi who decided that it was not menstrual blood. In the first Century C. E. it was a common usage of Jewish sects to accuse the adherents of other sects of sleeping with menstruating women. Pharisees accused Sadducees and Samaritans because they considered all genital discharges as menstrual (Mishnah Niddah 4:1) and Sadducees accused Pharisees because they do not consider all genital discharges as menstrual (Damascus Document A 5:7). Later practice eliminated the problem by observing both Pharisaic and Sadducee prohibitions. Pharisaic distinctions between pure and impure blood required women to consult rabbis about their discharges. It is not likely that this ever was widespread practice except for wives of Cohanim in whose household impurity had to be reduced to an absolute minimum. The disappearance of priestly purity in the second century C.E. probably put an end to that practice even though the fourth Century Babylonian Rava still claimed full knowledge of all relevant rules., X cut her ḥallah⁶⁴The heave to be taken from bread dough. It was common practice to have a professional baker prepare bread dough for private households and to take ḥallah from it; cf. Mishnah Ḥallah 1:7., X permitted her vow.” They checked and found it was not so.

“She feeds him what is not tithed, or makes him sleep with her when she is menstruating, or does not cut ḥallah, or makes vows which she does not keep.” We understand all these because he is involved⁶⁵In the first three cases, she leads him into sin.. “She makes vows which she does not keep,” what is his interest in this? He can say, I cannot live with a vowing wife because she buries her children. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Yudan⁶⁶Giṭṭin 4:3 (45c 1. 63), Šabbat 5b 1. 8; Babli 72a in the name of Rav Naḥman. Šabbat 32b in the name of Rav Naḥman bar Isaac (also thus in one Geniza ms. of Ketubot); in Yalquṭ Šim‘oni Jer. #266 a different verse in the name of R. Nathan (anonymous in the Babli, 72a).: Children die for the sin of vows, as it is written⁶⁷Jer. 2:30.: “For vain [vows] I smote your children.

“With her hair in disorder.” They said that for the courtyard⁶⁸It is supposed that no house has a direct exit to the street but that a number of houses share a common courtyard from which one leaves to a passageway or a street.; so much more for the passageway⁶⁹A side street which is not a thoroughfare. It may be a dead-end street or not; it is public domain but mainly used by the dwellers of courtyards opening to that side street.. Rebbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: If one goes out in her wig⁷⁰The word was identified by Musaphia as Latin capillitium. But the meaning of that word as given in the dictionaries is not “wig” as asserted by Musaphia but “the hair” (collective). The meaning “false hair, wig” is found in Latin capillamentum. Cf. also the Latin adjective capillatus, -a, -um“having hair, with fine head of hair”.
The parallel in the Babli, 72b, has קלתה which Rashi explains as a makeshift head cover formed by an inverted basket, which is declared as forbidden., she does not go out with her hair in disorder. That is, to the courtyard; if she does it in the passageway, she goes out with her hair in disorder. There exists a courtyard which is like a passageway and a passageway which is like a courtyard. A courtyard through which outsiders have broken⁷¹It has become a shortcut for outsiders. is like a passageway and a passageway through which no outsiders are breaking⁷²A dead-end street used only by the inhabitants of its houses. is like a courtyard.

Abba Saul says, also one who curses their child in his parents’ presence⁷³In the Babli, 72b, as Amoraic statement: One who curses his parents before his children.. Rebbi Tarphon says, also the big-voiced. What is the big-voiced? Samuel says, any who speaks and her women neighbors hear her voice⁷⁴Therefore, all his marital disagreements are immediately public knowledge.. Rav says, any one whose voice is heard by other people from bed to bed during intercourse⁷⁵The same statement is also in the Babli, 72b..

⁷⁶This text seems to be in rather bad shape and the secondary sources are contradictory, Note 79. Rebbi Ḥanin stated in the name of Rebbi Samuel: Both for women about whom they said that they have ketubah as also those about whom they said they leave without ketubah, as the minor, the secondarily prohibited⁷⁷Obviously one has to read in the first clause: have no ketubah. Somehow the text should accommodate several kinds of divorces.
The minor who is mentioned in this connection is an underage girl married off by her mother or brothers after her father’s death whose marriage has no biblical validity and who can walk out of it without formality (cf. Yebamot 1:2, Note 118). Her repudiation of her husband annuls her marriage and with it her ketubah but it does not touch her property rights; both mortmain (dos aestimata) as also paraphernalia (dos non aestimata) must be returned to her (cf. Yebamot 7:1, Note 1).
Secondary prohibitions are rabbinically prohibited unions extending biblical prohibitions, usually for one additional generation (cf. Yebamot 2:4, Note 67). The rabbinate will force the husband to divorce his wife and, in order to scare away women from such marriages, will not enforce any payment of ketubah. But her property rights for mortmain and paraphernalia are not touched (and her children are legitimate.)
The she-ram (Yebamot 1:1, Note 65) is a woman exhibiting secondary male sex characterstics. She is presumed to be congenitally infertile; her marriage is considered invalid by biblical standards, and she will have difficulty collecting the ketubah but not recovering her property.
The statement as it stands now does not cover women who are divorced following Mishnah 6, who may not be able to recover their property., and the she-ram, did they speak about a mina or 200 [zuz]? But even if the ketubah was a thousand denars⁷⁸Promised by the husband; this does not touch repayment of the dowry., she loses⁷⁹R. Nissim Gerondi (Commentary to Aliasi, 59b in the Wilna edition) reads: נָשִׁים שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ חֲכָמִים אֵין לָהֶן כְּתוּבָּה. כְּגוֹן הַיְתוֹמָה וְהַשְּׁנִייָה וְהָאַייְלוֹנִית. לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מְנָא מָאתַיִים. אֲבָל כְּתוּבָּה שֶׁלְּאֶלֶף דֵּינָר נוֹטֶלֶת “Women about whom they said that they leave without ketubah, as the underage orphan, the secondarily prohibited, and the she-ram, they spoke only about a mina or 200 [zuz] But if the ketubah was a thousand denars, she takes it.” As the commentators of the Babli explain, the obligatory ketubah must be lost since she leaves without ketubah; but any additional sums are voluntary gifts from the husband. The claim to such a voluntary gift can be lost only by criminal behavior of the wife, not by an inherent defect of the marriage which was known to the husband at the time he made the promise.
Naḥmanides (Sefer Hazzekhut, in Alfasi, loc. cit.) reads: תַּנֵּי רִבִּי חָנִין בְּרִבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל. נָשִׁים שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ אֵין לָהֶן כְּתוּבָּה יֵשׁ לָהֶן תּוֹסֶפֶת. וּשֶׁאָֽמְרוּ יוֹצְאוֹת שֶׁלֹּא בִכְתוּבָּה אֵין לָהֶן אֲפִילוּ תוֹסֶפֶת. “Rebbi Ḥanin ben Rebbi Samuel stated: Women about whom they said they have no ketubah, receive the additions; but those about whom they said that they leave without ketubah do not even get the additions.” Women who have no ketubah are those whose marriage was invalid from the start, e. g., the underage orphan, the secondarily prohibited, and the she-ram. They receive the voluntary additions as explained above. Women who leave without ketubah are those who are divorced because of their crimes; they lose also the husband’s voluntary gift since they force the husband to divorce them.
Probably one should read in the text: “Rav Ḥanin (known as Rav’s student) in the name of Samuel.” This is consistent with the quote later in the paragraph., but she takes her existing rags⁸⁰Her used clothing; cf. Chapter 5, Notes 224–225.. But the one who leaves because of a bad reputation loses everything⁸¹Including mortmain, the dowry given to the husband as the latter’s property subject to his obligation to return their value in the fixed amount stated in the ketubah document. Nothing is said about paraphernalia, the wife’s separate property which is administered by her husband. The parallel statement of Samuel in the Babli, 101a, agrees that she loses the husband’s additions above the minimal ketubah but is silent about mortmain.. Can she take her paraphernalia⁸²This means her dowry as addition to the ketubah, including mortmain and paraphernalia in the literal sense.? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, she takes. Rebbi Hila said, she does not take. Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yasa, Rebbi Abba bar Cohen mention it in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: Both women about whom they said that they leave without ketubah, did they speak about the ketubah of a mina or 200 [zuz]? But even if the ketubah was a thousand denars, she loses⁸³This text does not make too much sense. Probably one should read something similar to the text of Tosephta 7:7: כָּל־אֵילּוּ שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ. יוֹצְאוֹת שֶׁלֹּא בִכְתוּבָּה. לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא מְנָא מָאתַיִים אָלָּא אֲפִילוּ הָֽיְתָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ שֶׁלְּאֶלֶף דֵּינָר מְאַבֶּדֶת אֶת־הַכֹּל וְנוֹטֶלֶת בְּלָאיוֹת שֶׁמּוֹצָא לְפָנֶיהָ. “[Women] about whom they said that they leave without ketubah, they spoke not only about a mina or 200 [zuz], but even if the ketubah was a thousand denars, she loses everything, but she takes her used clothing..” The Tosephta can be quoted in support of R. Hila that she takes anything that clearly is her property at that moment (her personal effects and the paraphernalia proper) but the husband is not required to return her mortmain which has become his property; her claim to it is voided.. Rebbi Simon said, Rebbi Joḥanan: All the Mishnaiot⁸⁴All Mishnaiot on the topic why a women should be divorced. are connected to this baraita. Rebbi Mana said before Rebbi Yasa: About which baraita? Of Rebbi Ḥanin from Samuel⁸⁵Since this is clearly formulated as Amoraic opinion of a single person, it cannot be the central topic of a whole series of Mishnaiot.? He said to him, it is everybody’s opinion. And Rebbi Ḥiyya formulated so⁸⁶Tosephta 7:7.: “Women who infringe upon the law lose everything.

Rebbi Eleazar in the name of Rebbi Ḥanina⁸⁷In the opinion of S. Abramson, the name should be Ze‘ira ben Ḥanina, an Amora contemporary with rabbis Yose and Mana mentioned later in the text. Cf. בירורם ,שרגא אברמסון, Sinai 89 (1981) pp. 118–121.: If they saw her putting on her underpants⁸⁸Cf. Soṭah 1:2, Note 115. and the pedlar leaves her house, the thing is ugly, she should leave⁸⁹In the Babli, Yebamot 24b–25a, this and the following statements are by R. Ḥiyya (the elder) quoting the authority of Rebbi. In all these cases, where adultery is not proven by two witnesses to the act, one implies that the woman can be divorced without payment of the ketubah since the acts describe a high probability of adultery, which is admissible proof in money matters and does not need prior warning.. There is slime on her bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. There is slime on his⁹⁰The other man’s. bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. His sandal is in front of her bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Her sandal is in front of his⁹⁰The other man’s. bed, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Both leave the same dark place, the thing is ugly, she should leave. They lift one another from the cistern, the thing is ugly, she should leave. Both of them clap on her thighs in the bathhouse⁹¹Where everybody is naked. Mishnah 9 implies that the use of public thermal baths was separate by sex; then the reference would be to lesbian relationships which, while not forbidden (cf. Yebamot 8:6, Note 240) are generally classified as undesirable., the thing is ugly, she should leave. Ḥanina bar Iqa in the name of Rebbi Jehudah, in all these cases, if she brings an explanation for her behavior she is believed. Rav Ada bar Aḥawa in the name of Rav: A case came before Rebbi and he said, what of it⁹²It seems to mean that Rebbi did not want to see the courts involved as long as the testimony did not amount to a legal proof. Some commentators of the Babli read the sentence as referring to the woman’s explanation, that Rebbi would not accept any explanation except a legal disproof (cf. R. Yosef Ḥabiba, Nimmuqe Yosef, on Alfassi Yebamot,6a in the Wilna edition.)? They asked before him⁹³This seems to refer to the person mentioned at the head of this paragraph Note 87.: Even if they saw him putting his mouth on her mouth? He said, this did happen, that they saw a man⁹⁴A man other than the husband. putting his mouth on her mouth. The case came befote Rebbi Yose, who said that she should leave without ketubah. Her relatives appealed the case and said, if she is deviant⁹⁵A proven adulteress. Since there is no legal proof, she should take the entire ketubah amount if the husband divorces her.
A document in which כתובה and פרנה are used interchangeably was published by S, Asaph, Tarbiz 9(1938), #1, p. 25., she should leave without ketubah. If she is not deviant, she should take the entire ketubah. Rebbi Mana said to them, bring the ketubah that we may read it. They brought the ketubah and found written in it⁹⁶About this ketubah text which gives the wife the right to force a divorce in exchange for a predetermined financial reward for the husband, see the details in Note 226, Chapter 5.: If this X marries this Y as her husband and should no longer desire his company, she shall take half the ketubah sum. Rebbi Abun said, since she agreed that he⁹⁴A man other than the husband. should put his mouth on her mouth it is as if she hated him; she has only half the ketubah. She lies in his bosom⁹⁷For Aramaic חוּבָּה = Hebrew חיק, cf. Targum Yerušalmi Ex. 4:6,7. A less likely explanation would be “hideout”, derived from the Hebrew root חבא “to hide”. In the cases mentioned here, there are witnesses but the parties are fully clothed. or he lies in her bosom, she is deviant⁹⁸And may be divorced without claim to the ketubah.. If they embrace, she is deviant. If they kiss, she is deviant. If the door is locked, she is deviant. If it is blocked⁹⁹Not locked, but some obstacle would have to be removed before a third party could enter the room., that is a problem¹⁰⁰The wife has not lost her right to sue for the ketubah amount but the outcome of the suit cannot be guaranteed..