Ketubot

Epilepsy  is regarded as [one of the] concealed bodily defects.  This, however, applies only to attacks which occur at regular periods,  but if they are irregular [epilepsy is regarded] as [one of the] exposed bodily defects. MISHNAH. A MAN IN WHOM BODILY DEFECTS HAVE ARISEN CANNOT BE COMPELLED TO DIVORCE [HIS WIFE]. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: THIS APPLIES ONLY TO MINOR DEFECTS, BUT IN RESPECT OF MAJOR DEFECTS  HE CAN BE COMPELLED TO DIVORCE HER. GEMARA. Rab Judah recited: 'HAVE ARISEN';  Hiyya b. Rab recited: 'Were'.  He who recited 'HAVE ARISEN' [holds that the ruling applies] with even more force [where the defects] 'were',  since [in the latter case the woman] was aware of the facts and acquiesced. He, however, who recited 'Were' [holds that the ruling does] not [apply where the defects] 'have arisen'. We learned: R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: THIS APPLIES ONLY TO MINOR DEFECTS BUT IN RESPECT OF MAJOR DEFECTS HE CAN BE COMPELLED TO DIVORCE HER. Now, according to him who reads, 'HAVE ARISEN  it is quite proper to make a distinction between major defects and minor defects.  According to him, however, who reads, 'were', what [it may be asked] is the difference between major defects and minor ones? Was she not in fact aware [of their existence] and acquiesced?  — She may have thought that she would be able to tolerate them but now she finds that she is unable to tolerate them. These,  R. Simeon b. Gamaliel explained, are major defects: If, for instance, his eye was blinded, his hand was cut off or his leg was broken. It was stated: R. Abba b. Jacob said in the name of R. Johanan: The halachah is in agreement with R. Simeon b. Gamaliel. Raba said in the name of R. Nahman: The halachah is in agreement with the Sages. But could R. Johanan, however, have made such a statement?  Surely Rabbah b. Bar Hana stated in the name of R. Johanan: Wherever R. Simeon b. Gamaliel taught in our Mishnah, the halachah is in agreement with his ruling except [in the cases of] 'guarantor',  'Zidon'  and the 'latter proof'!  — There is a dispute of Amoraim as to what was R. Johanan's view. MISHNAH. THE FOLLOWING ARE COMPELLED TO DIVORCE [THEIR WIVES]: A MAN WHO IS AFFLICTED WITH BOILS, OR HAS A POLYPUS,  OR GATHERS [OBJECTIONABLE MATTER]  OR IS A COPPERSMITH  OR A TANNER,  WHETHER THEY WERE [IN SUCH CONDITIONS OR POSITIONS] BEFORE THEY MARRIED OR WHETHER THEY AROSE AFTER THEY HAD MARRIED. AND CONCERNING ALL THESE R. MEIR SAID: ALTHOUGH THE MAN MADE A CONDITION WITH HER [THAT SHE ACQUIESCES IN HIS DEFECTS] SHE MAY NEVERTHELESS PLEAD, 'I THOUGHT I COULD ENDURE HIM,  BUT NOW I CANNOT ENDURE HIM.'  THE SAGES, HOWEVER, SAID: SHE MUST ENDURE [ANY SUCH PERSON] DESPITE HER WISHES, THE ONLY EXCEPTION BEING A MAN AFFLICTED WITH BOILS, BECAUSE SHE [BY HER INTERCOURSE] WILL ENERVATE HIM. IT ONCE HAPPENED AT ZIDON THAT THERE DIED  A TANNER WHO HAD A BROTHER  WHO WAS ALSO A TANNER. THE SAGES RULED: SHE  MAY SAY, 'I WAS ABLE TO ENDURE  YOUR BROTHER BUT I CANNOT ENDURE YOU'. GEMARA. What [is meant by one] WHO HAS A POLYPUS? — Rab Judah replied in the name of Samuel: [One who suffers from an offensive] nasal smell. In a Baraitha it was taught: [One suffering from] offensive breath.  R. Assi learnt in the reverse order  and supplied the mnemonic, 'Samuel did not cease [studying] all our chapter [with] his mouth'. WHO GATHERS. What [is meant by one] WHO GATHERS? — Rab Judah replied: One who gathers dogs' excrements. An objection was raised: 'One who gathers' means a tanner!  — But even according to your own view,  would not a contra diction arise from our Mishnah [which specifies] OR GATHERS OR IS A COPPERSMITH OR A TANNER?  — One may well explain why our Mishnah  presents no contradiction  because the latter  refers to a great tanner  whilst the former  refers to a small tanner;  but according to Rab Judah the contradiction remains?  — [The definition]  is [a matter in dispute between] Tannaim. For it was taught: 'One who gathers' means a 'tanner'; and others say: It means 'one who gathers dogs' excrements'. OR IS A COPPERSMITH OR A TANNER. What is meant by A COPPERSMITH? — R. Ashi  replied: A kettle-smith.  Rabbah b. Bar Hana explained: One who digs copper from the mine.  It was taught in agreement with Rabbah b. Bar Hana: What is meant by a coppersmith? One who digs copper from the mine. Rab stated: If a husband says, 'I will neither maintain nor support [my wife]', he must divorce her and give her also her kethubah. R. Eleazar went and told this reported statement to Samuel [who] exclaimed, 'Make Eleazar eat barley;  rather than compel him to divorce her let him be compelled to maintain her'. And Rab?  — No one can live with a serpent in the same basket.  When R. Zera went up  he found R. Benjamin b. Japheth sitting [at the college] and reporting this  in the name of R. Johanan.  'For this statement', he said to him, 'Eleazar was told in Babylon to eat barley'. Rab Judah stated in the name of R. Assi:  We do not compel divorce except [in the case of] those who are tainted.  When I mentioned this in the presence of Samuel he remarked, 'As, for instance, a widow [who was married] to a High Priest, a divorced woman or a haluzah  to a common priest, a bastard or a nethinah  to an Israelite, or the daughter of an Israelite to a nathin  or a bastard; but if a man married a woman and lived with her ten years and she bore no child he cannot be compelled [to divorce her]'. R. Tahlifa b. Abimi, however, stated in the name of Samuel: Even the man who married a woman and lived with her ten years and she bore no child may be compelled [to divorce her]. We learned, THE FOLLOWING ARE COMPELLED TO DIVORCE [THEIR WIVES]: A MAN WHO IS AFFLICTED WITH BOILS OR HAS A POLYPUS. This  is quite justified according to R. Assi, since only Rabbinically forbidden cases were enumerated whilst those which are Pentateuchally forbidden were omitted.  According to R. Tahlifa b. Abimi  however, our Mishnah should also have stated: If a man married a woman and lived with her for ten years and she bore no child he may be compelled [to divorce her].  — R. Nahman replied: This is no difficulty. For in the latter case  [compulsion is exercised] by words; in the former  cases, by whips. R. Abba demurred: A servant will not be corrected by words!  — The fact, however, explained R. Abba, is that in all these cases  [compulsion is exercised] by means of whips