Ketubot 74: Broken Vows; Consequences

A yevama is a woman whose husband died before they had any children; she is bound to marry one of his brothers unless she performs the ritual of chalitza.  If a yevama has not performed chalitza, she continues to be bound to her yavam.  But what if the yevama was a minor girl?  The rabbis argue that if a husband knows that "betrothal of a minor girl is nothing," then intercourse with her when she is an adult is done as betrothal.  However, if a man does not know that "betrothal of a minor girl is nothing," then when he has intercourse with her as an adult it is on the basis of the validity of the initial betrothal.  In that case, yibum is not possible.

Similarly, the rabbis discuss whether misunderstandings regarding performing chalitza or other rituals allow the rituals to take effect.  For example, if an ignorant yavam believes that performing chalitza allows him to marry his yevama, the ritual is still valid and thus the couple cannot marry through yibum.  Rabbi Yochanan disagrees: it is the intention of both parties that determines whether or not the chalitza is valid.  

The rabbis discuss what should be done when conditions are waived; when conditions are broken.  And what are the details of the conditions, anyhow?  Are they valid?   Do the contracts - in this case, the contract of either marriage or breaking the bond between a yavam and a yevama - hold up in such cases?  

We are reminded that contracts with conditions are discussed with reference to the tribes of Dan and Gad, to whom Moses promised land if they would do the fighting.  One is not permitted to transfer responsibility of fulfilling such contracts to a third party; an agent.

Sexual intercourse cannot be transferred to a third party or an agent, the rabbis remind us.  They determine that a condition can be stipulated through sexual intercourse, but only by the two parties involved. The rabbis are careful about sexual intercourse used as betrothal.  In some cases, even though a condition might not have been met and the couple had intercourse regardless, she might require a divorce.  In other cases, the marriage might be valid.

The rabbis consider the differences and similarities between blemishes that are removed by doctors after betrothal and vows that are absolved by halachic authorities.  Vows that are absolved are as if they never existed.  Blemishes now removed were in fact present at the time of betrothal.  If men stipulated that they wished for no vows or no blemishes upon their wives, later absolution/healing might not validate their prior betrothals.  Interestingly, a note points out that a woman who knowingly hides a vow or blemish in such a case might be demonstrating an unwillingness to marry, and thus the betrothal is invalidated.

Our daf ends with a description of actions and their consequences: when a man divorces his wife and cannot remarry her.  The rabbis consider seriously the possibility that husbands will use the halachot around vows to unfairly mistreat their wives.  They try to protect women from such behaviour.