Blemishes TB Ketubot 75

Kadosh is generally translated as holy. I learned from the great British anthropologist Mary Douglas in her book Purity and Danger the meaning of the word kadosh. Beyond being separate, kadosh has the connotation of being whole, pure, unadulterated, and perfect. Since God is kadosh, the altar, the sacrificial animal, and the kohen, priest, must strive to represent this expansive definition of kadosh. Consequently, the Torah in parshat Emor (Leviticus 21:16-22) enumerates the physical blemishes of a kohen to offer up sacrifices upon the altar. They are:

These blemishes include:

1.   blindness

2.   lameness

3.   an excessively low nasal bridge (such that a straight brush could apply ointment to both eyes simultaneously)

4.   disproportionate limbs

5.   a crippled foot or hand

6.   cataracts

7.   a white streak that transverses the junction between sclera and iris

8.   certain types of boils

9.     crushed testicles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disqualifications_for_the_Jewish_priesthood)

I’m uncomfortable with today’s Gemara’s discussion about blemishes in women. These discussions were held by men concerning women who were not their equal. I am just reporting what the Gemara says. Hopefully nobody answers a marriage today with such conditions.

Today’s daf TB Ketubot 75 enumerates other blemishes that would be grounds for divorce when the man betrothed a woman in the condition that she does not have blemishes. “The mishna teaches that all blemishes that disqualify priests disqualify women’s betrothal as well. The Sage taught in the Tosefta (Ketubot 87:9): To these, they added several additional blemishes applying only to women: Sweat, a mole, and a foul odor from the mouth.” (Sefaria.org translation)

When these blemishes occur impacts the efficacy of the condition. “If she has blemishes and she is still in her father’s house, as she has not yet gotten married, the father must bring proof that these blemishes appeared on her after she became betrothed, and therefore his field was flooded, i.e., it is the husband’s misfortune, since she developed the problem after the betrothal. But if she has already gotten married and entered the husband’s domain when her blemishes are discovered, the husband must bring proof that she had these blemishes before she was betrothed, and consequently the transaction of betrothal was a mistaken transaction. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. But the Rabbis say: In what case is this statement, that a husband can claim to have found blemishes in his wife, on account of which he wants to void the betrothal, said? With regard to hidden blemishes. But with regard to visible blemishes, he cannot claim that the betrothal was in error, as he presumably saw and accepted them before the betrothal. And if there is a bathhouse in the city, where all the women go to bathe, even with regard to hidden blemishes he cannot make this claim, because he examines her through the agency of his female relatives. He would have asked one of his relatives to look over the woman he is about to marry.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Why should there be a difference whether the blemishes found in the father’s house or the husband’s house? The first answer of the Gemara is that the Mishna doesn’t represent the view of a single tanna. Rabbi Yehoshua is the author of the first half of the Mishnah because “It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who said in a mishna (12a) with regard to a case when the wife claims that she was raped after her betrothal while her husband says it happened beforehand, that we don’t live from, i.e., we don’t rely on the words of her mouth, but rather she must substantiate her claim.” (Sefaia.org translation) Rabban Gamliel is the author of the second half of the Mishnah. “We arrive at the opinion of Rabban Gamliel, who said that the woman is deemed credible when she says that the incident occurred after the betrothal.” (Sefaria.org translation)