If a man marries a woman without making any specific condition about this matter, and it is discovered that she is bound by vows— she leaves the marriage without a , neither the basic amount nor the additional amount.
The marriage agreement is treated as a —an arrangement entered into under mistaken assumptions. He did not expect to marry a woman subject to vows of the kind described below. Nevertheless, because he did not make the matter an explicit condition of the , a formal is still required.
?,,,.
Which vows are included in this rule? A vow that she will not eat meat, or that she will not drink wine, or that she will not adorn herself with colored garments, and the same applies to other forms of adornment customarily used by the women of that locale.
These are considered vows involving significant personal deprivation. Because they restrict ordinary food or customary adornment, they can make married life substantially more difficult.
,.
But if she is found to have some other vow apart from these, she loses nothing.
Only vows of the type the identifies here are significant enough to affect the financial assumptions of the marriage.
Synopsis
If a woman was already bound by certain significant vows affecting ordinary married life and the husband married her without knowing of them, she may be divorced without either the basic or additional . Other vows do not cause her to forfeit her .
Similarly, if a man marries a woman without making a specific condition regarding physical blemishes, and she is found to have one of the blemishes affecting women that were explained earlier, and the husband did not know of this blemish and had not heard about it and accepted it— she leaves the marriage without a , neither the basic amount nor the additional amount.
Here, “blemish” means one of the physical conditions recognized in this legal category; it is not a judgment about a person’s character or worth. The earlier list appears in 7:7. As in the previous , the issue is a mistaken assumption when entering marriage. If he knew of the condition and accepted it, he cannot later use it to avoid the .
?-״״,,,
How is this determined? If there was a bathhouse in the city and he had relatives there— he cannot claim, “I did not know about these blemishes,” even when the blemishes were normally hidden, because he investigates through his relatives,
In practice, female relatives could learn of even hidden blemishes through the bathhouse and report them to him.
.
and we therefore presume that he heard about the blemish and accepted it.
The bathhouse provides a realistic way for information about even normally hidden blemishes to become known before the marriage.
-.
But if there was no bathhouse there, or he had no relatives there— he may claim that he was unaware of blemishes that were hidden.
In that setting, there is no comparable basis to presume that he had a realistic way of learning about them before the marriage.
,.
Recurring epileptic seizures that occur at known intervals are considered a hidden blemish.
Because the episodes arise only at particular times, the condition may not be apparent in ordinary public interaction.
,,,.
But with regard to blemishes that are ordinarily visible, he cannot claim that he was unaware of them, because everyone can see them and would tell him about them, so we presume that he heard about them and accepted them.
This presumption depends on social circumstances in which the woman was ordinarily seen and recognized.
,״״
It is understood that this rule applies only in places where women customarily walk in the marketplace with their faces uncovered, and everyone recognizes them and says, “This is so-and-so’s daughter,”
״,.
or, “This is so-and-so’s sister,” as was the practice in the cities of in the ’s time.
The legal presumption depends on whether the blemish realistically would have become known in that society.
,,,-
But in places where girls do not ordinarily go out to the marketplace at all, and when a girl goes to the bathhouse in the evening, she goes out concealed, so that no one other than her relatives sees her—
.
the husband may claim lack of knowledge even regarding blemishes that would ordinarily be visible.
A blemish can be “visible” in itself yet still be effectively hidden from a prospective husband if local customs prevented him or others from seeing the woman.
,.
This applies when there was no bathhouse there, or when he had no female relative who could investigate for him.
,-,.
But if there was a bathhouse in such a city where women did not ordinarily go out with their faces uncovered, and he had a female relative there— he cannot claim that he did not know, because the women at the bathhouse would see her body there.
The relevant question throughout is practical access to reliable information, not merely whether a blemish is classified abstractly as “visible” or “hidden.”
,,,-
But if the women customarily remain concealed even in the bathhouse, or the girl bathes at night, or alone in a small private room within the bathhouse, so that she is neither seen nor known—
.
the husband may claim lack of knowledge even regarding normally visible blemishes.
,.
These rules follow reason and practical circumstances, and are not fixed decrees derived from Scripture.
The categories therefore depend on whether the husband realistically could be presumed to have learned of the blemish and accepted it.
Synopsis
An undisclosed blemish can cause a woman to lose her when the husband reasonably could not have known of it beforehand. Whether he is presumed to have known depends on how visible the condition was and whether local circumstances gave him a realistic way to investigate it.
Whether Friends Can Investigate in Place of Relatives
,״״-,.
Some of the ruled that when the Sages said, “because he investigates through his relatives,” they did not mean only his relatives, but also his acquaintances.
According to this view, the presumption that a husband could have investigated does not depend specifically on having family in the city.
-,;,
Therefore, even if he lived in the city and had no relatives there at all— if there was a bathhouse there, he could not claim that he was unaware of the blemish; because it is unlikely that he would have no friends, and he could ask one of them
,.
to have his wife or sister investigate the woman for him, so we would presume that he heard of the condition and accepted it.
,,.
But this ruling does not appear correct to me, because a person does not disclose all of his private concerns about matters like these to everyone, but rather to his relatives.
The distinguishes between having someone technically available to investigate and having someone with whom a man would realistically discuss sensitive concerns about a prospective marriage.
,.
Moreover, a person does not place the same degree of reliance except particularly on the word of his relatives.
For the presumption of prior knowledge to arise, the source of information must be someone upon whom he would actually rely regarding such a private matter.
Synopsis
Some held that friends could investigate a prospective wife’s condition just as relatives could. The disagrees, reasoning that a man would normally discuss such sensitive concerns, and place sufficient trust in the answers, specifically with close relatives.
🔎Dig DeeperWhether Friends Can Investigate in Place of Relatives
Whether Friends Can Investigate in Place of Relatives
The , 117:5–6, follows the ’s view that this presumption depends on relatives through whom the husband would realistically investigate.
follows the broader approach attributed to the , under which friends can also create the presumption that the husband had an opportunity to investigate. The records this differing opinion in 117:6.
How is a claim concerning physical blemishes evaluated?
is the legally binding first stage of marriage, not an ordinary engagement; completes the marriage. The answer depends first on whether the blemish certainly preceded or could have developed later. When the timing is uncertain, the woman’s legal status before or after affects the burden of proof. The father is involved in the case of a daughter still under his legal authority, where the claim belongs to him; an adult woman makes her own claim.
,-
If the blemishes found on her were blemishes that certainly existed before she became an , such as an extra finger or a comparable condition—
There is no factual uncertainty about when such a condition began. The question is whether the husband knew of it and accepted it.
,;
the burden of proof is on the father to show that the husband knew about the blemishes and accepted them, or that the circumstances create a presumption that he knew.
For example, a blemish that was plainly visible to the prospective husband can itself create such a presumption.
,.
If the father does not bring such proof, she leaves without any at all.
Since the condition certainly existed before she became an and there is no proof that the husband knowingly accepted it, the marriage is treated as having been entered into under mistaken premises.
-
But if the blemishes were of a kind that could have developed after —
the central factual question becomes when they arose.
-,;
if they were discovered after she had entered her husband’s home, the burden of proof is on the husband to show that they existed before the , so that his marriage agreement was entered into under mistaken premises.
Once the blemish is discovered after , the husband must prove that it already existed before . The reference to her husband’s household describes this stage of marriage, rather than making physical location alone decisive.
-,.
But if the blemishes were discovered while she was still in her father’s home, the burden of proof is on the father to show that they developed only after the , in which case the husband must bear the loss.
The ’s expression literally means “his field was flooded.” The idea is that once the marriage bond had already been established, a later development is treated as the husband’s misfortune rather than as a defect in the original agreement.
Synopsis
If a blemish certainly existed before , the party claiming the must establish the husband’s knowledge and acceptance. If its timing is uncertain, the burden of proof depends on the woman’s legal status: after the husband must prove that it preceded ; in the father’s-authority case before , the father must prove that it arose afterward.
🔎Dig DeeperWho Must Prove When a Blemish Began
Who Must Prove When a Blemish Began
The ,117:8, records a qualification in the case where the time when the blemish developed is uncertain and the daughter is still under her father’s authority. If the father makes a definite claim that it developed after , some authorities place the burden of proof on the husband.
The ,117:15, explains that this contrasts with a father who cannot make a definite claim about the timing. The qualification concerns when the blemish arose, not a definite claim that the husband knew of and accepted an earlier blemish.
When the Husband’s Acceptance of a Blemish Is Proven
,,
If the husband brings proof that the blemishes existed before she became an , or this fact was acknowledged to him,
the husband has established that the condition was already present before the .
,-
but the father then brings proof that the husband saw the blemishes, remained silent, and thereby accepted them, or that the circumstances create a presumption that he knew of them and accepted them—
Proof that the blemish predated is not enough by itself to release the husband from the . If he knew of the condition and nevertheless proceeded without objection, he is treated as having accepted it.
.
he is obligated to pay her .
Once acceptance is established, the blemish can no longer be treated as a mistaken premise of the marriage.
Synopsis
Even when a blemish certainly existed before , the husband remains liable for the if it is proven—or reasonably presumed—that he knew of the condition and accepted it before proceeding with the marriage.
When a Husband Can No Longer Claim He Was Unaware of a Blemish
,--.
If a husband had marital relations with his wife and then remained with her for several days, and afterward claimed, “I did not notice this blemish until now”— even if the blemish was hidden within the folds of her body or on the sole of her foot— his claim is not accepted.
According to the ’s reading, marital relations themselves establish the presumption that the husband became aware of even a hidden blemish and accepted it. The different reading discussed in Dig Deeper also gives weight to his subsequent delay.
,
For there is a presumption that a person does not drink from a cup without first examining it very carefully,
The is using a euphemism to express the presumption that marital relations ordinarily give the husband sufficient opportunity to become aware of his wife’s physical condition.
.
and we therefore presume that he knew of the blemish and accepted it.
On the ’s reading, the mention of several days is not a separate requirement: the decisive event is marital relations.
Synopsis
The rejects a later claim of ignorance after marital relations and continued married life. The treats relations themselves as decisive; the also gives significance to the husband’s subsequent delay, as explained in Dig Deeper.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen a Husband Can No Longer Claim He Was Unaware of a Blemish
When a Husband Can No Longer Claim He Was Unaware of a Blemish
The ,117:19, identifies a difference between the and the . According to the Kessef Mishneh, the ’s mention of remaining with her for several days is not a separate condition; marital relations establish the presumption of knowledge and acceptance.
According to the Maggid Mishneh’s reading, as explained by the Beit Shmuel, the husband may still claim that he did not know of the blemish after relations alone. His remaining with her afterward establishes the presumption that he knew. The two readings therefore differ about the role of delay.
Sources: Kessef Mishneh on 25:6; Maggid Mishneh on 25:6; Beit Shmuel, 117:19 (comment 19).
Marital Relations When a Woman Has No Fixed Menstrual Pattern
,,
If a man marries a woman and it is discovered that she has no fixed menstrual pattern,
A is a menstrual pattern established under the specific rules for recognizing a recurring cycle. It means more than an approximately regular monthly period.
-,.
and she does not sense its onset in advance until she actually sees menstrual blood— she may not engage in marital relations unless she uses two examination cloths with which she checks herself, one before marital relations and one afterward.
The purpose is to establish that she was not menstruating immediately before relations and to check whether bleeding occurred during or immediately afterward.
,.
In addition, there is the husband’s examination cloth, with which he wipes himself afterward, as will be explained in .
These checks address whether blood appeared in connection with relations. They do not make relations permissible during ; the ordinary requirements for becoming permitted again still apply.
Synopsis
A woman who has no fixed menstrual pattern and receives no advance warning of menstruation must, according to the , check herself before and after marital relations, while her husband also checks afterward.
🔎Dig DeeperMarital Relations When a Woman Has No Fixed Menstrual Pattern
Marital Relations When a Woman Has No Fixed Menstrual Pattern
In 4:16, the requires the stated checks for a woman without a fixed menstrual pattern.
The , 186:2, records the Rambam’s position but favors an opinion requiring this examination procedure until three consecutive occasions of intercourse have passed without blood being found. The qualification “without blood” is essential; simply counting the first three occasions is not enough.
When Repeated Bleeding During Relations Ends the Marriage
,,.
Although this is a significant blemish, she does not lose anything from her rights, because she can first examine herself and then engage in marital relations.
The lack of a fixed menstrual pattern does not itself cancel her rights. Marital relations remain subject to the required checks and the ordinary laws of . The forfeiture described below applies only when the bleeding condition existed from the beginning of the marriage, as Halachah 9 explains.
,-
But suppose she examined herself and then had marital relations, and when she and her husband cleaned themselves afterward, blood was found on her examination cloth or on his—
Because the blood was found immediately after relations, it is treated as having appeared in connection with the act itself.
,,.
if this occurred repeatedly, three consecutive times, she becomes forbidden to remain with her husband.
Each later occasion takes place only after she has become permitted to her husband again. Three consecutive occurrences establish a that relations with this husband trigger bleeding, when there is no other recognized explanation for the blood, such as a wound. These qualifications are discussed in 4:20.
,,;.
She must leave without a , neither the basic amount nor the additional amount, and she is not entitled to any of the standard provisions; because she is no longer fit for marital relations with this husband.
The established pattern prevents continued marital relations with him. It does not establish that the same condition will necessarily occur with another husband.
-,.
He must divorce her and may never remarry her— because perhaps her condition will later heal, which could reveal that at the time of the divorce he had not fully resolved to divorce her.
The concern is that if she later recovered and remarriage were allowed, the husband might say that had he known she would recover, he would never have divorced her. That could cast doubt on whether the original was given with full, unconditional intent. The Sages therefore required the separation to be permanent.
,.
But she is permitted to marry another man, as will be explained in the laws of .
The condition may be connected specifically to relations with this husband. It is therefore possible that the same pattern will not occur with another man.
Synopsis
Three consecutive qualifying occurrences of blood immediately after relations establish a that relations with this husband trigger bleeding. Each later occasion must occur only after she has become permitted again. She must leave this husband and may not remarry him. The forfeiture applies only if the condition existed from the beginning of the marriage, as Halachah 9 explains; the condition does not necessarily prevent marriage to another man.
🔎Dig DeeperWhen Repeated Bleeding During Relations Ends the Marriage
When Repeated Bleeding During Relations Ends the Marriage
The , 117:1, follows the in ruling that she loses even the additional amount. The ,117:1, identifies the and as authorities who disagree and maintain that the voluntary addition should still be paid.
When the Bleeding Condition Developed Only After Marriage
?,;
When does the preceding ruling apply? When this condition existed from the beginning of her marriage, and she experienced bleeding from the very first act of marital relations.
The qualifying bleeding condition must have been present from the beginning. Blood attributable to first intercourse, called , must be distinguished from the recurring condition discussed here; not every instance of blood at first intercourse establishes this condition.
,.
But if this condition developed only after she was married, the husband must bear the loss.
As in Halachah 4, the uses the expression “his field was flooded”: the marriage was valid and workable when it began, and the later development is treated as the husband’s misfortune rather than as a defect in the original arrangement.
,-
Therefore, if they had marital relations once and no blood was found, but afterward she began to experience bleeding whenever they had marital relations—
the fact that the first occasion was normal establishes that the disabling condition arose only later.
.
he must divorce her and pay her entire .
Because the problem arose after the marriage was already functioning normally, she does not lose the financial rights that came with that marriage.
,.
He may never remarry her, as explained above.
The same concern applies that the original divorce must be absolutely final rather than treated as dependent on whether her condition later improves.
Synopsis
If bleeding during relations existed from the beginning of the marriage, the rules of the previous apply. If the condition developed only afterward, the husband bears the loss: he must divorce her and pay the full , while still being prohibited from remarrying her.
Similarly, whenever a woman develops physical blemishes after she is married, even if she becomes afflicted with the severe skin condition called —
The condition arose only after the marriage was already established. It therefore cannot be treated as a hidden defect in the original marriage agreement.
,;,.
if the husband wishes, he may remain married to her; and if he wishes to divorce her, he must pay her .
Because the blemish developed after the marriage, the loss falls upon him. He may choose to remain married, but if he chooses divorce, he cannot avoid the on the ground that the condition now makes the marriage less desirable.
Synopsis
Physical blemishes that arise only after marriage do not undermine the original marriage agreement. The husband may remain married if he wishes, but if he divorces her he must pay the .
When a Husband Develops Physical Blemishes After Marriage
,,-.
If a husband develops physical blemishes after he marries, even if his hand is amputated or his foot, or he becomes blind in one eye, and his wife no longer wishes to remain with him— we do not compel him to divorce her and pay her .
These conditions arose only after the marriage. Unlike the cases described below, they are not treated as circumstances that give the wife the right to compel a divorce with her .
,,;,.
Rather, if she wishes, she may remain married to him; and if she does not wish to remain, she leaves without a , like any wife who is considered a .
“Leaves” does not mean that she can end the marriage on her own. A formal is still required, and the financial rules of a apply, as discussed in 14:8.
,,,,-
But if he develops persistent bad breath, or a foul odor from his nose, or he begins collecting dog excrement, or mining copper from its source, or tanning hides—
These conditions or occupations create a persistent foul odor that can make ordinary married life intolerable.
.
we compel him to divorce her and pay her .
If she wishes to leave because of one of these conditions, she is entitled to compel the divorce rather than being treated as a .
-.
But if she wishes, she may remain with her husband.
The right to compel divorce belongs to her; she is not forced to exercise it.
154:1 records the view that if she knew before marriage of one of these conditions or occupations and nevertheless married him, she cannot later use that known circumstance to compel divorce. This qualification is distinct from the ’s own wording here.
Synopsis
Ordinary physical blemishes that arise in the husband after marriage do not allow the wife to compel divorce with her . Certain persistent foul-smelling conditions or occupations are different: if she wishes to leave, the husband can be compelled to divorce her and pay the .
🔎Dig DeeperWhen a Husband Develops Physical Blemishes After Marriage
When a Husband Develops Physical Blemishes After Marriage
The ,154:4, records a view treating far more severe physical losses differently: loss of both eyes, both hands, or both feet can be grounds to compel divorce.
The prior-knowledge qualification is recorded separately in 154:1. It concerns a wife who knowingly married a man with one of the listed conditions or occupations, rather than a condition that first developed afterward.
If the husband becomes afflicted with the severe skin condition called , we compel him to divorce his wife and pay her .
This case is more severe than the physical blemishes of the previous .
,,,.
Even if she wishes to remain married to him, we do not accept her request, but instead separate them against their will, because she causes his condition to worsen.
The is discussing the particular severe condition called , not every chronic skin illness. Marital relations aggravate this condition and endanger him. The couple must therefore separate unless reliable safeguards prevent relations.
״״-.
But if she says, “I will remain with him under witnessed supervision so that he will not have marital relations with me”— we accept her request.
She proposes remaining with him under supervision sufficient to ensure that they will not have marital relations. Since this addresses the physical danger that required separation, she may remain with him.
Synopsis
For the particular condition called , the couple must ordinarily separate because marital relations would worsen his condition. If the wife proposes remaining with him under reliable supervision that prevents relations, her request is accepted.
When the Has the Same Difficult Condition as Her Husband
,,,,,-
If a woman’s husband suffered from persistent bad breath or a foul odor from his nose, or was a collector of dog excrement, or had another comparable condition, and he died, so that she became subject to with his brother, and the brother has the same condition that her husband had— she may say,
״,״.
“I was able to accept this condition in your brother, but I cannot accept it in you.”
Her willingness to live with this difficulty in her original husband does not mean that she accepted the same difficulty in every future marriage. Her attachment and commitment were to that particular husband.
.
The must perform and she receives her .
This case assumes that her husband died without descendants, leaving a bond to his brother. is marriage between the widow and that brother; is the formal procedure that releases this bond. She cannot be compelled to enter merely because she tolerated the same condition in her deceased husband. Her is paid from the deceased husband’s estate.
Synopsis
A widow is not required to accept in a the same severe condition she willingly tolerated in her deceased husband. She may refuse , receive , and collect her from her late husband’s estate.
Printer’s Closing Addition
״
“May you see children born to your children, peace upon Israel.”
The verse is 128:6. Some suggest that this closing verse was added by a printer so that the work would end on a positive note.
This closing verse is presented separately from the ’s thirteen as a later printer’s addition.
Translation and elucidation: Independently prepared for Rambam, Clearly in contemporary English. Translation follows the Rambam’s words; elucidation supplies only the context needed to understand them.
Word cards and glossary: Hebrew word cards distinguish a word’s basic meaning from its meaning in the particular phrase. Shared glossary entries explain recurring terms; biography entries identify the cited authorities.
Explain and Background: Explain provides context needed for the ruling. Optional Background panels provide additional context that can be skipped without losing the essential explanation.
Synopsis: A short summary follows each halachah. It is a guide to the central ruling, not a replacement for the full text and its qualifications.
Dig Deeper: Based on the classic commentaries named inside each panel. Editorial explanations are not presented as quotations.
Live It: Where present, these panels connect a particular halachah to a suggested personal reflection and an action to try. Original applications are labeled as suggested reflections. They are distinct from the ruling and are not attributed to the Rebbe merely because his guidance supports seeking a practical lesson.
Measurements: Modern equivalents draw on Chabad.org’s measurement glossary and cited halachic calculations. They show a range when major accepted calculations differ. Monetary equivalents fluctuate with the price of silver.
The Rebbe’s teachings and guidance: Source links accompany the completion teachings and the guidance inside Dig Deeper and Live It. Quotations, translations, and adaptations are identified; the general guidance is separate from the sources for a panel’s particular discussion.
Editorial responsibility: Created and prepared for this project by Levi Gelb. Corrections and suggestions can be submitted below. This presentation supports learning; practical halachic questions should be brought to a qualified rav.
Chapter 25 at a glance
Conditions, acceptance, and financial rights
The chapter distinguishes conditions present at marriage from later developments, and explains when knowledge, acceptance, and proof determine rights.
If a woman was already bound by certain significant vows affecting ordinary married life and the husband married her without knowing of them, she may be divorced without either the basic or additional . Other vows do not cause her to forfeit her .
If a blemish certainly existed before , the party claiming the must establish the husband’s knowledge and acceptance. If its timing is uncertain, the burden of proof depends on the woman’s legal status: after the husband must prove that it preceded ; in the father’s-authority case before , the father must prove that it arose afterward.
If bleeding during relations existed from the beginning of the marriage, the rules of the previous apply. If the condition developed only afterward, the husband bears the loss: he must divorce her and pay the full , while still being prohibited from remarrying her.
Ordinary physical blemishes that arise in the husband after marriage do not allow the wife to compel divorce with her . Certain persistent foul-smelling conditions or occupations are different: if she wishes to leave, the husband can be compelled to divorce her and pay the .
A widow is not required to accept in a the same severe condition she willingly tolerated in her deceased husband. She may refuse , receive , and collect her from her late husband’s estate.
פרק כה
End of chapter.
You have reached the end of all thirteen halachos.