(Mishnah): If a person told his shaliach, "Go out and betroth for me such-and-such woman in such-and-such place'' and he betrothed her in another place, she is not betrothed.

But if he said, "...and she is in such-and-such place'', she is betrothed.

(Gemara): This Mishnah does not follow R. Eliezer as according to R. Eliezer, she would always be betrothed unless he said, "Only betroth her in such-and-such place'' and he betrothed her in another place.

The Mishnah taught: Even R. Eliezer agrees that she is not betrothed.

"...and she is in such-and-such place'' - even the Rabbanan agree that he has merely given the shaliach directions.

(Mishnah): One who betroths a woman on condition that she has not made any vows and she is found to have made vows, she is not betrothed.

If a man married without making a stipulation and she was later found to have a blemish, she leaves without receiving her Kesubah money, as any blemishes that disqualify a Kohen from Temple service also disqualify a woman.

(Gemara - question): The Mishnah explained that the blemishes that disqualify a Kidushin are those blemishes that disqualify a Kohen; but which vows disqualify a Kidushin?

Answer (R. Yochanan citing R. Shimon ben Yehuzedek): If she vowed not to eat meat or drink wine or wear colored garments. (These are examples of vows of 'inui nefesh' - vows that affect her personal life that could cause her to become rejected in his eyes.)

R. Zeira: Fine linen garments from Beis Shean are considered to be colored garments (even though they are white).

R. Yosi: The Mishnah is referring to when he said to her, "...on condition that there are not vows upon you''; but if he said, "...on condition that there are no vows upon you'', even if she had vowed not to eat carobs (i.e. not inui nefesh), it is a vow that disqualifies the Kidushin.

If she went to a Rav and he permitted her vow, she is betrothed. If she went to a doctor and he healed her, she is not betrothed.

Question: What is the difference between a Rav and a doctor?

Answer: A Sage uproots the vow (entirely as if it did not exist at the time of Kidushin); a doctor only heals from this point and on (so at the time of Kidushin, she had this blemish).

Beraisa: Even if a Rav permitted it, she is not betrothed.

This Beraisa follows R. Elazar of the Mishnah (in Maseches Gitin)...

Mishnah (R. Elazar): If a man divorced his wife because she made a vow, he may not remarry her - as we are concerned that after she remarries, her first husband will regret the divorce and say that if he had known that a Rav could permit the vow, he would not have divorced her. This would annul the Get and turn her children from the second marriage into Mamzerim. R. Meir says that for any vow that requires the permission of a Rav, he may not take her back. If it does not need a Rav, he may take her back.) R. Elazar says they only prohibited in the case that needs a Rav because of the case that does not need - since a person would not wish to disgrace his wife by taking her to Beis Din to permit her vow, he would never go to Beis Din and could not claim that he would have done so. However, if the vow does not need a Rav to permit it as the husband can annul it himself - hafarah, the husband could claim that had he known that he could annul it he would not have divorced her.

Beraisa #1: (If a man betrothed on condition that she had not made any vows and she was found to have made vows that a Rav could permit, if she had not gone to a Rav,) she may marry without a Get.

Beraisa #2: (In such a case) she may not marry without receiving a Get.

Suggestion: It is R. Elazar who permitted her to remarry without a Get and Rabbanan (i.e. R. Meir) did not permit it.

Rejection: Both opinions follow Rabbanan (R. Meir) - the Beraisa that did not allow her to remarry without a Get is certainly like Rabbanan;

The Beraisa that permitted her to remarry without a Get (is also Rabbanan) - since she knows that if she would go to the Rav, he would permit the vow (thereby rendering her married to the first man), she does not go to him - therefore, she may be betrothed without a Get.

Question: What is the reasoning of the Beraisa that she is not permitted to remarry without a Get?

Answer: So that she will not go to the Rav to permit her vow, thereby causing the original Kidushin to take effect retroactively and causing the children from her second marriage to be Mamzerim - therefore she cannot remarry without a Get.

The Mishnah taught: If he married her without making a stipulation (and she was later found to have a blemish, she leaves without receiving her Kesubah money, as any blemishes that disqualify a Kohen from Temple service, also disqualify a woman.)

R. Shimon ben Lakish: The Mishnah is referring to when he betrothed her with a stipulation and then performed nisuin with her without a stipulation, but if he also betrothed her without a stipulation, she receives Kesubah money.

R. Yochanan: Even if he both betrothed and performed nisuin with her without a stipulation, she does not receive Kesubah money.

R. Chiya citing R. Yochanan: She must receive a Get even if he made a stipulation in the betrothal and the nisuin.

Question (R. Zeira to R. Mana): According to R. Shimon ben Lakish, if he betrothed her without a stipulation and divorced her as an arusah (i.e. before nisuin), what is the law?

Suggestion answer (from Mishnah in Maseches Kesubos): "If she already had blemishes in her father's house, her father must bring proof that they did not exist before betrothal (otherwise the betrothal is invalid and she would not receive Kesubah money as it was made under false pretenses).'' However, if he can bring proof, she receives her Kesubah money.

Rejection: Why say that it refers to when he betrothed her without stipulation and divorced her as an arusah?

Answer: From the latter statement there...''We are referring to hidden blemishes, but he cannot claim for visible blemishes (as he could see them himself before the betrothal).''...and if he had made a stipulation, he should even claim for visible blemishes?!

Question (Chevraya to R. Yosa): If the Mishnah is referring to betrothal without stipulation, it will be a question against R. Shimon ben Lakish, as the latter part of the latter statement teaches...

"If she entered the husband's domain, the husband must bring proof (that the blemishes were present before their betrothal).'' However, if he can bring proof, she does not receive Kesubah money. So how could R. Shimon ben Lakish say that she does receive her Kesubah?!

Answer (R. Kohen citing the Rabbanan of Kisarin): The Mishnah is referring to when they had performed nisuin but not yet had relations - when R. Shimon ben Lakish said that if he performed nisuin without stipulation, she does not receive Kesubah money, it was only said when he had also had relations, as one could say that she found favor in his eyes as a result of having relations.

The Mishnah taught: ... as any blemishes that disqualify a Kohen from Temple service, also disqualify a woman.

Beraisa: They added bad breadth, smell of sweat and warts without hairs as blemishes for a woman.

R. Chama bar Ukvah citing R. Yosi ben Chaninah: The Beraisa refers to a wart growing on the face (therefore even without hairs, it is a blemish).

Question: But the earlier Mishnah (in Maseches Kesubos) taught, "...we are referring to hidden blemishes, but he cannot claim for visible blemishes''. Isn't such a wart a visible blemish?

Answer: The wart is often covered by her head covering.

Beraisa: A wart that grows hair, whether it is big or small, on the body or on the face, is considered to be a blemish.

If it does not have hair, it is only a blemish on the face but not on the body.

What does this apply to? A small wart, but for a large one, whether on the body or on the face, it is a blemish.

Question: What is called a big wart?

Answer (R. Shimon ben Gamliel): Up to the size of an Italian isur.

R. Elazar citing R. Chaninah: Like the dinar of the Ararat mountains, which is equivalent to half a gold coin of Israel, i.e. very minimal.

Question (R. Redifah/ R. Yona/ R. Yirmiyah): If a woman was bald with a line of hair from ear to ear, is it considered a blemish?

Suggestion: The Beraisa taught earlier, "They added bad breadth, smell of sweat and warts without hairs as blemishes for a woman.'' However, there is no mention of this blemish, which indicates that it is not a blemish!

Rejection: R. Shmuel son of R. Yosa/R. Bun citing R. Nisa said that it is not a blemish, but it is not in the Beraisa since the Beraisa only mentioned blemishes that are ugly in both a man and a woman, but since this is considered good-looking for a man, even though it is a blemish for a woman, it is not in the list of the Beraisa.

Proof: This is true as old age is considered good-looking for a man but a blemish for a woman, but the Beraisa did not teach that a woman has an extra blemish than a man. Similarly, breasts are attractive for a woman and a blemish for a man, but the Beraisa did not teach that a man has an extra blemish than a woman.