Ketubot 71b (עא:) — the Talmud in English

And that I will not drink wine, and that I will not adorn myself with colored garments.

It follows that Rabbi Yosei held that if she made an unspecified vow not to adorn herself, he cannot annul it for her. If so, why does he send her away and give her her ketuba?

And we answer:

What are we dealing with here?

The Mishna is speaking of a case in which she vowed not to adorn herself

with matters that concern the relationship between him and her.

For example, she vowed not to apply a depilatory that removes the hair in that place. Therefore, in this case, even according to Rabbi Yosei, he can annul the vow for her.

And we raise an objection:

This works according to the one who says—

the husband can annul vows concerning matters between him and her,

and according to his view, the husband can indeed annul such a vow.

But according to the one

who says that with regard to matters between him and her

the husband cannot annul the vow, what can be said?

Why, according to Rabbi Yosei, does he give her her ketuba? After all, he cannot annul her vow.

And where did they disagree about this?

As it was stated: With regard to matters between him and her, Rav Huna said: The husband can annul the vow.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The husband cannot annul the vow.

Since

we have never found a fox that died from the dust of its den

[We have never found a fox that died because it stumbled in the dust at the opening of its den. Similarly, with regard to matters between him and her, a man is familiar with his wife and knows how to take care of himself; he is not harmed by her failure to remove the hair in that place, and there is no reason to allow him to annul her vow].

And we answer:

Rather, what are we dealing with here? For example, she made her adornments dependent upon marital relations .

For she said: “The benefit of your marital relations shall be forbidden to me if I adorn myself.”

The vow takes effect, even though her marital relations belong to her husband and she cannot make a vow prohibiting them to him . In any event, she can prohibit herself from benefiting from marital relations, and then her husband is forbidden to engage in relations with her, since one may not feed a person something that is forbidden to him.

A proof of this is brought

as Rav Kahana said.

For Rav Kahana said:

A woman who said, "

“Konam,

the benefit of my marital relations is forbidden to you”—

the husband compels

her,

and engages in relations with her.

Since the marital relations do not belong to her, she cannot prohibit them.

But if she said, “Konam,

the benefit of your marital relations is forbidden to me,” he shall annul

her vow, since if he does not annul it, she will be forbidden to him.

For one may not feed a person something that is forbidden to him.

Similarly, in our case, she said, “Konam, the benefit of my marital relations is forbidden to you if I adorn myself.” The husband can annul this vow, since if he does not annul it, she will become forbidden to him with regard to marital relations. And if he does not annul it, he sends her away and gives her her ketuba.

The matter still requires explanation: Why can he annul the vow? After all, it does not concern him, since he can restrain her

and she will not adorn herself and will not become forbidden

to him with regard to marital relations?

And we answer: She cannot restrain herself from adorning herself, since

if she does so, her

neighbors will call her

repulsive .

Therefore, it is certain that she will adorn herself and become forbidden to him with regard to marital relations. Consequently, he can annul her vow, and if he does not annul it, he sends her away and gives her her ketuba.

And

it is still difficult: Why does he send her away immediately?

Let her adorn herself and become forbidden

with regard to marital relations, and let him wait—

either, according to Beit Shammai, two weeks, or, according to Beit Hillel, one week.

This is the rule concerning one who prohibits his wife from marital relations.

And we answer:

These words

—that he can wait one or two weeks—apply specifically

when he himself imposed the vow.

Then she can endure one or two weeks, since

she reasons: He became angry with me, but now he may regain his composure.

[Previously he was angry with me, but afterward perhaps his mind will settle and he will return to loving me].

But here, where she made the vow and he remained silent, she reasons—

“Since he remained silent, he must truly hate me.”

[Since he does not care at all about the vow I made, it appears that he hates me, and I cannot live with him even for a moment]. Therefore, he sends her away immediately and gives her her ketuba.

We learned in the Mishna: One who prohibits his wife by vow from adorning herself with any of the types of adornment must send her away and give her her ketuba,

Rabbi Yosei says: For a poor woman, when he did not set a limit.

The Gemara explains:

And what is the limit?

That is, if he set a limit, how long may he refrain from being compelled to send her away?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

Up to

twelve months .

Rabba bar bar Ḥana said

in the name of

Rabbi Yoḥanan:

Up to

ten years.

Rav Ḥisda said

in the name of

Avimi:

Until the

pilgrimage Festival, for Jewish women adorn themselves on the pilgrimage Festival.

We learned in the Mishna: “One who prohibits his wife by vow from adorning herself with any of the types of adornment; Rabbi Yosei says: For a poor woman, when he did not set a limit,

and for a wealthy woman, thirty days.”

The Gemara explains:

What is different about thirty days?

Do wealthy women not certainly adorn themselves every day? Therefore, according to the first tanna, he should send her away immediately. Why, then, did Rabbi Yosei give them thirty days?

Abaye said: For a distinguished woman enjoys the fragrance of her adornments

with which she adorned herself before the vow for

thirty days.

Therefore, he is not compelled to send her away until that time.

Mishna:

One who prohibits his wife by vow from going to her father’s house ,

when he is

[her father]

with her in the same city: for one month—

he may maintain the marriage; for two—

he must send her away and give her her ketuba.

Since, when her father and mother are in the city, she cannot refrain from visiting them for more than one month.

And when he is in another city: one pilgrimage Festival ,

he may maintain the marriage; for three, he must send her away and give her her ketuba.

One who prohibits his wife by vow from going to a house of mourning or to a house of celebration must send her away and give her her ketuba

immediately ,

because he humiliates her.

The Gemara will explain that if she does not go to the house of mourning or to the house of celebration, they will not come to her to accompany her after her death.

But if he claimed that it was for another reason,

that is, he prohibited her because promiscuous people are commonly found there, as the Gemara will explain,

he is permitted.

He said to her

[he prohibited her]—

“On condition that you tell so-and-so what you said to me, or what I said to you,”

that is, matters involving disgrace,

or that you fill [a vessel] and pour it into the refuse heap,

as the Gemara will explain,

he must send her away and give her her ketuba.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: When he is in another city, for one pilgrimage Festival he may maintain the marriage; for three, he must send her away and give her her ketuba.

And we raise an objection:

This itself is difficult:

At the beginning of your statement,

you said—

“For one pilgrimage Festival he may maintain the marriage,”

and it implies—

for two, he must send her away and give her her ketuba.

Consider the latter clause—

“For three ,

he must send her away and give her her ketuba,”

and it implies—

for two, he may maintain the marriage.

If so, you have contradicted yourself within the same statement.

And we answer:

Abaye said:

Certainly, the law follows the first clause: after two pilgrimage Festivals, he must send her away and give her her ketuba.

But

the latter clause,

from which we inferred that he is not obligated to send her away after two pilgrimage Festivals,

refers to the wife of a kohen,

[a kohen’s wife],

and it is Rabbi Yehuda’s

view, which grants the kohen a longer period so that he will not divorce her and then, when he regrets it and wishes to take her back, be unable to do so.

Rabba bar Ulla said:

There is no difficulty: here it is referring to a woman who is eager to go, and here it is referring to one who is not eager to go.

That is, the first clause speaks of a woman who is eager to go to her father’s house, and therefore after two months he must send her away and give her her ketuba.

The latter clause speaks of a woman who is not so eager to go to her father’s house, and therefore he sends her away and gives her her ketuba only after three months.

Incidentally, the Gemara explains several verses that concern the relationship of a bride with her father’s household.

It is stated in Song of Songs: “I am a wall, and my breasts are like towers,”

“then I was in his eyes as one who finds peace,”

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

What is the meaning of “as one who finds peace”?

Like a bride who is found to be whole in her father-in-law’s house, and who is eager to go and proclaim her praise in her father’s house .

”?

It is stated in Hosea:

“And it shall be on that day, the utterance of the Lord, that you will call Me: My Husband, and you will no longer call Me: My Master.”

Rabbi Yoḥanan said:

What is the difference between the expression “My Husband” and the expression “My Master”?

And he explains: The expression “My Husband” denotes marital union and marriage,

like a bride in her father-in-law’s house

after she has married, when she is not ashamed before her husband.

And not like a bride in her father’s house,

before she is married, when she is ashamed before her husband and calls him only by the expression “my master.”

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who prohibits his wife

from going to a house of mourning or to a house of celebration must send her away and give her her ketuba.”

And we raise an objection:

Granted,

when he prohibited her from going

to a house of celebration,

he must send her away and give her her ketuba,