Ketubot 71b — the Talmud in English

“And that I shall not drink wine, and that I shall not adorn myself in colored garments.”

It follows that Rabbi Yosei held that if she vowed without qualification that she would not adorn herself, he cannot annul it for her. If so, why does he divorce her and give her the ketuba?

And we answer:

“Here, with what are we dealing,”

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

“with things that are between him and her.”

For example, that she would not apply a substance that removes the hair from that place. Therefore, in this case, even according to Rabbi Yosei he can annul it for her .

And we raise an objection concerning it:

“This works well according to the one who says”—

“the husband annuls things that are between him and her,”

and according to his view it is indeed possible for the husband to annul such a vow.

“But according to the one”

who says that concerning things that are between him and her

“the husband does not annul, what is there to say?”

Why, according to Rabbi Yosei, does he give her her ketuba? Is it not the case that he cannot annul her vow?

And where did they disagree about this?

For it was stated: With regard to things that are between him and her, Rav Huna said: The husband annuls.

Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The husband does not annul.

Since

“we have not found a fox that dies from the dust of a den” [A0024]we have not found a fox that died because it stumbled over the dust of the hole of its den. Here too, with regard to things that are between him and her, a person is familiar with his wife and knows how to take care, and he is not harmed by her not removing the hair from that place; therefore there is no reason that we should allow him to annul the vow for her.

we have not found a fox that died because it stumbled in the dust at the entrance to its den. Likewise here, in a matter between him and her, a man knows his wife and knows how to take precautions. He is not harmed by her failure to remove the hair of that place, so there is no reason to allow him to annul her vow]].

And we answer:

“Rather, here, with what are we dealing? For example, when she made her adornments dependent upon marital intercourse” .

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

And the vow takes effect, even though her intercourse belongs to her husband and she cannot make a vow concerning it ; in any event, she can prohibit upon herself the benefit of intercourse, and then it is forbidden for her husband to have intercourse with her, since one does not feed a person something that is forbidden to him.

And proof of this:

as Rav Kahana said.

For Rav Kahana said:

The woman who said, “

a konam,

the benefit of my intercourse is forbidden to you”—

he compels

her husband

and has intercourse with her.

Since the intercourse does not belong to her, and she cannot prohibit it.

But if she said, “A konam,

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

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

because one does not feed a person something that is forbidden to him.

And similarly in our case, it is speaking of when she said, “A konam, the benefit of my intercourse 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 through intercourse. And if he did not annul it, he divorces her and gives her her ketuba.

And it still needs to be explained: Why can he annul it? Is the matter not unrelated to him, since he can guard her

and she will not adorn herself and will not become forbidden

to him through intercourse?

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

“if so, her neighbors will call her”

neighbors

“repulsive” .

Therefore, it is certain to us that she will adorn herself and become forbidden to him through intercourse; therefore he can annul her vow, and if he did not annul it, he divorces her and gives her her ketuba.

And

it is still difficult: Why does he divorce her immediately?

Let her adorn herself and become forbidden

through intercourse, and let him wait—

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

as is the law concerning one who vows to prohibit his wife from marital intercourse?

And we answer:

“These words”—

that he can wait one or two weeks—apply specifically

“where he imposed the vow upon her.”

Then she can endure one or two weeks, since

“she thinks, ‘He became angry with me, and now he will calm himself.’” [A0068]He was angry with me previously, and afterward perhaps his mind will settle and he will return to loving me.

He was angry with me at first, but afterward perhaps his mind will settle and he will return to loving me.

“But here, where she vowed and he remained silent toward her, she thinks”—

“Since he remained silent, it is hatred that he hates me.” [A0071]From the fact that he does not care at all about what I vowed, it appears that he hates me, and I cannot live with him even for one hour; therefore he divorces her immediately and gives her her ketuba.

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 one hour. Therefore, he must divorce her immediately and give her the marriage contract.

We learned in the Mishna: One who vows to prohibit his wife from adorning herself with any one of the types, he divorces her and gives her her ketuba,

Rabbi Yosei says: In the case of poor women, when he did not set a limit.

The Gemara explains:

“And what is the limit?”

That is to say: If he set a limit, up to what point do we not compel him to divorce her ?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

Up to

twelve months .

Rabba bar bar Hana said

in the name of

Rabbi Yohanan:

Up to

ten years.

Rav Hisda said

in the name of

Avimi:

Until the

Festival, for the daughters of Israel adorn themselves on the Festival.

We learned in the Mishna: “One who vows to prohibit his wife from adorning herself with any one of the types, Rabbi Yosei says: In the case of poor women, when he did not set a limit,

and in the case of wealthy women, thirty days.”

The Gemara explains:

“What is different about thirty days?”

Are wealthy women not certainly adorning themselves every day? Therefore, according to the first tanna, he should divorce her immediately; and why 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 up to

thirty days.

Therefore, we do not compel him to divorce her until then.

Mishna:

One who vows to prohibit his wife from going to her father’s house ,

when he is [A0105]her father

her father]

with her in the city: for one month—

he may maintain the marriage; for two—

he divorces her and gives her her ketuba.

Since, when her father and mother are in the city, she cannot restrain herself from going to them for more than one month.

And when he is in another city: one Festival ,

he may maintain the marriage. Three, he divorces her and gives her her ketuba.

One who vows to prohibit his wife from going to a house of mourning or to a house of feasting, he divorces her and gives her her ketuba

immediately ,

because he humiliates her before her.

And the Gemara will explain: If she does not go to the house of mourning or to the house of feasting, they will also not come to accompany her after her death.

And if he claimed another reason,

that is, he prohibited her because promiscuous people are found there, as the Gemara explains,

he is permitted.

He said to her [A0123]when prohibiting her—

he forbade her]—

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

meaning matters involving disgrace,

“or that you fill and empty into the refuse heap,”

as the Gemara will explain,

he divorces her and gives her her ketuba.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna: When he is in another city, one Festival he may maintain the marriage; three, he divorces her and gives her her ketuba.

And we object:

“This itself is difficult.”

At the beginning of your statement

you said—

“one Festival he may maintain the marriage,”

and it implies—

“two, he divorces her and gives her her ketuba.”

“Say the latter clause”—

“three ,

he divorces her and gives her her ketuba,”

and it implies—

“two, he may maintain the marriage.”

If so, you have contradicted your own statement within itself?

And we answer:

Abaye said,

the law certainly follows the first clause, that after two Festivals he divorces her and gives her her ketuba,

whereas

the latter clause,

from which we deduced that he is not obligated to divorce her after two Festivals,

refers to the wife of a kohen, [A0152]the wife of a kohen,

the wife of a kohein

and it is Rabbi Yehuda,

who gave the kohen a longer period, so that he should not divorce her and afterward, when he regrets it and wishes to take her back, be unable to do so.

Rabba bar Ulla said—

“It is not difficult: Here it is with one eager to go; here it is with one not eager to go.”

That is, the first clause speaks of a woman eager to go to her father’s house, and therefore after two months he divorces her and gives her her ketuba.

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

Incidentally, the Gemara explains several verses dealing with the relationship of a bride with her father’s house.

It is stated in the 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 Yohanan said:

What is “as one who finds peace”?

Like a bride who is found complete in her father-in-law’s house, and 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, says the Lord, you will call Me ‘My Husband,’ and you will no longer call Me ‘My Master.’”

Rabbi Yohanan said:

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

And he explains: The expression “My Husband” is an expression of marriage and wedlock,

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

after she has married, who is not embarrassed before her husband.

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

who is not yet married and is embarrassed before her husband, and calls him only with the expression “My Master.”

We learned in the Mishna

“One who vows to prohibit his wife

from going to a house of mourning or to a house of feasting, he divorces her and gives her her ketuba.”

And we object:

Granted,

when he prohibited her from going

to a house of feasting,

he divorces her and gives her her ketuba,