Ketubot

'This field which I have mortgaged to you shall be consecrated after I have redeemed it,' where it is consecrated. R. Shisha son of R. Idi demurred: Are these cases similar? There it  is in his  power to redeem it; but here she has no power to divorce herself. This is rather similar to the case of a man who said to his fellow, 'This field which I have mortgaged to you for ten years  shall be consecrated when I shall have redeemed it', where it becomes consecrated. R. Ashi demurred: Are these cases similar? There  he  has the power to redeem it at least after ten years, but here she has never the power to divorce herself!  — But, replied R. Ashi, you speak of konamoth! Konamoth are different [from ordinary vows] since they effect the consecration of the body  itself;  and [the reason here  is the same] as that of Raba, for Raba stated: Consecration,  leavened food  and manumission  cancel a mortgage.  They  should then  become consecrated forthwith!  — The Rabbis have imparted force to a husband's rights  [over his wife] so that they  shall not become consecrated forthwith. MISHNAH. THE FOLLOWING ARE THE KINDS OF WORK WHICH A WOMAN MUST PERFORM FOR HER HUSBAND: GRINDING CORN, BAKING BREAD, WASHING CLOTHES, COOKING, SUCKLING HER CHILD, MAKING READY HIS BED AND WORKING IN WOOL. IF SHE BROUGHT HIM ONE BONDWOMAN  SHE NEED NOT DO ANY GRINDING OR BAKING OR WASHING. [IF SHE BROUGHT] TWO BONDWOMEN,  SHE NEED NOT EVEN COOK OR SUCKLE HER CHILD. IF THREE, SHE NEED NEITHER MAKE READY HIS BED NOR WORK IN WOOL. IF FOUR, SHE MAY LOUNGE  IN AN EASY CHAIR.  R. ELIEZER SAID: EVEN IF SHE BROUGHT HIM  A HUNDRED BONDWOMEN HE MAY  COMPEL HER TO WORK IN WOOL; FOR IDLENESS LEADS TO UNCHASTITY. R. SIMEON B. GAMALIEL SAID: EVEN  IF A MAN FORBADE HIS WIFE UNDER A VOW TO DO ANY WORK HE MUST DIVORCE HER AND GIVE HER KETHUBAH  TO HER FOR IDLENESS LEADS TO IDIOCY. GEMARA. GRINDING CORN! How could you imagine this?  — Read: Attending to  the grinding.  And if you prefer I might say: With a hand mill. Our Mishnah  does not agree with the view of R. Hiyya. For R. Hiyya taught: A wife [should be taken] mainly for the sake  of her beauty; mainly for the sake  of children.  And R. Hiyya further taught: A wife is mainly for the wearing  of a woman's finery. And R. Hiyya further taught: He who wishes his wife to look graceful  should clothe her in linen garments. He who wishes his daughter to have a bright complexion,  let him, on the approach of her maturity, feed her with young fowls and give her milk to drink. SUCKLING HER CHILD. Must it be assumed that our Mishnah  does not agree with the View of Beth Shammai? For was it not taught: If a woman vowed not to sickle her child she must, said Beth Shammai, pull the breast out of its mouth,  and Beth Hillel said: [Her husband] may compel her to suckle it.  If she was divorced he cannot compel her; but if [the child] knows her  [her husband] pays her the fee and may compel her to suckle it in order [to avert] danger?  — It may be said to be in agreement even with the view of Beth Shammai, but here  we are dealing with such a case, for instance, where the woman made a vow and her husband confirmed it; Beth Shammai being of the opinion that he has thereby put his finger between her teeth,  while Beth Hillel hold that it is she that has put her finger between her teeth.  Then  let them  express their disagreement as regards a kethubah generally.  Furthermore, it was taught:  Beth Shammai said: She need not suckle [her child]!  — But, clearly, our Mishnah is not in agreement with the view of Beth Shammai. 'If [the child] knows her'.