Ketubot

[a repetition of] the incident of Beth Horon. R. JUDAH SAID: IF HE WAS AN ISRAELITE HE MAY KEEP HER [AS HIS WIFE, IF THE PROHIBITION WAS FOR] ONE MONTH etc. Is not this the same ruling as that of the first Tanna?  — Abaye replied: He  came to teach us [the law concerning] a priest's wife.  Raba replied: The difference between them is a full month  and a defective month. Rab stated: This  was taught only in the case of a man who specified [the period of the prohibition], but where he did not specify, he  must divorce her immediately and give her the kethubah. Samuel, however, stated: Even where the period was not specified [the husband] need not divorce her, since it is possible that he might discover some reason  for [the remission of] his vow.  But surely they  had once been in dispute upon this principle; for have we not learned, 'If a man forbade his wife by vow to have intercourse, Beth Shammai ruled: [She must consent to the deprivation for] two weeks; Beth Hillel ruled: [Only for] one week';  and Rab stated, 'They  differ only in the case of a man who specified [the period of abstention] but where he did not specify the period he  must divorce her forthwith and give her the kethubah', and Samuel stated, 'Even where the period had not been specified the husband need not divorce her, since it might be possible for him to discover some reason  for [the annulment of] his  vow'?  — [Both disputes were] necessary. For if [their views] had been expressed in the former case  it might have been assumed that only in that case did Rab maintain his view, since [the appointment] of a steward is not possible, but that in the latter case  where [the appointment] of a steward is possible, he agrees with Samuel. And if [their views] had been stated in the latter case  it might have been assumed that only in that case did Samuel maintain his view, since the appointment of a steward is possible. but that in the former case  he agrees with Rab. [Hence both statements were] necessary. We learned: IF A MAN FORBADE HIS WIFE BY VOW THAT SHE SHOULD NOT TASTE A CERTAIN FRUIT, HE MUST DIVORCE HER  AND GIVE HER THE KETHUBAH. Now according to Rab  [there is no contradiction  since] the latter  may apply to a man who did not specify [the period of the prohibition] and the former  to a man who did specify [the period]. According to Samuel,  however, a contradiction arises!  — Here we are dealing with a case, for instance, where the woman made the vow and he confirmed it;  R. Meir  holding the opinion that [the husband]  had himself put his finger between her teeth. But does R. Meir hold the principle, 'He has himself put his finger between her teeth'? Surely it was taught: If a woman made the vow of a nazirite  and her husband heard of it and did not annul it, she, said R. Meir and R. Judah, has thereby put her own finger between her teeth. Therefore, if the husband wishes to annul her vow, he may do so. But if he  said, 'I do not want a wife who is in the habit of vowing'. she may be divorced without [receiving] her kethubah. R. Jose and R. Eleazar said: He  has put his finger between her teeth. Therefore, if the husband wishes to annul her vow, he may do so. But if he  said, 'I do not want a wife who is in the habit of vowing', he may divorce her but must give her the kethubah!  — Reverse [the views]: R. Meir and R. Judah said: 'He has put'  and R. Jose and R. Eleazar said: 'She has put'.  But is R. Jose of the opinion that it is she who put?  Have we not learned: R. Jose ruled: [THIS  APPLIES] TO POOR WOMEN IF NO TIME LIMIT IS GIVEN?  — Read: R. Meir and R. Jose said, 'He has put';  R. Judah and R. Eleazar said, 'She has put'.  But does R. Judah uphold the principle of 'She put'?  Have we not learned: R. JUDAH RULED: IF HE WAS AN ISRAELITE HE MAY KEEP HER [AS HIS WIFE, IF THE VOW WAS FOR] ONE DAY?  — Read: R. Meir and R. Judah and R. Jose said, 'He put'.  and R. Eleazar said, 'She put'.  And should you find [some ground] for insisting that the names must appear in pairs,  then read: R. Meir and R. Eleazar said, 'She put',  and R. Judah and R. Jose said, 'He put';  and this anonymous Mishnah  is not in agreement with R. Meir. Is R. Jose, however, of the opinion that [THIS  APPLIES] TO POOR WOMEN IF NO TIME LIMIT IS GIVEN; from which  it is evident that a husband has the right to annul  [such vows]?  This, surely, is incongruous [with the following]. These are the vows  which a husband may annul: Vows which involve an affliction of soul  [as, for instance, if a woman said, 'I vow not to enjoy the pleasure of bathing] should I bathe'  [or] 'I swear that  I shall not bathe', [or again, 'I vow not to make use of adornments] should I make use of an adornment',  [or] 'I swear that  I shall not make use of any adornments'. R. Jose said: These are not regarded as vows involving an affliction of soul;  and the following are vows that involve an affliction of soul: '[I swear] that I shall not eat meat' or 'that I shall not drink wine' or 'that I shall not adorn myself