Ketubot

with coloured garments'!  — Here  we are dealing with matters affecting their intimate relations.  This explanation is satisfactory according to him who maintains that a husband may annul [vows on] matters affecting their intimate relations. — What, however, can be said [in explanation] according to him who maintains that a husband may not annul [such vows]? For it was stated:  [As to vows on] matters affecting their intimate relations, R. Huna ruled: A husband may annul them; R. Adda b. Ahabah ruled: A husband may not annul them, for we do not find that a fox should die of the dust of his den!  — The fact, however, is that we are here  dealing with a case, for instance, where she made her marital intercourse dependent upon her use of adornments, by saying. 'The enjoyment of your intercourse shall be forbidden to me should I ever make use of any adornment.'  [This explanation] is in agreement with a ruling of R. Kahana. For R. Kahana ruled, [If a woman said to her husband]. 'The enjoyment of my intercourse [shall be forbidden]  to you', he may compel her to such intercourse;  [if, however, she vowed,] 'The enjoyment of your intercourse [shall be forbidden]  to me'  he must annul [her vow]  because no person is to be fed with a thing that is forbidden to him.  But let her  not adorn herself and consequently not be forbidden to him!  — If so,  she would be called, 'The ugly woman'.  But then let her adorn herself and be forbidden [intercourse] either for two weeks, according to Beth Shammai  or for one week according to Beth Hillel!'  — These  apply only to a case where he [the husband] has forbidden her by a vow [to have intercourse with him], because [in such circumstances] she thinks 'He may have been angry with me  and will later  calm down'.  Here, however, since she has made the vow and he remained silent,  she comes to the conclusion: 'Since he remained silent  he must indeed hate me'. R. JOSE RULED: [THIS APPLIES] TO POOR WOMEN IF NO TIME LIMIT IS GIVEN. What is the TIME LIMIT?  — Rab Judah citing Samuel replied: Twelve months.  Rabbah b. Bar Hana citing R. Johanan replied: Ten years.  R. Hisda citing Abimi replied: A festival;  for  the daughters of Israel adorn themselves on a festival. AND TO RICH WOMEN [IF THE TIME LIMIT IS] THIRTY DAYS. Why just  THIRTY DAYS? — Abaye replied: Because  a prominent woman enjoys the scent of her cosmetics for thirty days. MISHNAH. IF A MAN FORBADE HIS WIFE  BY VOW THAT SHE SHALL NOT GO TO HER FATHER'S HOUSE, AND HE  LIVES WITH HER IN THE SAME TOWN, HE MAY KEEP [HER AS HIS WIFE, IF THE PROHIBITION WAS FOR] ONE MONTH; BUT IF FOR TWO MONTHS HE MUST DIVORCE HER AND GIVE HER ALSO THE KETHUBAH. WHERE HE, HOWEVER, LIVES IN ANOTHER TOWN, HE MAY KEEP [HER AS HIS WIFE, IF THE PROHIBITION WAS FOR] ONE FESTIVAL,  [BUT IF FOR] THREE  FESTIVALS, HE MUST DIVORCE HER AND GIVE HER ALSO HER KETHUBAH. IF A MAN FORBADE HIS WIFE BY VOW  THAT SHE SHALL NOT VISIT A HOUSE OF MOURNING OR A HOUSE OF FEASTING, HE MUST DIVORCE HER AND GIVE HER ALSO HER KETHUBAH, BECAUSE THEREBY HE HAS CLOSED [PEOPLE'S DOORS] AGAINST HER. IF HE PLEADS, HOWEVER, [THAT HIS ACTION] WAS DUE TO SOME OTHER CAUSE  HE IS PERMITTED [TO FORBID HER]. IF HE SAID TO HER: '[THERE SHALL BE NO VOW] PROVIDED THAT YOU TELL  SO-AND-SO WHAT YOU HAVE TOLD ME' OR 'WHAT I HAVE TOLD YOU' OR 'THAT YOU SHALL FILL  AND POUR OUT ON THE RUBBISH HEAP', HE MUST DIVORCE HER AND GIVE HER ALSO HER KETHUBAH. GEMARA. This, surely, is self-contradictory. You said, HE MAY KEEP [HER AS HIS WIFE, IF THE PROHIBITION WAS FOR] ONE FESTIVAL, which implies that if it was for two festivals he must divorce her and give her also her kethubah. But read the concluding clause, [IF FOR] THREE FESTIVALS HE MUST DIVORCE HER AND GIVE HER ALSO HER KETHUBAH, from which it follows, does it not, that if it was for two only he may keep [her as his wife]?  Abaye replied: The concluding clause refers to a priest's wife, and it represents the view of R. Judah.  Rabbah b. 'Ulla said: There is no contradiction, for one  refers to a woman who was anxious [to visit her parents home]  and the other applies to one who was not anxious. Then  was I in his eyes as one that found peace,  R.  Johanan  interpreted: like a bride  who was found faultless  in the house of her father-in-law  and she is anxious to go and tell of her success  at her paternal home. And it shall be at that day, saith the Lord, that thou shalt call me Ishi,  and shalt not call me Ba'ali,  R. Johanan interpreted: Like a bride in the house of her father-in-law  and not like a bride in her paternal home. IF A MAN FORBADE HIS WIFE BY VOW etc. One can well understand that in respect [of her prohibition to enter] A HOUSE OF FEASTING