Ketubot

it is quite satisfactory [if her head is covered by] her work-basket;  according to traditional Jewish practice, however, she is forbidden [to go out uncovered] even with her basket [on her head]. R. Assi stated in the name of R. Johanan: With a basket [on her head a woman] is not guilty of  [going about with] an uncovered head. In considering this statement, R. Zera pointed out this difficulty: Where [is the woman assumed to be]?  If it be suggested, 'In the street', [it may be objected that this is already forbidden by] Jewish practice;  but [if she is] in a court-yard  [the objection may be made that] if that were so  you will not leave our father Abraham a [single] daughter who could remain with her husband!  — Abaye, or it might be said, R. Kahana, replied: [The statement refers to one who walks] from one courtyard into another by way of an alley. SPINNING IN THE STREET. Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: [The prohibition applies only] where she exposed her arms to the public. R. Hisda stated in the name of Abimi: [This applies only] where she spins rose [coloured materials, and holds them up] to her face. CONVERSING WITH EVERY MAN. Rab Judah stated in the name of Samuel: [This refers only to one] who jests with young men. Rabbah b. Bar Hana related: I was once walking behind R. 'Ukba when I observed an Arab woman who was sitting, casting her spindle and spinning a rose [coloured material which she held up] to her face.  When she saw us she detached the spindle [from the thread], threw it down and said to me, 'Young man, hand me my  spindle'. Referring to her  R. 'Ukba made a statement. What was that statement? — Rabina replied: He spoke of her as a woman SPINNING IN THE STREET. The Rabbis said: He spoke of her as one CONVERSING WITH EVERY MAN. ABBA SAUL SAID: [SUCH TRANSGRESSIONS INCLUDE] ALSO THAT OF A WIFE WHO CURSES HER HUSBAND'S PARENTS IN HIS PRESENCE. Rab Judah said in the name of Samuel: [This  includes also] one who curses his parents in the presence of his offspring;  and your mnemonic sign  is, Ephraim and Manasseh,  even as Reuben and Simeon,  shall be mine.  Rabbah  explained:  When she said  in the presence of her husband's son, 'May a lion devour your grandfather'. R. TARFON SAID: ALSO ONE WHO SCREAMS. What is meant by a screamer? — Rab Judah replied in the name of Samuel: One who speaks aloud  on marital matters. In a Baraitha it was taught: [By screams was meant a wife] whose voice  during her intercourse in one court can be heard in another court. But should not this, then,  have been taught in the Mishnah  among defects?  — Clearly we must revert to the original explanation. MISHNAH. IF A MAN BETROTHED A WOMAN ON CONDITION THAT SHE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY VOWS AND SHE WAS FOUND TO BE UNDER A VOW,  HER BETROTHAL IS INVALID. IF HE MARRIED HER  WITHOUT MAKING ANY CONDITIONS AND SHE WAS FOUND TO BE UNDER A VOW,  SHE MAY BE DIVORCED WITHOUT RECEIVING HER KETHUBAH. [IF A WOMAN WAS BETROTHED] ON CONDITION THAT SHE HAS NO BODILY DEFECTS, AND SHE WAS FOUND TO HAVE SUCH DEFECTS, HER BETROTHAL IS INVALID. IF HE MARRIED HER WITHOUT MAKING ANY CONDITIONS AND SHE WAS FOUND TO HAVE BODILY DEFECTS, SHE MAY BE DIVORCED WITHOUT A KETHUBAH. ALL DEFECTS WHICH DISQUALIFY PRIESTS  DISQUALIFY WOMEN ALSO. GEMARA. We have [in fact] learned [the same Mishnah] also in [the Tractate] Kiddushin.  [But] here  [the laws]  were required [in respect of] kethuboth,  and the laws concerning betrothal  were stated on account of those of the kethubah; there  the laws in respect of betrothal were required, and those concerning kethuboth  were stated on account of those of betrothal. R. Johanan said in the name of R. Simeon b. Jehozadak: They  spoke only of the following vows. That she would not eat meat, that she would not drink wine or that she would not adorn herself with coloured garments. So it was also taught elsewhere: They spoke of such vows as involve an affliction of the soul, [namely,] that she would not eat meat, that she would not drink wine or that she would not adorn herself with coloured garments. In dealing with this subject R. Papa raised this difficulty: What does it  refer to? If it be suggested [that it refers] to the first clause  [it might be retorted that] since the husband objects [to vows] even other kinds of vows  Should also be included! — [It refers] only to the final clause.  R. Ashi said: It may in fact refer to the first clause,  but in respect of the vows to which people usually take exception  his objection is valid;  respect of vows to which people do not as a rule take exception his objection has no validity. It was stated: If a man betrothed a woman on condition [that she was under no vow] and married her without attaching any conditions, it is necessary, Rab ruled, that she  shall obtain from him a letter of divorce; and Samuel ruled: It is not necessary for her to obtain a letter of divorce from him.  Said Abaye: