Study Ketubot folio 71B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
with colored garments, as not wearing colored garments can cause shame to her as well as to her husband. But vows that affect her alone are not considered vows of affliction. The Talmud answers: Here we are dealing with a case where she vowed not to adorn herself with regard to matters that are bet
The Talmud asks: This works out well according to the one who said the husband can nullify his wife’s vow if it relates to matters that are between him and her, i.e., that disrupt normal, intimate sex between them. But according to the one who said the husband cannot nullify such vows, what can be
Rather, with what are we dealing here? With a case where through her vow she made sex contingent upon her adornment, as she said: The pleasure of sex with you is forbidden to me if I adorn myself, as Rav Kahana said that such language qualifies as matters between him and her, and a husband can null
As Rav Kahana said: If the woman says to her husband: The pleasure of sex with me is forbidden to you, he may nevertheless compel her through legal and financial measures to fulfill her marital obligations and have sex with him, since she does not have the power to render herself forbidden to him
The Talmud asks: And even if she creates this contingency by vowing that the pleasure of sex will be forbidden to her if she adorns herself, let her not adorn herself and she will not be forbidden. Since the prohibition against sex created through her vow may never go into effect, the husband shoul