<html><body>
<p>In Avodah V27#114, RnCL clarified her point:<br>
> But even more telling is the bit I quoted (albeit in the middle of my piece, so you may have missed it) namely:<br>
<<< And further, it would seem from Kesuvos 48a that the Beis Din is empowered, in the absence of a husband, to go down onto his property in order to provide sustenance for his wife, such sustenance to include a<br>
required provision for adornments (tachshitim - again Rashi, besamim) because it can be assumed that he would not be happy to have his wife become repulsive. >>><br>
> Now this is a case where the husband is off in midinas hayam [ie overseas], and due to his absence, beis din is having to take on the role of making<br>
sure she has her basic essentials (by selling off his property to provide them). So there is absolutely no husband around to see and appreciate these<br>
ornaments. And yet, it is so essential that a woman adorn herself with perfumes and the like, that in the absence of her husband, that beis din can<br>
go down onto his property and sell parts of it off to buy them.<br>
> This hardly sounds like a finery should be reserved for the husband, does it? <<br>
<br>
(RZS noted that the inclusion of tachshitin is apparently not l'halachah, but I'm sure RnCL knew that :). Let's work w/ the assumptions used by RnC....)<br>
<br>
Ensuring that the husband's k'suvah obligations (including "k'susah," that her overall appearance [including body odor!] is proper/representative of her status [per se and/or as his wife & as a member of their community and K'lal, whichever fulfills "oleh imo v'einah yoredes imo"]) are fulfilled is quite different than a wife dressing up (or perfuming herself) for the eyes (or noses) of others, don't you think? Thanks. <br>
<br>
All the best from <br>
--Michael Poppers via RIM pager</body></html>