His statement, “whatever,” is a relative pronoun. Relative pronouns are indefinite in meaning and therefore require clarification; that clarification is found in his statement:

“such as adornment, perfume, beautification, henna, garments dyed for adornment, jewelry, black antimony, lā tutayyā and the like, face veils, and white garments, even if they are beautiful.”

Thus, his statement, “such as adornment and perfume,” explains and clarifies the word “whatever”; that is, what invites intercourse with her is adornment, perfume, and so forth.

His statement, “adornment,” means garments worn for beautification. If it is said, “This is an ordinary garment”—that is, a garment customarily worn—then she need not avoid it, whether it has floral designs, colors, or neither. But if it is said, “This is a garment of adornment,” meaning that a woman is regarded as adorned when wearing it, then she must avoid it. This is the governing principle.

Accordingly, she must avoid every garment with which women customarily beautify themselves, whether it covers the entire body, such as a chemise, wrap, cloak, and the like, or only part of it, such as trousers and bodices worn only over the chest. Everything in clothing that is considered an embellishment must be avoided. This is the first matter.

The second is his statement, “and perfume.” She must avoid perfume of every kind, whether oil or incense, such as basil, roses, and aloeswood. As for musky soap and shampoo, these do not fall under this ruling, because they are not used for perfuming oneself; rather, they are used for their scent and fragrance. However, if she applies shampoo as an ointment or washes with soap and its scent becomes so noticeable that men passing by her can smell it, then we prohibit it for her because of the temptation it may cause. Merely smelling perfume, however, does no harm, since it neither adheres to her body nor clings to her. Thus, if she wishes to buy perfume and smells it, there is no blame upon her.