Ghumaysa, or Rumaysa, came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ complaining about her husband, claiming that he was unable to consummate the marriage with her. It was not long before her husband came and claimed that she was lying and that she only wanted to return to her first husband.The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, "That is not available to you until another man tastes your sweetness."
حدثنا هشيم أنبأنا يحيى بن أبي إسحاق عن سليمان بن يسار
جاءت الغميصاء أو الرميصاء إلى رسول الله ﷺ تشكو زوجها وتزعم أنه لا يصل إليها فما كان إلا يسيرا حتى جاء زوجها فزعم أنها كاذبة ولكنها تريد أن ترجع إلى زوجها الأول فقال رسول الله ﷺ ليس لك ذلك حتى يذوق عسيلتك رجل غيره
Its chain is sahih. Hafiz cited it with this chain in Musnad in Isabah 8:87, and referred to it there also in 4:198, saying, "Its narrators are trustworthy, except that it is not explicit that Ubaydullah witnessed the incident," meaning it would then be among the mursal narrations of the companions. Ibn Athir related it in Usdul-Ghabah 3:341 from Musnad, and referred to it also in 5:460 and 514. He attributed it to Nasai in Zakhair Mawarith 2936 among the hadiths of Ibn Abbas. Haythami mentioned it in Majma al-Zawaid 4:340 in abbreviated form from Ubaydullah and Fadl bin Abbas, and said, "Abu Yaala related it, and its narrators are the narrators of sahih," so he did not attribute it to Musnad.It appears in Nasai 2:97 from Ali bin Hajar, from Hushaym, from Yahya, from Abu Ishaq, from Sulayman bin Yasar, from Abdullah bin Abbas. In my view this is an error, not from Nasai himself but from the copyists, though it is an old error, for it is established this way in the printed Sunan and in two manuscript copies of it that I have. The error occurs in two places. First, his saying "Yahya, from Abu Ishaq," when the correct form is "Yahya bin Abu Ishaq," and it has come correctly in Istiab 752, quoting from Nasai. The second place is his saying "Abdullah bin Abbas," when the correct form is "Ubaydullah bin Abbas." This shows that the error is old, present in many copies of Nasai at least, otherwise Hafiz would not have attributed it in Isabah to Musnad Ahmad alone, but would have mentioned Nasai as well, Allah willing, following their usual practice of giving priority in attribution to one of the six books when the hadith is found in them.However, when Tahdhib al-Tahdhib gave the biography of Ubaydullah bin Abbas, it marked him with the letter (S), the symbol for Nasai, and said, "He saw the Prophet ﷺ and narrated from him the hadith of asilah." This shows that Hafiz Mizzi, the author of the original Tahzib, saw it in Sunan Nasai correctly as Ubaydullah bin Abbas, and so marked him with the symbol for Nasai, and Hafiz followed him in Tahdhib al-Tahdhib and in Taqrib.Even more explicit than this is that Khazraji, in Khulasah, marked him with the same symbol, and said, "He has with him a single hadith," which points definitely to this hadith. Perhaps this is what led Haythami not to mention it in Majma al-Zawaid, but rather to mention it from Ubaydullah and Fadl, because it was not found in any of the six books from Fadl, so it counted as an addition with respect to him.Ghumaysa or Rumaysa was a different woman from Umm Salim bint Milhan, mother of Anas bin Malik, for she too was given that title, but she was married to Abu Talha, and this incident did not happen to her.Ghumaysa is with damma on the ghayn (dotted), and it occurs in some references with the undotted ayn, which is an error. Rumaysa likewise has damma on the ra.Asilataka, in Nihayah, "He likened the pleasure of intercourse to the taste of honey, so he borrowed the word 'taste' for it, and he used the feminine form because he meant a piece of honey... and he used the diminutive form to indicate the small amount by which lawfulness is achieved."Hafiz has indicated in Isabah 8:153 and elsewhere that this husband of hers was Amr bin Hazm.