Nedarim 79b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Yosei said: These are not vows of affliction of the soul!

Since if she does not bathe today, she will be permitted to bathe forever, such a vow is not included within vows of affliction of the soul.

And although she is prohibited from bathing today, Rabbi Yosei holds that affliction lasting one day is not considered affliction, and it is only included within vows that are between him and her, which he annuls only for himself.

And these are,

according to Rabbi Yosei,

vows of affliction of the soul:

She said: “Konam, the fruit of the world is forbidden to me.”

Since she prohibited herself from all the fruit in the world,

he can annul it,

because it is a vow of affliction of the soul.

But if she prohibited by a vow

the fruit of this country is forbidden to me,

he cannot annul it, but

he should bring her [fruit] from another country.

Since he can bring her fruit from another country, this is not a vow of affliction of the soul.

And all this applies specifically when she vowed concerning the fruit of another country, where she does not live. But if she prohibited to herself the fruit of her country, where she lives, since bringing fruit from another country is a great burden, even Rabbi Yosei agrees that it is included within vows of affliction of the soul, and the husband can annul it.

And likewise if she prohibited by a vow

the fruit of this shopkeeper is forbidden to me,

since he can bring her fruit from another shopkeeper, this is not affliction of the soul, and

he cannot annul it 2 .

And if his livelihood was

of the husband

only from him,

for only this shopkeeper gives him on credit, and he will not find another who will give him on credit, and sometimes he has no money, and the woman consequently suffers -

he should annul it,

because it is included within vows of affliction of the soul,

the words of Rabbi Yosei.

But according to the First Tanna, even if she prohibited herself only from the fruit of a certain person, the matter is considered a vow of affliction of the soul.

Gemara:

And we raise it as a difficulty: It is implied from the words of the Mishna that only

vows of affliction of the soul are what he annuls.

But vows

in which there is no affliction of the soul -

he does not annul.

That is, the Gemara initially understood that the intention of our Mishna is to say that the husband can annul only vows of affliction of the soul, but he cannot annul other vows.

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught:

For we learned in a beraita: It is stated in the Torah, at the end of the passage of vows [Numbers 30:17]: “

These are the statutes that the Lord commanded Moses,

between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter.”

This teaches

the verse

that the husband,

and likewise the father,

annuls vows that are between him and her.

And it is proven that he annuls not only vows of affliction of the soul.

And we answer:

They say,

they said to resolve [the difficulty]:

These and these,

indeed, these and those—both vows of affliction of the soul and vows that are between him and her—

he annuls.

However, affliction of the soul he annuls forever.

The annulment takes effect forever, and even if afterward he divorces her and she marries another husband, the vow remains annulled.

But,

vows

in which there is no affliction of the soul,

only

so long as she is under him,

as long as she is married to him,

the annulment exists.

But

from the moment when,

when he

divorces her -

her vow takes effect upon her, with regard to matters that are between him and her, in which there is no affliction of the soul.

That is, vows that are between him and her, but in which there is no affliction of the soul: the husband's annulment is effective only for the time that she is under him. But if he divorces her, the vow takes effect again, and even if he himself subsequently takes her back in marriage, the vow takes effect again.

But if there is affliction of the soul, her vow does not take effect upon her

after her husband annulled the vow for her, and even if she subsequently marries another, it is annulled.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

And

for one who vows concerning

matters in which there is no affliction of the soul,

but rather they are matters between him and her, and her husband annulled it for her,

when he divorces her -

does it take effect upon her

her vow!?

But we learned:

For we learned in a Mishna below [85a]:

A woman who prohibited to her husband the benefit from the product of her hands, the husband does not need to annul her vow, since the husband is entitled to the product of her hands, and she is subordinated to her husband with regard to the product of her hands; and the Sages strengthened his lien so that her vow should not take effect.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: He should annul

her husband should annul her vow now, even though at present she does not have the power to prohibit the product of her hands to her husband, because it is subordinated to him.

For if he does not annul her vow now, there is concern

lest he divorce her,

and the vow will take effect immediately, because immediately after her divorce she is no longer subordinated to him with regard to the product of her hands,

and she will be prohibited to him!

That is, we must be concerned lest he benefit from the product of her hands even after her divorce, and therefore he should annul it now, so that the vow should not take effect after he divorces her.

Evidently,

it is proven from here,

that

when

he divorces her, having annulled it for her initially,

before he divorces her -

the annulment exists

forever!

But in the case where she prohibits the product of her hands to her husband, this is a vow that is between him and her, and nevertheless his annulment is effective forever, even after her divorce!

And we answer:

They say: These and these,

these and those—both vows of affliction of the soul and vows that are between him and her—

the annulment exists,

and the husband's annulment is effective forever, even after he divorces her.

Rather, vows of affliction of the soul -

he annuls both for himself

of the one who annuls

and for others.

Even if he divorces her and she marries another, the annulment is effective also with regard to the second husband whom she married.

But vows that

do not contain affliction of the soul,

but rather they are vows that are between him and her, he annuls only with regard

to himself

of the husband; he

annuls.

And his annulment takes effect with regard to himself even after he divorces her. Since he can take her back in marriage, the annulment is effective for himself, because as long as he can restore her to himself, he is still considered to have a connection to the vow.

But if she marries

others,

since he can no longer restore her to himself, for he is forbidden to take back his divorced wife after she has married another -

he does not annul!

That is, from the time that she marries another, his annulment is void, and the vow takes effect.

And this is what he teaches,

and thus the tanna said:

These are the vows that he annuls

in a complete and absolute manner,

both for himself and for others -

vows in which there is affliction of the soul.

But vows that are between him and her, he annuls only for himself, and he does not annul them for others.

We learned in the Mishna that according to the First Tanna, a woman who said

“If I bathe,”

this is a vow of affliction of the soul.

And we raise it as a difficulty:

What is he saying?

What is the wording of the vow? For if her intention was to prohibit bathing to herself, she should have said, “The benefit of bathing is forbidden to me,” and why did she say it in the wording “If I bathe”?

If you say,

if we say that it is speaking of a case

where she said, “The fruit of the world is forbidden to me if I bathe,”

where she prohibited all the fruit of the world to herself only on the condition that “if I bathe,” then

why does she need annulment?

Why does she require annulment?

Let her not bathe, and the fruit of the world will not become prohibited to her!

That is, she should not bathe, and the prohibition of the fruit of the world will not take effect upon her.

And even though she will be unable to bathe forever, because if she bathes she will become prohibited from all the fruit, this is not considered a vow of affliction of the soul.

And proof of this is that if we say that the prohibition of bathing is also considered affliction of the soul, why did the Mishna not state a case in which she prohibited bathing itself to herself!?

Rather, necessarily, prevention of bathing in itself is not considered affliction of the soul, and therefore the Mishna could not state the prohibition of bathing as an example of a vow of affliction of the soul.

And furthermore

there is a difficulty: According to this, it is explained that the First Tanna is concerned lest she bathe, and then the fruit of the world will become prohibited to her, and she will have affliction of the soul.

And

in this, should Rabbi Yosei say, “These are not vows of affliction of the soul”!?

For if we establish the words of the First Tanna in the Mishna in this manner, Rabbi Yosei's wording would imply that even if we are concerned lest she bathe and the fruit of the world become prohibited to her, nevertheless he is not concerned, since the prohibition of the fruit of the world is not considered affliction of the soul.

And this is impossible, because it is obvious that the prohibition against eating all the fruit of the world is considered affliction of the soul.

And if so, even according to Rabbi Yosei there should be concern

lest she bathe, and the fruit of the world become prohibited to her!

And if so, this is difficult: Why, according to Rabbi Yosei, can he not annul it!?

There is no way to say that Rabbi Yosei's intention is to disagree with the First Tanna because he holds that we are not concerned lest she bathe.

For if he were not concerned lest she bathe, he should have said: “He cannot annul it because of vows of affliction of the soul”!

And why did he say it in the wording, “These are not vows of affliction of the soul,” which implies that he is saying that such vows are not included among vows of affliction of the soul].