Nedarim 79b (עט:) — the Talmud in English

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

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

And although she is prohibited from bathing today, Rabbi Yosei maintains that affliction for one day is not considered affliction, and is included only among vows between him and her, which he may annul only with regard to himself.

And these are

according to Rabbi Yosei,

vows involving affliction of the soul:

She said: “The produce of the world is konam to me.”

Since she prohibited all the produce in the world to herself,

he may annul it,

because it is a vow involving affliction of the soul.

But if she prohibited by a vow

the produce of this province to me,

he may not annul it; rather,

he should bring her produce from another province.

Since he can bring her produce from another province, this is not a vow involving affliction of the soul.

And all this applies specifically when she vowed concerning the produce of another province, where she does not live. But if she prohibited to herself the produce of her own province, where she lives, since it is a great burden to bring produce from another province, even Rabbi Yosei concedes that it is included among vows involving affliction of the soul, and the husband may annul it.

And similarly, if she prohibited by a vow

the produce of this shopkeeper to me,

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

he may not annul it 2 .

And if his livelihood was

the husband's

dependent solely on him,

meaning that only this shopkeeper gives him goods on credit, and he will not find another who will give him goods on credit, and at times he has no money, so that the woman suffers—

he may annul it,

because it is included among vows involving affliction of the soul,

the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

But according to the first tanna, even if she prohibited herself only from the produce of a certain individual, this is considered a vow involving affliction of the soul.

Gemara:

And we analyze it: It is implied by the wording of the Mishna that only

vows involving affliction of the soul may he annul.

But vows

that do not involve affliction of the soul—

he may not annul.

That is, the Gemara initially understood that the meaning of our Mishna is that the husband may annul only vows involving affliction of the soul, but he may not annul other vows.

And we raise an objection:

But it was taught

in a beraita: The Torah says, at the end of the section of vows [Numbers 30:17]: “

These are the statutes that the Lord commanded Moses,

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

The verse teaches

that

the husband,

as well as the father,

may annul vows between him and her.

And it is proven that he does not annul only vows involving affliction of the soul.

And we answer:

They say,

they said to resolve the difficulty:

These and those,

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

he may annul.

However, vows involving affliction of the soul he annuls forever.

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

But,

vows

that do not involve affliction of the soul,

only

as long as she is under him,

as long as she is married to him,

does the annulment take effect.

But

when

he

divorces her—

her vow takes effect upon her, with regard to matters between him and her that do not involve affliction of the soul.

That is, with vows between him and her that do not involve affliction of the soul, the husband's annulment is effective only for the period that she is under his authority. But if he divorces her, the vow takes effect again; even if he himself then remarries her, the vow takes effect again.

But if they involve affliction of the soul, her vow does not take effect upon her

after her husband has annulled the vow for her; and even if she subsequently marries another man, it remains annulled.

The Gemara raises a difficulty:

And

with regard to a woman who vows concerning

matters that do not involve affliction of the soul,

but are matters between him and her, and her husband annulled the vow for her,

when he divorces her—

does it take effect upon her

again?

But we learned:

We learned in a Mishna below [85a]:

A woman who prohibited to her husband the benefit of her handiwork need not have her husband annul her vow, since the husband is entitled to her handiwork, and she is bound to him with regard to her handiwork; and the Sages strengthened his lien so that her vow would not take effect.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says: He should annul it

for her: Her husband should annul her vow now, even though at present she has no power to prohibit her handiwork to her husband, since it is subject to his lien.

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

lest he divorce her,

and the vow will take effect immediately, since immediately after her divorce she is no longer bound to him with regard to her handiwork,

and she will be prohibited to him!

That is, we must be concerned that he may benefit from her handiwork even after her divorce; therefore, he should annul it now, so that the vow will not take effect after he divorces her.

Apparently,

it is proven from here

that

when

he divorces her, having annulled her vow initially,

before divorcing her—

the annulment takes effect

forever!

But when she prohibits her handiwork to her husband, this is a vow between him and her, and nevertheless his annulment is effective forever, even after her divorce!

And we answer:

They say: These and those,

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

the annulment takes effect,

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

Rather, vows involving affliction of the soul—

he annuls both with regard to himself

the one who annuls,

and with regard to others.

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

But vows that

do not involve affliction of the soul,

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

to himself

as the husband;

he annuls them.

His annulment takes effect with regard to himself even after he divorces her. Since he can remarry her, the annulment is effective with regard to himself, because as long as he can take her back, he is still considered to have a connection to the vow.

But if she marries

another man,

since he can no longer take her back—for he is prohibited from taking back his divorced wife after she has married another man—

he may not annul it!

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

And this is what the tanna teaches,

and this is what the tanna said:

These are the vows that he may annul

completely and irrevocably,

both with regard to himself and with regard to others—

vows involving affliction of the soul.

But vows between him and her, he annuls only with regard to himself, and he does not annul them with regard to others.

We learned in the Mishna that according to the first tanna, a woman who said

“If I bathe,”

has made a vow involving affliction of the soul.

And we analyze it:

What is he saying?

What is the wording of the vow? For if she wished to prohibit bathing to herself, she should have said, “The benefit of bathing is konam to me”; why did she phrase it as “If I bathe”?

If you say

that this refers to a case

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

where she prohibited all the produce of the world to herself only on the condition that she bathe, then

why does she need annulment?

Why does she require annulment?

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

She should not bathe, and the prohibition of the produce of the world will not take effect upon her.

And although she will then be unable to bathe forever, because if she bathes she will become prohibited from all produce, this is not considered a vow involving affliction of the soul.

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

Rather, it must be that refraining from bathing in itself is not considered affliction of the soul, and therefore the Mishna could not have cited the prohibition against bathing as an example of a vow involving affliction of the soul .

And furthermore,

there is a difficulty: According to this, it is clear that the first tanna is concerned that she may bathe, at which point the produce of the world will become prohibited to her and she will suffer affliction of the soul.

But

in this case, can Rabbi Yosei say, “These are not vows involving 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 that she may bathe and the produce of the world will become prohibited to her, nevertheless he is not concerned, since the prohibition against the produce of the world is not considered affliction of the soul.

And this is impossible, because it is obvious that prohibiting the consumption of all the produce in the world is considered affliction of the soul.

If so, even according to Rabbi Yosei we must be concerned

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

And if so, the difficulty arises: Why, according to Rabbi Yosei, may he not annul it!?

[And one cannot say that Rabbi Yosei's intention is to disagree with the first tanna because he maintains that we are not concerned that she may bathe.

For if he is not concerned that she may bathe, he should have said: He may not annul it because it is not a vow involving affliction of the soul!

Why, then, did he phrase it as “These are not vows involving affliction of the soul,” implying that he means to say that vows of this kind are not included among vows involving affliction of the soul].