Nedarim 80a — the Talmud in English

Rather,

it is possible to interpret that the Mishna was speaking in a manner

that she said: “Konam—the benefit of bathing is forbidden to me forever, if I bathe.”

She forbade herself from bathing forever, on the condition that she bathe once.

And even though the first bathing is permitted, nevertheless, by means of the first bathing she will become forbidden to bathe forever.

And therefore the first tanna holds

, for this reason he may annul it,

and the matter is considered to be included among vows of affliction.

For what can she do?

If

she bathes—

the benefit of bathing becomes forbidden to her.

She will be forbidden to bathe forever, and there is affliction in this.

And if

she does not bathe—

she has disgrace.

For the dirt resulting from abstaining from bathing disgraces her, and she experiences affliction because she is unable to bathe.

And Rabbi Yosei holds

that he cannot annul it, because

it is possible that she will not bathe.

And with regard to disgrace—

we are not concerned.

The prevention of bathing, and the disgrace resulting from it, are not considered affliction.

And according to the Gemara’s present course, it is explained that the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Yosei is whether the prevention of bathing is considered affliction or not.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

If so, let it teach this,

we should have stated the Mishna as follows:

Rabbi Yosei says: “This condition” does not involve affliction.

For from Rabbi Yosei’s wording in the Mishna, “these are not vows of affliction,” it follows that since prevention of bathing does not involve affliction, for this reason he cannot annul it. But if she made a vow that does involve affliction, he can annul it.

And this is not correct, for even if she forbade herself all the fruits in the world, since the “condition” itself does not involve affliction, he cannot annul it, because she can take care not to violate the condition, and the prohibition of her vow will not take effect upon her at all.

Rather,

it must be said that the Mishna was speaking in a manner

that she said,

“Konam,

the benefit of bathing is forbidden to me forever,”

on the condition

“if I bathe today.”

The first tanna holds that prevention of bathing for one day involves affliction, and since it involves affliction—for if she bathes today, she will become forbidden to bathe forever, and if she does not bathe today, there is here the affliction of prevention of bathing for one day—therefore he can annul it.

And Rabbi Yosei holds

that he cannot annul it, because

disgrace for one day is not called disgrace,

and prevention of bathing for one day is not affliction. And since she can take care for one day not to bathe, and one day is not considered affliction, and if she does not bathe for one day she will not become forbidden to bathe forever, therefore Rabbi Yosei holds that he cannot annul it, for there is no affliction here .