Nedarim 80a (פ.) — the Talmud in English

Rather,

it is possible to interpret the Mishna as speaking of a case in which she said:

“A konam: the benefit of bathing is forbidden to me forever if I bathe.”

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

And although the first bathing is permitted, nevertheless, by bathing the first time she will become prohibited from bathing forever.

And therefore the tanna kamma holds:

, for that reason he may annul it,

and the matter is considered among vows involving affliction of the soul.

For what can she do?

If

she bathes—

the benefit of bathing becomes prohibited to her.

She will be prohibited from bathing forever, and this involves affliction of the soul.

And if

she does not bathe—

she suffers degradation.

The dirt resulting from refraining from bathing degrades her, and she experiences affliction of the soul 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 as for the degradation—

we are not concerned.

The prevention of bathing, and the degradation that follows from it, are not considered affliction of the soul.

And according to the Gemara’s present line of reasoning, it is explained that the dispute between the tanna kamma and Rabbi Yosei is whether refraining from bathing is considered affliction of the soul or not.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

If so, let it teach as follows:

the Mishna should have been formulated in this manner:

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

For from Rabbi Yosei’s wording in the Mishna, “These are not vows involving affliction of the soul,” it follows that since refraining from bathing does not involve affliction of the soul, he therefore cannot annul the vow. But if she made a vow that does involve affliction of the soul, he can annul it.

And this is not correct, for even if she prohibited herself from all the produce in the world, since the “condition” itself does not involve affliction of the soul, 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,

one must say that the Mishna speaks of a case in which she said

“

A konam:

the benefit of bathing is forbidden to me forever,

on the condition

that I bathe today.”

The tanna kamma holds that refraining from bathing for one day involves affliction, and since it involves affliction—for if she bathes today, she will become prohibited from bathing forever, while if she does not bathe today, there is the affliction of refraining from bathing for one day—he can annul the vow.

And Rabbi Yosei holds

that he cannot annul it, because

degradation for a single day is not called degradation,

and refraining from bathing for one day is not affliction. Since she can take care not to bathe for one day, and one day is not considered affliction, if she does not bathe for one day she will not become prohibited from bathing forever. Therefore Rabbi Yosei holds that he cannot annul it, as there is no affliction of the soul here.