Nedarim 81b — the Talmud in English

For we have not found a fox that died in the dust of its burrow.

Just as we have not found a fox that died in the dust of its burrow, in which it dwells constantly, even though it is a place of danger, because since it is accustomed to it, it does not stumble over the dust of that burrow.

So too, this man, although his wife does not wash and adorn herself, and does not remove the hair of that place, nevertheless is not concerned lest a hair become knotted for him. For since he is accustomed to her, he is not harmed by her.

And therefore Rabbi Yosei holds that washing and adornment are not included among the matters between him and her.

It was taught in a beraita in accordance with Rav Adda bar Ahava,

that even according to Rabbi Yosei he can annul it, because this is included among the matters between him and her.

For it was taught:

Matters in which there is affliction of the soul, he may annul—

whether between him and her,

when she is under his authority,

or between her and others,

when she is under the authority of others, and even after she is divorced and marries another, because vows of affliction of the soul—their annulment is an eternal annulment.

Matters

in which there is no affliction of the soul—

between him and her,

as long as she is under his authority,

he may annul.

Between her and others,

that is, with regard to the time after she is divorced—

he may not annul 22.

How so?—

If

she said: “Konam, produce is forbidden to me,”—

he must annul it,

because it is affliction of the soul, and he may annul it both between him and her and between her and others.

“Konam, what I make is forbidden according to my father, according to your brother, according to your father, according to my brother.”

That she prohibited the product of her hands to the use of her father, or to the use of her husband's brother, or of her husband's father, or of her brother.

“And that I will not give straw before your animal”

“and water before your cattle,”

since she is not obligated to do these things for her husband.

.

He cannot annul

because in none of all these is there a matter in which there is affliction of the soul, and not because of matters between him and her.

And if she said:

“That I will not paint my eyes, that I will not rouge my face, and that I will not engage in marital relations,” he may annul it because of matters between him and her.

But if she said:

“That I will not make your bed, that I will not pour your cup for you, and that I will not wash your face, your hands, and your feet, he need not annul it.”

For since the woman is bound to her husband regarding these matters, the vow does not take effect at all.

Rabban Gamliel says

even though the vow did not take effect at all, nevertheless

he must annul it.

For it is stated: “He shall not profane his word.”

Why is it not written, “He shall not profane his vow”? It follows from this change of wording that even a vow that does not possess the validity of a vow—nevertheless, he should not violate his vow without annulment.

Another matter—

another explanation.

“He shall not profane his word”—

From here: a sage may not release his own vows.

And we expound from the wording “his word” that although the sage knows the opening for the vow, nevertheless he does not release his own vows; rather, others release his vows.

Whom do we hear

as the tanna,

who says, “That I will not paint my eyes and that I will not rouge my face” are matters between him and her? Rabbi Yosei.

For if it were according to the Rabbis, in the prevention of adornment he may annul because of vows of affliction of the soul.

And it teaches that he may annul because of

it is

matters between him and her,

and this is proof for Rav Adda bar Ahava.

.

The Master said

we learned in the beraita.

“And that I will not engage in marital relations, he may annul because of matters between him and her.”

What are the circumstances?—

If you say

if it is speaking of a case where

she said: “The benefit of my marital relations is forbidden to you.”

Why do I need annulment?—

She is bound to him,

and how did her vow take effect?!

Rather, [it is] where she says: “The benefit of your marital relations is forbidden to me.”

And in such a case her vow takes effect.

.

And in accordance with Rav Kahana.

For Rav Kahana said:

A woman who says to her husband, “Konam,”

“the benefit of my marital relations is forbidden to you”—

he compels

her,

and engages in marital relations with her.

If the woman prohibited the benefit of her marital relations to her husband, the vow did not take effect at all, since she is bound to him; he compels her and engages in marital relations with her.

But if the woman said:

“The benefit of your marital relations is forbidden to me” —

he must annul it!

For when the woman vowed to prohibit “to herself” the benefit of her husband's marital relations, the vow takes effect.

For she cannot prohibit herself to her husband, so that he would be forbidden through her, because she is bound to him. But she can prohibit her husband's benefit to herself.

And therefore her husband must annul it for her, despite the fact that she is bound to him regarding marital relations, because

“one does not feed a person something forbidden to him.”

Which tanna—

who is the tanna who taught

this that was taught—

Matters that are permitted

according to the fundamental law,

but others adopted a prohibition regarding them—

you may not practice permissibility with them in order to nullify them,

without annulment.

Because it is stated: “He shall not profane his word.”

Another matter—

“He shall not profane his word”—from here, a Torah scholar may not annul his own vows.

Who is it?—

It is Rabban Gamliel,

who expounds from “his word” that even speech that is not a complete vow, but merely speech, nevertheless he should not profane his speech.

And here too, since they adopted a prohibition regarding permitted matters, they are for them like prohibited matters, and they should not profane the practice without annulment.

.

Rava asked Rav Nahman—

Marital relations,

for example, where she said, “The benefit of your marital relations is forbidden to me,”

according to the Rabbis,

who hold in the Mishna that washing and adornment are considered affliction of the soul—

is the vow of

affliction of the soul,

and the law is that he may annul it both for himself and for others?

Or [is it] matters between him and her,

and he may annul it only for himself? And if she is divorced and marries another, the vow returns to its prohibition.

He said to him: You have learned it,

for we learned this law in our Mishna!

For we learned:

“And I am removed from the Jews,”

if she prohibited to herself the benefit of marital relations from all Jews, and her husband too is included in the vow—