Nedarim 81b (פא:) — 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 the burrow that it inhabits constantly, even though it is a dangerous place, because since it is accustomed to it, it does not stumble over the dust in that burrow.

So too, in this case, although his wife does not bathe or adorn herself, and does not remove the hair of that area, he nevertheless need not fear that a hair might become knotted for him. Since he is accustomed to her, he is not harmed by her.

Therefore, Rabbi Yosei holds that bathing and adornment are not included among matters between him and her.

It was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava,

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

For it was taught:

With regard to matters that involve self-affliction, he may annul the vow—

whether they concern him and her,

when she is married to him,

or whether they concern her and others,

when she is married to others; even after she divorces him and marries another, because vows involving self-affliction are annulled permanently.

Matters

that do not involve self-affliction—

when they concern him and her,

as long as she is married to him,

he may annul the vow.

When they concern her and others,

that is, with regard to the period after she divorces him—

he may not annul the vow 22 .

How so?—

If

she said: “The produce is konam to me,”—

he may annul the vow,

because it involves self-affliction, and he may annul it whether it concerns him and her or whether it concerns her and others.

“Let it be konam for me that I do not work for my father, for your brother, for your father, or for my brother.”

That she prohibited the products of her labor from being used by her father, her husband's brother, her husband's father, or her brother.

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

“or water before your cattle,”

since she is not obligated to perform these tasks for her husband.

.

He may not annul the vow

because none of these matters involve self-affliction, and they are not 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 the vow because these are matters between him and her.

But if she said:

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

Since the woman is obligated to her husband to perform these tasks, the vow does not take effect at all.

Rabban Gamliel says

that although the vow does not take effect at all, nevertheless

he should annul it.

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

Why is it not written, “He shall not profane his vow”? The change in wording indicates that even a vow that does not possess the legal force of a vow must nevertheless not be violated without annulment.

Alternatively—

another explanation.

“He shall not profane his word”—

From here it is derived that a Sage may not release his own vows.

And we derive from the wording “his word” that although the Sage knows the opening through which the vow may be released, nevertheless he does not release his own vows; rather, others release his vows.

Whom do we hear

as the tanna,

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

For according to the Rabbis, he may annul a vow resulting from the woman's refraining from adornment because of vows involving self-affliction.

And it teaches that he may annul the vow because of

matters that are

between him and her,

and this is proof of the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava.

.

The Master said

that we learned in the beraita:

“And that I will not engage in marital relations,” he may annul the vow because it is a matter between him and her.

What are the circumstances?—

If you say

that it is referring to a case in which

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

Why do I need annulment?—

She is obligated to him,

so how can her vow take effect?

Rather, it is referring to a woman who says: “Your marital relations are forbidden to me.”

In such a case, her vow takes effect.

.

And it is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana.

For Rav Kahana said:

A woman who says to her husband: “It is konam that

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

her husband compels

her

and engages in marital relations with her.

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

But if the woman said:

“Your marital relations are forbidden to me” \-

he should annul the vow!

When the woman vowed to prohibit upon herself the benefit of her husband's marital relations, the vow takes effect.

For she cannot prohibit herself to her husband, such that he would be prohibited from her, because she is obligated to him. But she can prohibit her husband's benefit to herself.

Therefore, her husband must annul the vow for her, even though she is obligated to him with regard to marital relations, because

“one may not feed a person something that is forbidden to him.”

Who is the tanna—

who taught

the following beraita—

“Things that are permitted

according to the strict law,

but others adopted the practice of prohibiting them—

you may not treat them as permitted in order to abolish them,

without annulment,

because it is stated: ‘He shall not profane his word.’”

Alternatively—

“He shall not profane his word”; from here it is derived that a Torah scholar may not release his own vows.

Who is it?—

It is Rabban Gamliel,

who derives from “his word” that even speech that is not a complete vow, but merely a statement, must nevertheless not be profaned.

Here too, since they adopted the practice of prohibiting permitted matters, those matters are treated for them as prohibited matters, and they may not profane the practice without annulment.

.

Rava asked Rav Naḥman—

Marital relations,

such as when she said: “Your marital relations are forbidden to me”—

according to the Rabbis,

who hold in the Mishna that bathing and adornment are considered self-affliction—

Does the vow of

self-affliction apply,

in which case he may annul it both with regard to himself and with regard to others,

or is it a matter between him and her,

and he may annul it only with regard to himself? If she divorces him 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:

“I am removed from the Jews,”

if she prohibited upon herself the benefit of marital relations with all Jewish men, including her husband within the vow—