Nedarim 82a — the Talmud in English

He should annul his portion,

so that she will be permitted to him,

and she serves him.

And she shall be secluded from the Jews.

The vow still exists with regard to all the Jews, and if she is divorced, she is forbidden to the entire world.

And if you say

that withholding marital relations is

a vow of self-affliction —

why should she be secluded from the Jews!?

Why should she be forbidden to all Israel,

but behold,

since this is considered a vow of self-affliction, the husband can annul the vow for all Israel?

Infer from this,

that withholding marital relations

is matters between him and her,

and not self-affliction.

And therefore he annuls only for himself; but if she is divorced, she is forbidden to the entire world.

And he rejects this:

you still have a question according to the Rabbis,

for one must still inquire according to the Rabbis: since the tanna of the Mishna is Rabbi Yosei, and he holds that withholding marital relations is not self-affliction, as we learned in the beraita on the previous page, but according to the Rabbis one must still inquire whether withholding marital relations is self-affliction or not.

Because Rabbi Yosei teaches the clause “I am secluded from the Jews”

and because Rabbi Yosei is the author of the Mishna concerning “secluded from the Jews.”

And from where [do we know] that the tanna of the Mishna is Rabbi Yosei?

For Rav Huna said: The entire chapter is Rabbi Yosei,

for all the anonymous Mishnayot taught in this chapter are the words of Rabbi Yosei.

From where —

and from where does Rav Huna know this?

Since it teaches

in our Mishna

“Rabbi Yosei says: These are not vows of self-affliction,”

why does it need thereafter to teach

why does the Mishna need to repeat and write —

“This one he should annul,” the words of Rabbi Yosei.

Infer from here onward

that all the Mishnayot in this chapter

are Rabbi Yosei,

but according to the Rabbis one must still inquire whether withholding marital relations is considered self-affliction or not 27 .

Shmuel said in the name of Levi —

The husband can annul all vows for his wife

all vows that involve self-affliction for the woman are considered self-affliction.

Except —

“my benefit from so-and-so,” which he does not annul,

for she prohibited so-and-so from benefiting from her; since there is no self-affliction in this, the husband cannot annul it.

But

if she prohibited upon herself

“the benefit of so-and-so is upon me,”

even though she did not prohibit herself from one person,

he annuls

for this is self-affliction.

We learned —

if she said, “Konam,

the produce of this country is upon me, he should bring her [produce] from another country,”

since he can bring her produce from another country, this is not included among vows of self-affliction, for she has the possibility of eating produce from another country,

It is thus explained that if she completely prohibited upon herself benefit from a particular thing, and she has the possibility of attaining benefit from another place, it is not considered self-affliction. If so, certainly, if she prohibited upon herself benefiting from a particular person, and she is permitted to benefit from the entire world except him, this is not self-affliction.

And he rejects this:

Rav Yosef said: [It is referring to a case] where she says, “You should bring [it],”

and, for example, she said, “Konam, the produce of this country is upon me if my husband brings her the produce.” Since she has the possibility of benefiting from “produce” by her husband himself bringing her produce from another place, it is not self-affliction and he cannot annul [the vow]. But when she says, “The benefit of so-and-so is upon me,” since she has no possibility whatsoever of benefiting from that particular person, one can say that this is considered self-affliction.

Come and hear —

we learned in the latter clause of the Mishna:

“The produce of this shopkeeper is upon me; he cannot annul,”

since he can bring her produce from another shopkeeper, this is not self-affliction. Here too, even though she is forbidden to benefit from another person, it is not self-affliction, since she has the possibility of benefiting from someone else; it is not self-affliction.

Here too

it is referring to a case

where she says, “You should bring [it],”

and since she has the possibility of benefiting from “produce” through her husband himself being able to bring her produce from another shopkeeper, it is not self-affliction and he cannot annul. But in a case where she says, “The benefit of so-and-so is upon me,” since she has no possibility whatsoever of benefiting from that particular person, one can say that this is considered self-affliction.

And he raises an objection — from the latter clause of the Mishna:

“His livelihood was only from him,”

since only this shopkeeper gives the husband on credit, and he will not find another who will give him on credit, and sometimes he has no money, and the woman consequently suffers,

this one he should annul,

since this is self-affliction.

And if you say

that the entire Mishna spoke in a case

where she says, “You should bring [it],”

and she prohibited the vow only from her husband,

why should he annul

in the latter clause? We explained above that this is not considered self-affliction.

Rather, from the latter clause

it is necessarily referring to a case

where the husband does not bring [it],

where she did not vow specifically in a manner that only the husband would be forbidden to bring her produce; therefore, if his livelihood is only from him, it is considered self-affliction.

It follows that the opening clause is a case where she brings it as well,

in the opening clause too it is referring to a case where she prohibited upon herself benefiting from the produce of this shopkeeper, and not only is her husband forbidden, but even she herself will not be able to purchase produce from him .

Rather, in the opening clause he cannot annul, and she brings it.

Rather, certainly, as we proved, the opening clause refers to a case where she prohibited upon herself benefiting from the produce of this shopkeeper, and even she herself will not be able to purchase produce from him.