Nedarim 82b (פב:) — the Talmud in English

Nevertheless, no objection can be raised against Shmuel from here -

And our Mishna is the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, as Rav Huna said: The entire chapter follows the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

Since Rabbi Yosei is the author of the Mishna, this vow is certainly not considered a vow involving inuy nefesh. But Shmuel spoke in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and according to the Rabbis, “the benefit of so-and-so is forbidden to me” is considered inuy nefesh.

And what does “he cannot annul” mean?

Even according to Rabbi Yosei, who holds that he cannot annul it, this does not mean that he cannot annul it at all. Rather -

As inuy nefesh

he cannot annul it,

but he can annul

vows that concern matters between him and her

and since even according to Rabbi Yosei this is considered a matter between him and her.

Accordingly, it is possible to say that the Rabbis hold that this is considered inuy nefesh -

But if we were to say that according to Rabbi Yosei this is not considered even a matter between him and her, it would not be reasonable to say that the Rabbis would state the opposite of Rabbi Yosei and hold that this is inuy nefesh. But since according to Rabbi Yosei as well this is considered a matter between him and her, it is entirely reasonable to say that according to the Rabbis it is considered inuy nefesh. 30 .

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

If she vowed concerning two loaves,

for example, she prohibited herself by a single vow from eating two loaves that were before her.

With regard to one she suffers affliction,

that is, eating one loaf would cause her inuy nefesh if she refrains from eating it, since it was made from fine flour.

And with regard to one she does not suffer affliction,

she does not experience inuy nefesh by refraining from eating this loaf, because it was made from coarse, dirty flour.

Since he annuls the vow with regard to the one that causes her affliction,

as he can annul the vow with regard to eating the loaf whose non-consumption would cause her inuy nefesh -

he annuls it with regard to the one that does not cause her affliction,

he annuls the vow even with regard to the loaf whose non-consumption would not cause her inuy nefesh. Since she made a single vow concerning two loaves, both of which are food, he annuls the one that does not cause her affliction by virtue of the one that does cause her affliction. And even if he did not explicitly annul the vow with regard to both loaves, the annulment takes effect with regard to both loaves together.

And Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: He annuls the vow with regard to the one that causes her affliction, but he does not annul it with regard to the one that does not cause her affliction.

Even if he explicitly annulled the vow with regard to both loaves together, his annulment is not effective with regard to the one that does not cause her affliction.

Some say -

Rav Asi asked Rabbi Yohanan: If she vowed concerning two loaves, with regard to one she suffers affliction and with regard to one she does not suffer affliction -

what is the ruling?

He said to him: He annuls the vow with regard to the one that causes her affliction, but he does not annul it with regard to the one that does not cause her affliction.

He raised an objection to him

Rav Asi raised an objection to Rabbi Yohanan from our Mishna:

A woman who vowed to be a nazirite,

who accepted naziriteship upon herself,

and she was drinking wine and becoming impure through contact with the dead,

and thereby violated the laws of naziriteship, as a nazirite is prohibited from drinking wine and becoming impure through contact with the dead.