Nedarim 82b — the Talmud in English

And nevertheless, one cannot raise an objection from here against Shmuel—

And our Mishna is Rabbi Yosei’s, for Rav Huna said: This entire chapter is Rabbi Yosei’s.

And since Rabbi Yosei is the author of the Mishna, certainly this vow is not considered a vow involving affliction of the soul. But Shmuel spoke according to the view of the Rabbis, and according to the Rabbis, “the benefit of so-and-so is upon me” is considered affliction of the soul.

And what is [the meaning of] “he cannot annul”?

And even according to Rabbi Yosei, who holds that he cannot annul, his intention is not that he cannot annul at all, but rather—

because of affliction of the soul

he cannot annul,

but he can annul

vows between him and her,

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

And therefore it is possible to say that the Rabbis hold that this is considered affliction of the soul—

But if we say that according to Rabbi Yosei this is not considered even a matter between him and her, it is not reasonable to say that the Rabbis would say the opposite of Rabbi Yosei and hold that this is affliction of the soul. But since even according to Rabbi Yosei this is considered a matter between him and her, it is properly possible to say that according to the Rabbis this is considered affliction of the soul 30 .

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel:

She vowed concerning two loaves,

for example, she prohibited to herself, in a single vow, the eating of two loaves that were before her.

With one she suffers,

what does it mean that the eating of one loaf causes her affliction of the soul, through her refraining from eating it? Since it was made from fine flour.

and with one she does not suffer,

there is no affliction of the soul for her in refraining from eating this loaf, because it is made from dirty flour.

Since he annuls for the one with which she suffers,

for he can annul the vow for the eating of the loaf with which she has affliction of the soul if she does not eat it—

he annuls for the one with which she does not suffer,

he annuls the vow also with regard to the loaf with which she has no affliction of the soul if she refrains from eating it. For since she made one vow concerning two loaves, both of which are food, he annuls for the one with which she does not suffer by virtue of the one with which she does suffer. And even if he did not explicitly annul concerning both loaves, the annulment takes effect upon both loaves together.

And Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: He annuls for the one with which she suffers, but he does not annul for the one with which she does not suffer.

And even if he explicitly annulled concerning both loaves together, his annulment is not effective for the one with which she does not suffer.

There are those who say—

Rav Asi asked Rabbi Yohanan: She vowed concerning two loaves, with one she suffers and with one she does not suffer—

what is [the law]?

He said to him: He annuls for the one with which she suffers, but he does not annul for the one with which she does not suffer.

He raised an objection to him

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

The woman who vowed to be a nazirite,

who accepted nazirite status upon herself,

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

and thereby transgressed the laws of naziriteship, for it is forbidden for a nazirite to drink wine and to become impure through contact with the dead.