Nedarim 83b (פג:) — the Talmud in English

Perhaps the reference is to wine, with which she experiences distress

through being prevented from drinking it;

he should annul it,

since being prevented from drinking wine constitutes affliction of the soul, and he can therefore annul her vow.

However,

with regard to corpse impurity, with which she does not experience distress

through refraining from impurity,

he should not annul it.

Since she experiences no affliction in being unable to become impure through contact with the dead, the husband cannot annul her prohibition against contracting impurity.

And consequently, this is not considered a partial observance, since she is required to complete all her days of naziriteship in a state of purity and must bring all the offerings of a nazirite. Why, then, does she bring only the bird sin-offering?

Rather, necessarily, since he annuls a vow concerning something that causes her affliction, he also annuls a vow concerning something that does not cause her affliction. Therefore, the husband can also annul her prohibition against contracting impurity through contact with the dead.

They said

to explain:

Corpse impurity

also causes her distress,

since she experiences distress at being unable to become impure through contact with the dead, and this is because

it is written: “And the living shall take it to heart.”

And it was taught in a beraita: Rabbi Meir would say: What is the meaning of that which is written,

what is the meaning of the verse

“And the living shall take it to heart”?

One who delivers eulogies

for others—when he dies,

they will deliver a eulogy for him,

others will deliver a eulogy for him.

One who weeps

over the death of others—when he dies,

they will weep for him,

others will weep for him.

One who buries

others—when he dies,

they will bury him,

others will bury him.

And since if she does not go to the house of mourning, weep, and attend to the burial, there will be no one to do the same for her, this is considered affliction of the soul.

Mishna:

If a woman took a vow and said:

“Konam: I am forbidden to benefit from people”

—she prohibited herself from benefiting from people—

he cannot annul it

since this is not affliction of the soul,

And she may benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field,

which are ownerless for the poor, and this is not considered benefit from the owner of the field.

If a person took a vow and said:

“Konam: priests

and

Levites are forbidden to benefit from me”

—he prohibited priests and Levites from benefiting from him—

they shall take it from him

against

his will

his teruma and tithes.

And if he took a vow and said: “Konam:

these priests and these Levites are forbidden to benefit from me”

—he prohibited specific priests and Levites from benefiting from him—

these priests or Levites may not benefit from his teruma and tithes; rather,

other

priests

shall take them:

Gemara:

It is explained in the Mishna that when a woman vows not to benefit from people, this is not a vow involving affliction of the soul.

Evidently,

the reason is that

it is possible that she can be sustained from his resources

—she can be supported by her husband.

From this

you learn

that a

husband is not included among “people.”

Therefore, the vow does not imply that she may not benefit from her husband.

Come and hear—

and we raise a difficulty from the latter clause of the Mishna, where we learned:

She may benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field.

This proves that she may eat only from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field.

But from her husband

she may not eat.

For if she could eat even from her husband, she would not be poor, and she would have no right to eat from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field.

Evidently, a husband—

is included among “people.”

The meaning of the vow is that she may not benefit from any person, including her husband.

It follows that the first and latter clauses of the Mishna contradict one another.

And we answer:

Ulla said: Actually,

a husband

is not included among people.

This is the explanation of the Mishna’s words: There are two reasons why this vow is not considered a vow involving affliction of the soul.

The first is that her husband can support her.

Furthermore,

even if her husband is poor and cannot support her, nevertheless

he cannot annul the vow, because she can benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field.

Rava said: Actually, a husband—

is included among people.

This is the explanation of the Mishna’s words: The latter clause continues and explains the words of the first clause,

and what is the reason

for the first clause?—

the tanna says

in the latter clause:

What is the reason that he cannot annul the vow?—

Because she can benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field.

Therefore, this is not a vow involving affliction of the soul—not because she can benefit from her husband, since the meaning of the vow is that she may not benefit even from her husband.

Rav Naḥman said: Actually, a husband is not included among people.

And this is what it teaches

in the latter clause: If she

is divorced,

at which point her husband too once again becomes included among the rest of the people, and she is forbidden to benefit from him,

she may benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field.