Nedarim 83b — the Talmud in English

Perhaps concerning wine, for she has distress

in being prevented from drinking it,

he may annul it,

since the prevention from drinking wine is affliction of the soul, he may annul it for her.

However,

concerning corpse impurity, for she has no distress

in abstaining from impurity,

he did not annul it.

Since she has no affliction in that she cannot become impure through the dead, the husband cannot annul for her the prohibition against becoming impure.

And consequently it is not considered partial, for she is required to complete all the days of her naziriteship in purity, and she must bring all the offerings of a nazirite; so why does she bring only a bird sin-offering?

Rather, necessarily, since he annuls for one who is afflicted, he annuls for one who is not afflicted. Therefore the husband can also annul for her the prohibition against becoming impure through the dead.

They said

to explain:

Corpse impurity—

she also has distress,

for she has distress in that she cannot become impure through the dead, and because—

“And the living shall lay it to his 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 lay it to his heart”?—

He who eulogizes

others, when he dies—

they will eulogize him,

others will eulogize him.

He who weeps,

one who weeps over the death of other people, when he dies—

they will weep for him,

others will weep over him.

He 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, and does not weep, and does not engage in burial, there will be no one to do this for her, this is therefore considered affliction of the soul.

Mishna:

A woman who vowed and said:

“Konam, I am prohibited from benefiting 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,

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

If a person vowed and said:

“Konam, kohanim

and

Levites are prohibited to benefit from me”

[he prohibited kohanim and Levites from benefiting from him],

they may take from him

by

force

his terumot and tithes.

And if he vowed and said: “Konam,

these kohanim and these Levites are prohibited to benefit from me

[he prohibited certain kohanim and Levites from benefiting from him],

these kohanim or Levites are not permitted to benefit from his terumot and tithes; rather,

other

kohanim

may take them:

Gemara:

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

Evidently

the reason is that

perhaps she can be sustained from his property

[she can be supported by her husband].

By inference

you learn

that the husband—

is not included among “people.”

And therefore the vow does not imply that she may not benefit from her husband.

Come and hear the final clause—

and we raise an objection from the final clause of the Mishna, in which we learned:

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

And it is proved 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 can also eat from her husband, then she is not poor, and she has no right to eat from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corner of the field.

Evidently, the husband—

is included among “people.”

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

And it emerges that the words of the Mishna in its first clause and its final clause contradict one another.

And we answer:

Ulla said: Actually,

the husband

is not included among people.

And this is the explanation of the words of the Mishna: there are two reasons why this vow is not considered a vow of affliction of the soul.

The first is because her husband can support her.

And furthermore,

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

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

Rava said: Actually, the husband—

is included among people.

And this is the explanation of the words of the Mishna: the final clause is a continuation and explanation of the words of the first clause,

and for what reason

of the first clause—

did he say

in the final clause?

For what reason can he not annul it?—

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

And therefore this is not a vow of affliction of the soul, and 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, the husband is not included among people.

And this is what he teaches

in the final clause: if

she was divorced,

at which point even her husband returns to be 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.