Nedarim 91b (צא:) — the Talmud in English

She said to him: “If so, it was one of the gentiles”\<

“the tent merchants who were here just now. If you are not the one, perhaps it was one of them.” -

There was a group of tent merchants here just now, and if, as you say, this did not happen just now, apparently it was one of them; and I innocently thought that it was you.

And the question came before Rav Naḥman: Is this woman forbidden to her husband?

Rav Naḥman said: “She has set her eyes on another man, and there is no substance to her words.” -

There is no substance to her statements, and she is not believed, because there is concern that perhaps she has set her eyes on another man and wishes to divorce her husband, and is therefore lying.

There was a certain woman whose mood was not cheerful in the company of her husband

[her face was not radiant toward her husband],

He said to her: “What is different today?”

[What is different today from all other days? Are you angry with me?],

She said to him: “You have never caused me pain during intercourse as you have today.”

[Indeed, I am angry with you, since you have never hurt me during intercourse as you hurt me now.]

He said to her: “This did not happen today.”

[What are you complaining about? This did not happen today.]

She said to him: “If so, it was one of these gentile oil merchants who were here just now. If you are not the one, perhaps it was one of them.” -

There was a group of oil merchants here just now, and if you claim that this did not happen just now, apparently it was one of them; and I innocently thought that it was you.

And the question came before Rav Naḥman: Is this woman forbidden to her husband?

Rav Naḥman said to them: “Do not pay attention to her; she had set her eyes on another man.” -

Her stories are not believed, because there is concern that perhaps she wishes to divorce her husband and therefore fabricated this story, whereas in truth she did not transgress with anyone.

There was a certain man who was hiding in a house

[hidden in the house]

with a woman

[he and the proprietress of the house] ,

When the master of the house came

[the woman’s husband entered and came into his house],

the adulterer broke through the fence to get out and fled

[the adulterer broke the reed fence that was there and escaped],

And the question came before Rava: Is this woman forbidden to her husband?

Rava said: “The woman is permitted”

[the woman is permitted to her husband], and there is no concern that an adulterous act took place,

for

if it were so that he had committed a transgression, he would have concealed himself

and hidden himself -

If this had been the case, the adulterer would not have fled in a manner that would expose him before the owner of the produce; rather, he would have hidden so that he would not be seen.

There was a certain adulterer who entered the house of a certain woman

[an adulterer entered a woman’s house when her husband was not at home],

The husband came

[the woman’s husband came into the house],

the adulterer climbed up and sat

in the window

of the doorway

[the adulterer fled and hid behind the door],

There was food called ḥaltalim there, and a snake tasted them

[there was food called shḥalim in the house, and a snake came and tasted it],

The master of the house wanted to eat some of those ḥaltalim without the woman’s knowledge

[the adulterer saw that the husband wanted to eat some of the shḥalim, and the woman did not see that he wanted to eat them],

That adulterer said to him: “Do not eat any of them, for a snake tasted them.”

[The adulterer revealed himself to the husband and told him not to eat them, because a snake had tasted them and doing so posed a mortal danger.]

And the question came before Rava: Is there concern that the adulterer had intercourse with the woman and that she is forbidden to her husband, or not?

Rava said: “His wife is permitted”

[the woman is permitted to her husband], and there is no concern that an adulterous act took place,

for

if it were so that he had committed a transgression, he would have been pleased for him to eat and die

[for if in truth the adulterer and the woman had transgressed the prohibition of a married woman, the adulterer would not have saved the husband from mortal danger],

As it is written: “For they committed adultery, and blood is on their hands”

And this verse teaches that adulterers are also suspected of bloodshed.

And we raise an objection:

It is obvious,

what novelty did Rava teach with this statement?

And we answer:

Lest you say

[it might have been said] that

he committed a transgression

and in truth an adulterous act occurred, rendering the woman forbidden,

and the reason that he said to him

[and the reason that the adulterer saved the husband was]:

“Because he would prefer that the husband of the woman not die, so that his wife would remain forbidden to him: ‘Stolen waters are sweet, and bread of secrecy is pleasant.’” -

The adulterer wants the husband not to die so that the woman will remain forbidden to him, because he takes greater pleasure when she is forbidden to him than when she is permitted to him, as it is written: “Stolen waters are sweet, and bread of secrecy is pleasant.”

It teaches us

that Rava does not accept this reasoning, and the woman does not become forbidden to her husband:

We have returned to you, chapter “And These Are Vows,” and the tractate Nedarim is concluded