Nedarim 91b — the Talmud in English

She said to him: If so, one of the gentiles\< ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

the tent-sellers who were here now—if you are not [the one], perhaps one of them was, -

there was a group of tent-sellers here just now, and if, as you say, you say that this did not happen just now, apparently it was one of them, while I innocently thought that it was you.

And the question came before Rav Nahman whether this woman became forbidden to her husband.

Rav Nahman said: She has set her eyes on another, and there is no substance in the matter -

there is no substance in her words, and she is not believed, because one must be concerned that perhaps she has set her eyes on another and wants to divorce her husband, and therefore she is lying.

There was a certain woman whose disposition was not cheerful with her husband [

her face was not radiant toward her husband],

He said to her: What is different today [

what is this day unlike other days? Is there anger in your heart against me?],

She said to him: Never have you caused me pain in the manner of intercourse as you have today [

indeed there is anger in my heart against you, since you have never before hurt me at the time of intercourse as you hurt me now]

He said to her: This matter did not occur today [

what are you complaining about? After all, this matter did not occur now?]

She said to him: If so, these gentiles, the oil-sellers, who were here now—if you are not [the one], perhaps one of them was -

there was a group of oil-sellers here just now, and if you claim that this did not happen just now, apparently it was one of them, while I innocently thought that it was you.

And the question came before Rav Nahman whether this woman became forbidden to her husband.

Rav Nahman said to them: Do not pay attention to her; she had set her eyes on another -

her stories are not believed, because one must be concerned that perhaps she wants to divorce her husband, and therefore invented this story in her heart, and in truth she did not transgress a prohibition with anyone.

There was a certain man who was hiding in a house [

hidden in the house]

he and a woman [

the man and the female householder],

When the master of the house came [

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

the adulterer broke it outward and fled [

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

and the question came before Rava whether this woman became forbidden to her husband.

Rava said: The woman is permitted [

the woman is permitted to her husband], and we are not concerned that an adulterous act occurred,

for

if it is so that he committed a prohibition, he would have hidden himself

he would have hidden himself -

if this were so, the adulterer would not have fled in a manner that he would be discovered before the master of the produce, but would have hidden himself so that he would not be seen.

There was a certain adulterer who entered in to 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 went up and sat [

among the reeds]

at the door [

the adulterer fled and hid behind the door],

There were colocynths there, and a snake tasted them [

there was food in the house called colocynths, and a snake came and tasted from it],

The master of the house wanted to eat from those colocynths without the woman’s knowledge [

the adulterer saw that the husband wanted to eat from these colocynths, while the woman did not see that he wanted to eat from them],

That adulterer said to him: Do not eat from them, for a snake tasted them [

the adulterer revealed himself to the husband and said to him that he should not eat from them, because a snake had tasted from them and there was danger to life in this]

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

Rava said: His wife is permitted [

the woman is permitted], and we are not concerned that adultery occurred,

for

if it is so that he committed a prohibition, it would have been preferable to him that he 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 danger to life],

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

and from this verse it may be learned that adulterers are suspected even of bloodshed.

And we raise an objection:

It is obvious,

and what novelty did Rava teach with this?

And we answer:

What might you have said [

it could have been said] that

he committed a prohibition

and in truth adultery occurred here, and the woman became forbidden,

and this that he said to him [

and the reason that the adulterer saved the husband is because]:

it is preferable to him that the husband not die, so that his wife should 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 still be forbidden to him, since he enjoys it more 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

Rava that we do not say 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