Mi vami - Graph Database of the Talmud 1.0
Previous | Next | Nedarim 79b


אמר רבי יוסי אין אלו נדרי ענוי נפש ואלו הן נדרי ענוי נפש אמרה קונם פירות העולם עלי הרי זה יכול להפר פירות מדינה זו עלי יביא לה ממדינה אחרת פירות חנווני זה עלי אינו יכול להפר ואם לא היתה פרנסתו אלא ממנו הרי זה יפר דברי רבי יוסי

Rabbi Yosei said: These are not vows of affliction. Rather, these are vows of affliction: For example, if she said: The produce of the entire world is konam for me as if it were an offering, he can nullify the vow, as it certainly involves affliction. If, however, she said: The produce of this country is konam for me, he cannot nullify the vow, as it does not involve affliction, since he may still bring her produce from another country. Similarly, if she said: The produce of this storekeeper is konam for me, he cannot nullify her vow, as he may still bring her produce from another storekeeper. But if he can obtain his sustenance only from him, that particular storekeeper, he can nullify the vow. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

גמ׳ נדרי ענוי נפש הוא דמפר שאין בהן ענוי נפש אינו מפר והא תניא בין איש לאשתו בין אב לבתו מלמד שהבעל מפר נדרים שבינו לבינה

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a question with regard to the ruling of the mishna: Is it only vows of affliction that he can nullify, whereas vows that do not involve affliction he cannot nullify? But isn’t it taught in a baraita:

The verse“ These are the statutes that the Lord commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter” (Numbers 30:17) teaches that a husband can nullify any of his wife’s vows that adversely affect the relationship between him and her, even if they do not involve affliction?

אמרי הלין והלין מפר מיהו ענוי נפש מפר לעולם אבל אין בהן ענוי נפש כדאיתה תחותיה הויא הפרה מכי מגרש לה חייל עלה נדרה בדברים שבינו לבינה שאין בהן ענוי נפש אבל יש בהן ענוי נפש לא חייל עליה נדרה

The Sages say in response: In fact, he can nullify both these and those. There is, however, a difference between them. When he nullifies vows of affliction, he nullifies them forever, i. e., the vows remain nullified even if they subsequently divorce. But when he nullifies vows that do not involve affliction but merely impact upon their relationship, then, while they are married and she is under his authority it is an effective nullification, but when he divorces her, her vow takes effect upon her, i. e., his nullification is no longer effective. As stated, this is referring to vows concerning matters that adversely affect the relationship between him and her, that do not involve affliction. However, if he nullifies a vow that affects their relationship and also involves affliction, her vow does not take effect upon her even after she leaves her husband’s authority.

ודברים שאין בהן ענוי נפש כי מגרש לה חיילא עלה והא תנן רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר יפר שמא יגרשנה ותהא אסורה לו אלמא כי מגרש לה ומפר לה מעיקרא הויא הפרה

The Gemara asks: And as for vows concerning matters that do not involve affliction, when a man divorces his wife, do they really take effect upon her? But didn’t we learn in a mishna with regard to a woman who prohibited her handiwork to her husband by way of a vow (85a) that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri says: Even though the vow is presently invalid, as a woman cannot render forbidden to her husband that to which he is already entitled, he should nevertheless nullify the vow? This is because perhaps he will one day divorce her, at which point the vow will take effect and she will then be forbidden to him, since he will be unable to remarry her lest he come to benefit from her handiwork. Apparently, however, if he divorces her after having nullified her vow from the outset, before their divorce, it is a permanent nullification, and although the vow does not involve affliction it remains nullified after their divorce.

אמרי הלין והלין הויא הפרה אלא נדרי ענוי נפש מפר בין לעצמו ובין לאחרים אין בהן ענוי נפש לעצמו מפר לאחרים אינו מפר והכי קתני אלו נדרים שהוא מפר בין לעצמו ובין לאחרים נדרים שיש בהן ענוי נפש

Consequently, the Sages say a different answer: With regard to both these and those, vows of affliction and vows adversely affecting the relationship between them, when the husband nullifies the vow, it is a permanent nullification. Rather, the difference between them is as follows: Vows of affliction he can fully nullify, both with respect to him self and with respect to others, i. e., the vow remains nullified even if he divorces her and she marries another man. Whereas vows that do not involve affliction but still adversely affect the relationship between him and her he can permanently nullify with respect to him self, but he cannot nullify with respect to others; if she marries another man, the vow takes effect. And according to this explanation, this is what the mishna is teaching: These are the vows that he can nullify both for himself and for others: Vows that involve affliction.


אם ארחץ היכי קאמר אילימא דאמרה קונם פירות עולם עלי אם ארחץ למה לה הפרה לא תרחץ ולא ליתסרן פירות עולם אלו עלה

§ The mishna teaches that, according to the first tanna, a woman’s vow: If I bathe, falls into the category of vows of affliction, whereas Rabbi Yosei disagrees and says that this is not a vow of affliction. The Gemara asks: As the phrase: If I bathe, is not the main substance of the vow, but rather the woman wishes to prohibit herself from deriving a certain benefit depending on whether or not she bathes, with regard to what case is the mishna speaking? If we say that she said: The produce of the world is konam for me if I bathe, why, according to the first tanna, does she need nullification at all to prevent her affliction? Let her not bathe and this produce of the world will not be forbidden to her.

ועוד בהא לימא רבי יוסי אין אלו נדרי ענוי נפש דלמא רחצה ואיתסרו פירות עולם עלה

And furthermore, this explanation is problematic for a different reason: With regard to a vow of this type, would Rabbi Yosei say that these are not vows of affliction? There is certainly room for concern that perhaps she will bathe and the produce of the world will be forbidden to her, a situation that certainly entails deprivation.