איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן ובעל לאו בכלל בריות הוא והתנן נטולה אני מן היהודים יפר חלקו ותהא משמשתו ותהא נטולה מן היהודים

Rava raised an objection to the opinion of Rav Naḥman: And is a husband not included in her reference to people? But didn’t we learn otherwise in a mishna (90b): If a woman said: I am removed from the Jews, i. e., the benefit of intercourse with me is prohibited to all Jews, her husband must nullify his part, i. e., the part that affects him. She would be permitted to him, and she may engage in intercourse with him, but she is removed from all other Jews, so that if he divorces her, she is forbidden to all.

ואי אמרת בעל לאו בכלל בריות הוא נדרי עינוי נפש הן ויפר לה לעולם

The Gemara explains the difficulty: If you say that the husband is included in this vow, it follows that he can nullify his part, as it is a vow that adversely affects the relationship between him and her, but the vow is not permanently nullified; if they divorce she is removed from all Jews, including him. But if you say a husband is not included in her reference to people, then it is not a vow that touches upon their personal relationship, but rather it is a vow of affliction, and he can nullify it for her forever.

אימא לך שאני הכא דמוכחא מלתא דעל היתרא קאסרה נפשה

Rav Naḥman responded: I could say to you that in general a husband is not included in her reference to people, but here it is different, as it is clear that the woman means to include her husband in the vow, as she means to render forbidden to herself a matter that is otherwise permitted to her and not to render forbidden to herself intercourse with men other than her husband, which is in any case forbidden to her. Therefore, she certainly intended to render herself forbidden to her husband.

יכולה ליהנות בלקט שכחה ופאה ולא קתני ובמעשר עני והתניא בברייתא ובמעשר עני

§ The mishna teaches that if a woman took a vow prohibiting herself from benefiting from people, she may nevertheless benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe’a. The Gemara notes that the mishna does not teach that she may benefit from these gifts and also from poor man’s tithe. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that she may benefit from these gifts and also from poor man’s tithe?

אמר רב יוסף לא קשיא הא רבי אליעזר הא רבנן דתנן רבי אליעזר אומר אין אדם צריך לקרות שם על מעשר עני של דמאי

Rav Yosef said: This is not difficult, as the matter is the subject of a tannaitic dispute. This baraita that says that the woman may derive benefit even from poor man’s tithe reflects the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, whereas that mishna, which does not mention poor man’s tithe, reflects the opinion of the Rabbis, as we learned in a mishna ( Demai 4: 3): Rabbi Eliezer says: A person need not actually set aside, nor even designate by name, the poor man’s tithe of doubtfully tithed produce [demai], i. e., produce purchased from an am ha’aretz, one who is not diligent in separating tithes, as poor man’s tithe has no sanctity, and a poor man cannot claim it from him, since he cannot offer proof that this produce in fact has the status of poor man’s tithe.