Daf 79a
MISHNA: And these are the vows that he, the husband or father, can nullify: The first category consists of matters that involve affliction for the woman who took the vow. For example, if a woman vowed: If I bathe, or: If I do not bathe; if she vowed: If I adorn myself [etkashet], or: If I do not adorn myself.
Daf 79b 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. 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? 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. 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. 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 himself 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 himself, 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. § 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. 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.
Daf 80a But rather, explain that she said: The benefit of bathing is konam for me forever if I bathe. And it is due to that reason that he may nullify her vow, as what can she do if there is no nullification? If she bathes, the benefit of bathing is thereby forbidden to her. And if she does not bathe, she will suffer temporary disfigurement [nivvula]. And Rabbi Yosei, who maintains that this is not a vow of affliction, maintains that it is possible for her not to bathe, as we are not concerned about her disfigurement. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, let the mishna teach like this: Rabbi Yosei says that this condition does not involve affliction, as the content of the vow itself is irrelevant, since she can fulfill the condition. The Gemara offers another explanation: Rather, explain that she said: The benefit of bathing is konam for me forever if I bathe today. And Rabbi Yosei maintains that nothing will happen if she refrains from bathing today, as the disfigurement resulting from not bathing for one day is not called disfigurement.
Daf 80b The Gemara asks: You have adequately answered the expression: If I bathe, but as for the vow: If I do not bathe, what are the circumstances? If we say that she said: The benefit of bathing shall be forbidden to me forever if I do not bathe today, why does she need nullification at all? Let her bathe today and nothing will be forbidden. Rav Yehuda said: The mishna is referring to a case where she said: The benefit of bathing is forbidden to me forever if I do not bathe in foul water in which flax was soaked. The husband can nullify this vow, as it will make her repulsive, which is a form of disfigurement. The Gemara raises an objection: In that case, you must similarly explain that which the tanna teaches: If I do not adorn myself, to mean: The benefit of adorning myself is forbidden to me forever if I do not do something repulsive, e.g., if I do not adorn myself with naphtha [neft]. But this cannot be, as such a substance is filthy and the term adornment cannot be applied to it at all. Rather, Rav Yehuda said that the mishna is referring to a case where she said: The benefit of bathing is forbidden to me forever if I bathe today, and I take an oath that I will not bathe today. Through a combination of her vow and her oath she has rendered it prohibited for her to bathe forever. The situation is similar if she said: The benefit of adornment is forbidden to me forever if I adorn myself today, and I take an oath that I will not adorn myself today. Ravina said to Rav Ashi: According to this explanation, this tanna of the mishna should have taught: These are the vows and oaths that he can nullify. Rav Ashi said to him: Teach so in the mishna: These are the vows and oaths. And if you wish, say instead that oaths are also included in the category of vows. As we learned in a mishna (9a): If one said: Like the vows of the wicked, he has vowed with respect to becoming a nazirite, and with regard to bringing an offering, and with regard to taking an oath. This shows that an oath can also be called a vow. § The Gemara asks: And do the Rabbis, i.e., the first tanna, mean to say with regard to bathing that when she does not bathe it involves affliction? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita that states: Although one is prohibited from performing any of the five activities associated with affliction on Yom Kippur, i.e., eating or drinking, bathing, anointing, engaging in sexual intercourse, and wearing leather shoes, one is punished with karet only when one eats or drinks or performs prohibited labor alone. And if you say that when a woman does not bathe there is affliction, and for this reason a husband may nullify such a vow taken by his wife, then if one bathes on Yom Kippur, he should be liable to receive karet, in accordance with the verse “For whatever person shall not be afflicted on that same day, he shall be cut off [venikhreta] from his people” (Leviticus 23:29), as he has failed to observe this form of affliction. Rava said: The meaning of the affliction in each case may be learned from the context of the verse. With regard to Yom Kippur, where it is written: “On the tenth of the month you shall afflict your souls” (Leviticus 16:29), the reference is to a matter for which one knows and feels the affliction right now, on Yom Kippur itself, i.e., abstention from food and drink, which is felt within a short period of time. One who abstains from bathing, however, does not know and feel the affliction now, but only later. By contrast, with regard to vows, where it is written: “Every vow and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may uphold it, or her husband may nullify it” (Numbers 30:14), the reference is to a matter that leads to affliction, and if she does not bathe for an extended period of time, it eventually leads to affliction. § The Gemara raises a contradiction between this statement of Rabbi Yosei and another statement of Rabbi Yosei. It was taught in a baraita: In the case of a spring belonging to the residents of a city, if the water was needed for their own lives, i.e., the city’s residents required the spring for drinking water, and it was also needed for the lives of others, their own lives take precedence over the lives of others. Likewise, if the water was needed for their own animals and also for the animals of others, their own animals take precedence over the animals of others. And if the water was needed for their own laundry and also for the laundry of others, their own laundry takes precedence over the laundry of others. However, if the spring water was needed for the lives of others and their own laundry, the lives of others take precedence over their own laundry. Rabbi Yosei disagrees and says: Even their own laundry takes precedence over the lives of others, as the wearing of unlaundered clothes can eventually cause suffering and pose a danger. The Gemara clarifies the difficulty presented by this baraita: Now, if with regard to laundry, Rabbi Yosei said that refraining from laundering one’s clothes involves pain and affliction,
Daf 81a is it not all the more so the case that if one does not bathe, which affects the entire body, Rabbi Yosei would agree that he will suffer pain? The Gemara refutes this argument: The Sages say in response: Yes, the pain of refraining from laundering one’s clothes is stronger, according to Rabbi Yosei, than the pain of not washing one’s body. As Shmuel said: Grime on one’s head leads to blindness, and grime on one’s clothes leads to madness, whereas grime on one’s body leads to boils and sores, which are less serious than madness and blindness. Based on this it may be suggested that according to Rabbi Yosei, soiled clothing presents a greater danger than an unwashed body. § With regard to this issue, the Gemara relates that the Sages sent the following message from there, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, to Babylonia: Be careful with regard to grime, as it can lead to disease and sickness. Be careful to learn Torah in the company of others, rather than study it alone. And be careful with regard to the education of the sons of paupers, as it is from them that the Torah will issue forth. As it is stated: “Water shall flow from his branches [midalyav]” (Numbers 24:7), which is expounded to mean: From the poor ones [midalim] among him, as it is from them that the Torah, which may be compared to water, will issue forth. With regard to a similar matter, the Gemara inquires: And for what reason is it not common for Torah scholars to give rise to Torah scholars from among their sons? Why are Torah scholars generally born to paupers, who are not Torah scholars themselves? Rav Yosef said: This is so that they should not say the Torah is their inheritance. Therefore, it is unusual to find that all the sons of a Torah scholar are also Torah scholars. Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: This is so that they should not be presumptuous [yitgadderu] toward the community, with the knowledge that they will be Torah scholars like their fathers. Mar Zutra said: Because they take advantage of their fathers’ standing to lord over the community and are punished for their conduct. Rav Ashi said: Because they call ordinary people donkeys. Ravina says: They are punished because they do not first recite a blessing over the Torah before commencing their studies. As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Who is the wise man that may understand this, and who is he to whom the mouth of the Lord has spoken, that he may declare it, for what the land is perished and laid waste like a wilderness, so that none passes through” (Jeremiah 9:11)? This matter, the question as to why Eretz Yisrael was destroyed, was asked of the Sages, i.e., “the wise man,” and of the prophets, “he to whom the mouth of the Lord has spoken,” but they could not explain it. The matter remained a mystery until the Holy One, Blessed be He, Himself explained why Eretz Yisrael was laid waste, as it is written in the next verse: “And the Lord said: Because they have forsaken My Torah which I set before them, and have not obeyed My voice, nor walked therein” (Jeremiah 9:12). It would appear that “have not obeyed My voice” is the same as “nor walked therein.” Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The expression “nor walked therein” means that they do not first recite a blessing over the Torah, and they are therefore liable to receive the severe punishments listed in the verse. § Returning to the issue of laundering clothes, the Gemara relates that it once happened that Isi bar Yehuda did not come to the academy of Rabbi Yosei for three straight days. Vardimus, son of Rabbi Yosei, found him and said to him: What is the reason that the Master did not come to Father’s academy these three days? He said to him: When I do not know your father’s reasoning, how can I come? Vardimus said to him: Let the Master say what he, my father, is saying to him; perhaps I know his reasoning. He said to him: With regard to that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says that their own laundry takes precedence over the lives of others, from where do we have a verse that teaches this halakha? Vardimus said to him: As it is written with regard to the Levite cities: “And their open land shall be for their animals and for their substance, and for all their beasts” (Numbers 35:3). What is the meaning of “their beasts”? If we say an actual beast, there is a difficulty, as isn’t a beast included in the category of animal, which has already been mentioned in the verse? Rather, what is the meaning of “their beasts [ḥayyatam]”? It means their actual lives [ḥiyyuta]. This, however, is difficult, as it is obvious that the Levites received their cities in order to live their lives there. Rather, is it not referring to laundering clothes, as there is the pain caused by the grime on one’s unwashed clothes? Since it is vitally necessary for their well-being, laundering the clothing of the city’s residents takes precedence over the lives of others. § With regard to the vows: If I bathe, and: If I do not bathe, and: If I adorn myself, and: If I do not adorn myself, Rabbi Yosei said in the mishna that these are not vows of affliction. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to Rabbi Yosei, what is the halakha as to whether the husband can nullify these vows as matters that adversely affect the relationship between him and her? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this question from what Rabbi Yosei said: These are not vows of affliction, which indicates, however, that they are matters that affect the relationship between him and her. The Gemara refutes this proof: Perhaps Rabbi Yosei was speaking to the Rabbis in accordance with their own opinion, as follows: According to my opinion, they are not even matters that affect the relationship between him and her. But according to your opinion, that you say that they are vows of affliction, agree with me at least that these are not vows of affliction. In other words, one should not infer from the phrasing of Rabbi Yosei’s response to the Rabbis that he holds that these vows are concerning matters that affect the relationship between him and her, as he was merely countering the claim of the Rabbis that they are vows of affliction. The question therefore remains: What does Rabbi Yosei maintain in this regard? Rav Adda bar Ahava says: He can nullify these vows as matters between him and her, whereas Rav Huna says: He cannot nullify them.
Daf 81b And it cannot be argued that if the woman refrains from bathing or adorning herself, it will negatively impact on her relationship with her husband, as we do not find a fox dying in the earth of the lair to which it is accustomed. Similarly, a husband who is accustomed to his wife will not come to avoid engaging in sexual intercourse with her merely because she has not bathed. The Gemara comments that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava: Vows taken by a woman concerning matters that involve affliction the husband can nullify, whether they relate to matters between him and her or to matters between her and others. As for vows concerning matters that do not involve affliction, if they relate to matters between him and her, he can nullify them, but if they relate to matters between her and others, he cannot nullify them. How so? If she said: Produce is konam for me, he can nullify the vow, as it falls into the category of vows of affliction. If, however, she said: I will not prepare anything for my father, as that is konam for me or: For your brother, or: For your father, or: For my brother, or: I will not place straw before your animal, or: I will not place water before your cattle, he cannot nullify such vows, as they do not touch upon the relationship between husband and wife, nor do they cause her affliction. A wife said: I will not paint my eyes, as that is konam for me; I will not rouge [efkos] my cheeks, as that is konam for me; or: I will not engage in sexual intercourse, as that is konam for me. If she made any of these statements, her husband can nullify them, as they are matters that adversely affect the relationship between him and her. A wife said: I will not make your bed, as that is konam for me; or: I will not prepare your cup for you, mixing your wine with water, as that is konam for me; or: I will not wash your face, your hands, or your feet, as that is konam for me. If she made these statements, her husband need not nullify these vows. They do not take effect, since she is obligated to perform these tasks as part of her marital duties. Rabban Gamliel says: He should nevertheless nullify such vows, as it is stated: “He shall not profane his word” (Numbers 30:3), which teaches that it is improper for one to take a vow and not fulfill it. The Gemara presents another interpretation of the verse: Alternatively, the verse states: “He shall not profane his word,” from here it may be derived that a halakhic authority cannot dissolve his own vows. After having cited the entire baraita, the Gemara proceeds to analyze the relevant component: Of whom have we heard that he said that if a woman says: I will not paint my eyes, as that is konam for me, or: I will not rouge my cheeks, the vows fall into the category of matters that adversely affect the relationship between him and her? It is Rabbi Yosei, as the Rabbis, who disagree with him, maintain that they are vows of affliction, and the baraita teaches that the husband can nullify such vows as matters that adversely affect the relationship between him and her. Therefore, the baraita supports Rav Adda bar Ahava’s understanding of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Master said in the baraita that if the woman said: I will not engage in sexual intercourse, as that is konam for me, her husband can nullify the vow as an example of matters that adversely affects the relationship between him and her. The Gemara raises a question: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say that she said: The benefit of my engaging in intercourse with you is forbidden to you, why do I need the husband’s nullification at all? She is obligated to engage in intercourse with him by the very nature of their marriage, and it is not within her power to release herself from this duty by means of a vow. Rather, the baraita must refer to a case where she said: The benefit of your engaging in intercourse with me is forbidden to me, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana. As Rav Kahana said that if a woman says: The benefit of my engaging in intercourse with you is forbidden to you, he can compel her to have relations with him. If, however, she said: The benefit of your engaging in intercourse with me is forbidden to me, he must nullify her vow. Why must the husband nullify it if she is obligated to have relations with him? It is because we do not feed a person something that is forbidden to him. Although she cannot release herself from her duty, since she prohibited herself from deriving pleasure from the act, she may not engage in sexual intercourse, as it would entail forbidden pleasure. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to matters that are permitted, but others were accustomed to treat them as a prohibition, you are not allowed to treat them as permitted in a manner that may cause the negation of their custom, as it is stated: “He shall not profane his word” (Numbers 30:3). The verse indicates that any vow in which a person renders a matter forbidden to himself, i.e., “his word,” is considered a quasi-vow, which may not be profaned. The Gemara presents another interpretation of the verse: Alternatively, the verse states: “He shall not profane his word”; from here it may be derived that a halakhic authority cannot dissolve his own vows. Whose opinion is this? It is that of Rabban Gamliel, who maintains that a man should nullify his wife’s vow even if it does not actually take effect. Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: If a woman took a vow that sexual intercourse with her husband is forbidden to her, then, according to the Rabbis, is it a vow of affliction or does it fall within the category of matters that adversely affect the relationship between him and her? Rav Naḥman said to him: You learned the answer to this question in a mishna (90b): And if a woman said: I am removed from the Jews, i.e., the benefit of my engaging in intercourse is forbidden to all Jews,
Daf 82a her husband must nullify his part, i.e., the part of the vow that affects him, so that she will 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 everyone. And if you say that this is a vow of affliction, why should she be removed from all other Jews? Wasn’t it already established that when a husband nullifies a vow of affliction for his wife, he nullifies it not only with respect to himself but with respect to others as well? Rather, learn from here that such vows are under the category of matters that adversely affect the relationship between him and her, and therefore he can nullify it only with respect to himself. The Gemara notes: According to the Rabbis, you still have the dilemma, because the mishna dealing with a woman who says: I am removed from the Jews, was taught by Rabbi Yosei. As Rav Huna said: Our entire chapter is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. From where do we know this? Since the mishna teaches: Rabbi Yosei says that these are not vows of affliction, why does it need to teach further, at the end of the mishna: He can nullify the vow; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei? Learn from this that from this point forward, the rest of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Accordingly, this mishna teaches us only the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, not that of the Rabbis. § Shmuel said in the name of Levi: A husband can nullify all vows of affliction for his wife, except for the vow: Benefit from me is konam for so-and-so, which he cannot nullify, as it is entirely between her and another person. But if she says: Benefit derived from so-and-so is konam for me, he can nullify the vow, as it considered a vow of affliction, since she might one day need that person and be unable to avail herself of his services due to her vow. The Gemara raises an objection from that which we learned in the mishna: If she said: The produce of this country is konam for me, he cannot nullify the vow, as it does not involve affliction, since he can still bring her produce from another country. This vow is similar to a vow by which she prohibits herself from deriving benefit from another person. Why, then, does Shmuel say that the husband cannot nullify it? Rav Yosef said: The mishna is referring to a woman who said in her vow: That you bring. In other words, she did not prohibit herself from deriving benefit from the produce of that country entirely, but only from the produce that her husband himself would bring her. She may still enjoy that produce if it is brought to her by someone else or if she brings it for herself. The Gemara raises another objection from the next clause of the mishna: Come and hear: If the woman took a vow saying: The produce of this storekeeper is konam for me, her husband cannot nullify the vow. But didn’t Shmuel say that if a woman prohibits herself from benefiting from a certain person, her husband can nullify the vow? The Gemara answers: Here too, the mishna is referring to a case where she said in her vow: The produce that you bring from this storekeeper is konam for me. The Gemara questions this resolution: But the continuation of the mishna states: But if the husband can obtain his sustenance only from him, i.e., that particular storekeeper, he can nullify his wife’s vow. And if you say that this is referring to a case where the woman said in her vow: The fruit that you bring from this storekeeper is konam for me, why can the husband nullify her vow? Other people can bring her the fruit on his behalf. Rather, from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna must be dealing with a case where the woman renders all fruit forbidden to herself, even that which the husband does not bring her, the first clause must also refer to a case where the woman renders forbidden even the fruit that she herself brings, and nevertheless the husband cannot nullify the vow. Therefore, the objection raised against Shmuel remains. Rather, the Gemara retracts its previous answer and explains the matter as follows: In the first clause the husband cannot nullify his wife’s vow, and the case is one where she renders forbidden even the fruit that she herself brings.
Daf 82b And the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who is more restrictive in his definition of affliction. As Rav Huna said: Our entire chapter is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Shmuel, on the other hand, rules in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And what does Rabbi Yosei mean when he says that the husband cannot nullify his wife’s vows? He means that he cannot nullify them as vows of affliction, but he can nullify them as vows that adversely affect the relationship between him and her. § Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: In a case where a woman vowed that two loaves are forbidden to her, and if she abstains from one of them she would deprive herself, as it is a fine-quality loaf, and if she abstains from the other one she would not deprive herself, as it is a poor-quality loaf, then, since the husband can nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would cause her to deprive herself, like any other vow of affliction, he can also nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would not cause her to deprive herself. And Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: The husband can nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would cause her to deprive herself, but he cannot nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would not cause her to deprive herself. And some say a different version of this dispute, according to which Rav Asi raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥanan: In a case where a woman vowed not to eat from two loaves of bread, and if she abstains from one of them she would deprive herself, and if she abstains from the other one she would not deprive herself, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: The husband can nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would cause her to deprive herself, but he cannot nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would not cause her to deprive herself. Rav Asi raised an objection against Rabbi Yoḥanan from the following mishna (Nazir 23a): With regard to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite, and she transgressed her vow and drank wine or became impure by coming into contact with the dead,
Daf 83a she incurs [sofeget] the forty lashes, the penalty for one who transgresses a Torah prohibition, as she violated the terms of her nazirite vow. If her husband nullified the vow for her, but she did not know that he nullified it for her, and she drank wine or became impure through contact with the dead, she does not incur the forty lashes. She did not commit a transgression, as her nazirite vow was nullified. And if you say that the husband can nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would cause her to deprive herself, but he cannot nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would not cause her to deprive herself, the same reasoning should apply to a nazirite vow: Perhaps the husband nullified for her the vow that rendered wine forbidden to her, as she suffers pain when she refrains from drinking it. But as for her vow that rendered grape seeds and grape skins forbidden to her, he did not nullify it for her, as she suffers no pain when she abstains from them. And since even grape seeds and grape skins are forbidden to a nazirite, if the woman ate of them, she should receive the forty lashes, even if her husband nullified her vow. Rav Yosef said: Here it is different, as naziriteship cannot take effect partially. Since one cannot be a nazirite and accept only some of the prohibitions of naziriteship, the husband’s nullification cancels the entire vow. In the case of an ordinary vow, on the other hand, the husband can nullify only the part that causes his wife suffering. Abaye said to him: The wording of your statement suggests that naziriteship cannot take effect partially, but that an offering is brought for partial observance of naziriteship. Rather, Abaye said that one should say as follows: Naziriteship cannot take effect partially, and no offering is brought for partial observance of naziriteship. The Gemara raises an objection from the following statement: With regard to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite and she designated her animal for her nazirite offering, and afterward her husband nullified her vow for her, she must bring a bird sin-offering but she does not bring a bird burnt-offering. And if you say that no offering is brought for partial observance of naziriteship, why must she bring a bird sin-offering? The Gemara rejects this argument: But rather, what will you say? That an offering is brought for partial observance of naziriteship? If so, she should be required to bring three animals as offerings, a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and a peace-offering, in accordance with the halakha governing a nazirite who has completed the period of his vow. Rather, say as follows: Actually, no offering is brought for partial observance of naziriteship, and as for the bird sin-offering that she must bring, this is because a bird sin-offering can be brought in a case of uncertainty. She must therefore bring a sin-offering for the partial naziriteship that she observed. Rav Asi raised an objection against the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan from the following baraita: With regard to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite and she became ritually impure through contact with the dead, and afterward her husband nullified her vow for her, she must bring a bird sin-offering but does not bring a bird burnt-offering. And if you say that the husband can nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would cause her to deprive herself, but he cannot nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would not cause her to deprive herself, the same reasoning should apply here:
Daf 83b Perhaps the husband nullified for her the vow that rendered wine forbidden to her, as she suffers pain when she refrains from drinking it. But as for her vow that impurity imparted by the dead is forbidden to her, he did not nullify it for her, as she suffers no pain by not becoming impure through contact with the dead. Why, then, does she not bring the offerings that must be brought by a nazirite who became ritually impure through contact with the dead? This implies that since the husband can nullify a vow with regard to a matter that would cause her to deprive herself, he can also nullify a vow with regard to a matter that would not cause her to deprive herself. The Gemara rejects this argument: The Sages say in response that a woman who vows that impurity imparted by the dead is forbidden to her also suffers pain as a result. How so? As it is written: “And the living shall lay it to his heart” (Ecclesiastes 7:2), and it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And the living shall lay it to his heart”? This means that one who eulogizes others when they die will in turn be eulogized when he himself dies; one who weeps for others will be wept for when he himself passes away; and one who buries others will himself be buried upon his passing. A woman who cannot participate in the funerals of others because she is barred from contracting impurity through contact with a corpse is distressed by the thought that she will receive similar treatment when she dies. Therefore, her vow involves affliction and can be nullified by her husband. The conclusion is that this case does not present a difficulty for Rabbi Yoḥanan. MISHNA: If a woman vowed: The property of other people is konam for me, and for that reason I will not benefit from it, her husband cannot nullify her vow, but nevertheless, if she is poor, she may benefit from the agricultural gifts that must be left for the poor: Gleanings, i.e., isolated stalks that fell during the harvest; forgotten sheaves; and produce of the corners [pe’a] of the field that the owner is obligated to leave for the poor. Enjoyment of these gifts is not considered as benefit derived from people, as these gifts are not given voluntarily out of the kindness of the donors, but in the performance of a mitzva. If one said: I will not let priests and Levites benefit from me, as that is konam for me, they can take the priestly and Levitical gifts from him against his will. If, however, he said: I will not let these specific priests and these specific Levites benefit from me, as that is konam for me, they are taken by others. GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if a woman vowed not to derive benefit from people, her husband cannot nullify her vow. The Gemara infers from this halakha: Apparently, this is because the woman can be sustained from his, i.e., her husband’s, property, without having to take from others. This proves by inference that in this context a husband is not included in her reference to people, as, although she mentioned people in her vow, she did not mean to prohibit herself from deriving benefit from her husband. The Gemara asks: But say the latter clause of that same part of the mishna, which states: But she may benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe’a. This implies that she may derive benefit from the gifts given to the poor, but she may not eat from property belonging to her husband. Apparently, a husband is in fact included in her reference to people, and she may not benefit from him either. Ulla said: Actually, a husband is not included in her reference to people, and there is no contradiction. Rather, the mishna provides two reasons why he cannot nullify his wife’s vow. The first reason, which is merely implied by the mishna, is that she can be sustained by her husband. And furthermore there is the stated reason, that he cannot nullify the vow because she may benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe’a. Rava said the opposite: Actually, a husband is included in her reference to people, and therefore his wife may not benefit from him. And when the mishna states the halakha, it employs the style known as: What is the reason, and it should be understood as follows: What is the reason that the husband cannot nullify his wife’s vow? Because she may benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe’a. Rav Naḥman said: Actually, a husband is not included in her reference to people, and her vow not to derive benefit from all people does not include him, which is why he cannot nullify it. And this is what the mishna is teaching: The husband cannot nullify his wife’s vow, because even if she becomes divorced and can no longer derive benefit from her husband, as he is now included in her reference to people, she may still benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe’a.
Daf 84a 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. 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. 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. § 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? 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.
Daf 84b And the Rabbis say: He must designate poor man’s tithe by name, but he need not actually set it aside and give it to anyone, as a poor person cannot claim the tithe without bringing proof that he has a right to it. Rav Yosef now suggests: What, is it not that according to the one, i.e., the Rabbis, who says that the uncertainty as to whether or not poor man’s tithe had been separated by the am ha’aretz renders the produce forbidden as untithed produce [tevel], and therefore the owner of the produce must designate the poor man’s tithe by name, he holds that the owner of the produce has the benefit of discretion, meaning that he may give the poor man’s tithe to the poor person of his choice. And since he has the benefit of discretion, the option that a woman who vowed not to benefit from people should take poor man’s tithe is ineffective, as she would be receiving benefit from the owner of the tithe, since he could have given it to someone else. Rav Yosef continues: And according to the one, i.e., Rabbi Eliezer, who says that he need not designate poor man’s tithe by name, he holds that the uncertainty as to whether or not poor man’s tithe had been separated by the am ha’aretz does not render the produce forbidden as untithed produce. And whenever the case is that uncertainty does not render the produce forbidden as untithed produce, the owner does not have the benefit of discretion and does not choose to which poor person he will give it. And therefore one who vowed not to benefit from people is permitted to derive benefit from poor man’s tithe, as he is not receiving it from anyone. Abaye said to him: This proof is not conclusive, as it may be that everyone agrees that the uncertainty as to whether or not poor man’s tithe had been separated by the am ha’aretz renders the produce forbidden as untithed produce, and that Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree with regard to this issue: Rabbi Eliezer maintains that amei ha’aretz are not suspected of failing to set aside poor man’s tithe. Therefore, one who purchases demai from an am ha’aretz need not be concerned that its poor man’s tithe might not have been set aside. Rabbi Eliezer maintains this opinion because were the am ha’aretz to declare all his property ownerless and therefore become a poor man, and then take the poor man’s tithe himself, he would suffer no loss when he set aside this tithe, and therefore it is assumed that he separated it. And the Rabbis maintain that while it is theoretically possible for one to avoid having to actually part from his poor man’s tithe, this is uncommon, as a person does not ordinarily declare his property ownerless for this purpose, as he is afraid that perhaps someone else will acquire it in the meantime. Consequently, one who sets aside poor man’s tithe from his produce is assumed to incur a loss, and therefore amei ha’aretz are suspected with regard to this tithe. Accordingly, no satisfactory explanation has yet been given as to why the baraita permits a woman who vowed not to derive benefit from people to take poor man’s tithe. Rava says that it is possible to explain the apparent contradiction between the sources with regard to benefit from poor man’s tithe without recourse to a tannaitic dispute: Here, the mishna is referring to poor man’s tithe distributed in the owner’s house, i.e., poor man’s tithe that had not been distributed in the threshing floor but was brought home and must now be distributed to the poor who visit the house, as the term giving is written in the verse with regard to such a tithe: “And you shall give to the Levite, to the stranger, to the orphan, and to the widow” (Deuteronomy 26:12), and the owner is entitled to give the tithe to the poor man of his choice, as the benefit of discretion is conferred upon him. Due to that reason, it is prohibited for one who vowed not to derive benefit from people to derive benefit from this type of poor man’s tithe. There, however, the baraita is referring to poor man’s tithe that is distributed in the threshing floor. Since with regard to such a tithe it is written: “And you shall leave it at your gates” (Deuteronomy 14:28), the owner cannot designate it for a particular person, and any poor person who comes by may take it from him. As the owner lacks the benefit of discretion, one who vows not to benefit from people is permitted to benefit from this poor man’s tithe. § The mishna teaches that if one said: I will not let priests and Levites benefit from me, they can take the priestly and Levitical gifts from him against his will. The Gemara notes: Apparently, the benefit of discretion to give his teruma and tithes to the priest or Levite of his choice is not considered to have monetary value. The priests and Levites can take the gifts from the owner of the produce against his will, and the latter is not regarded as having conferred benefit upon them. But say the latter clause of the mishna, which states that if the person said: I will not let these specific priests and these specific Levites benefit from me, these gifts are taken by others. But these priests and Levites specified in his vow may not take these gifts. Apparently, this ruling indicates that the benefit of discretion is considered to have monetary value, and therefore the owner can prohibit specific priests or Levites from deriving benefit from him. Rav Hoshaya said: This is not difficult; this second ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and that first ruling is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: If one steals another’s untithed produce and eats it, he must pay him the value of his untithed produce, i.e., the full value of what he stole. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, disagrees and says: He pays him only the value of the non-sacred produce it contained. The thief does not have to pay him the value of the teruma and tithe included in the untithed produce, as these portions do not belong to the owner of the produce. What, is it not the case that they disagree about this:
Daf 85a That Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the benefit of discretion is considered to have monetary value, and therefore a thief must pay the full value of the untithed produce. The owner has monetary rights in the priestly and Levitical gifts, by virtue of the fact that he may give his teruma and tithes to the priest and Levite of his choice. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the benefit of discretion is not considered to have monetary value, meaning that the owner of the produce has no monetary rights whatsoever in the teruma and tithes included in the untithed produce. The Gemara rejects this explanation: No, as everyone agrees that the benefit of discretion is not considered to have monetary value. Rather, here they disagree with regard to whether priestly and Levitical gifts that have not yet been separated are considered as if they have already been separated, meaning the dispute is whether the untithed produce is categorized as a mixture of regular produce and tithes, or as a non-sacred category in and of itself. If they are not seen as having already been separated, the thief must restore everything he took. But if they are regarded as having already been separated, then the thief returns only the non-sacred portion of the produce, as the priestly and Levitical gifts did not belong to the owner. The Gemara counters this argument: But if the benefit of discretion is not considered to have monetary value, what is the difference to me if the gifts have already been separated, and what is the difference to me if they have not yet been separated? Either way, the owner of the produce has no monetary rights in the portions of teruma and tithes contained in the untithed produce. Rather, one must explain that this is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: The Sages penalized the thief so that he would not steal again by requiring him to repay the full value of what he stole, despite the fact that the owner of the untithed produce has no monetary rights in the teruma and tithes included in it. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, holds that the Sages penalized the owner of the produce, awarding him only the value of the non-sacred portion of the produce, so that in the future he would not delay with his untithed produce, but rather separate its teruma and tithes as soon as the produce is harvested. Had he set aside and distributed the gifts promptly they would not have been stolen. Rava said that there is another way to reconcile the apparent contradiction in the mishna: As stated, the second case, where the person prohibits specific priests and Levites from benefiting from him, indicates that the benefit of discretion is considered to have monetary value. However, teruma is different, as this is the reason that priests can take teruma from him against his will in a case where one prohibited all priests from deriving benefit from him: Because teruma is fit only for priests, and since he came to render it prohibited to them, he made it, for him, like mere dust. If this teruma, which certainly cannot be eaten by Israelites, is now forbidden to priests as well, the owner has effectively removed it from his own possession. Therefore, the priests do not derive any benefit from him if they take it. MISHNA: If a woman said: I will not produce anything for my father, as that is konam for me, or: For your father, or: For my brother, or: For your brother, her husband cannot nullify such vows, as they do not fall under the category of vows that adversely affect the relationship between him and her. By contrast, if she said: I will not produce anything for you, including the work that she is obligated to do for him according to the terms of her marriage contract, as that is konam for me, her husband need not nullify the vow at all. It is automatically void, since she is obligated to perform those tasks. Rabbi Akiva says: He should nevertheless nullify the vow, as perhaps she will exceed the required amount of work and do more for him than is fitting for him to receive. If she does more than the fixed amount of work that a woman is obligated to perform for her husband, the vow will be valid with respect to the excess to which he is not entitled, and he might inadvertently come to benefit from something that is forbidden to him. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri also says that he should nullify the vow, but for a different reason: Perhaps he will one day divorce her, at which point the vow will take effect and she will then be forbidden to him forever, i.e., he will be unable to remarry her, lest he come to benefit from her labor. GEMARA: Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Shmuel maintains that a person can consecrate an entity that has not yet come into the world? According to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, her vow is valid with respect to things she will do after her divorce, even though at present she is not divorced and she has not yet produced anything. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a mishna (Ketubot 58b): If one consecrates his wife’s earnings,
Daf 85b she may work and sustain herself from her earnings, as the consecration is ineffective. And with regard to the surplus earnings, i.e., if she produced more than she needs for her sustenance, Rabbi Meir says the surplus becomes consecrated property, whereas Rabbi Yoḥanan HaSandlar says that it is non-sacred. And Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan HaSandlar. Apparently, Shmuel’s opinion is that a person cannot consecrate an entity that has not yet come into the world, and therefore a man cannot consecrate earnings that his wife will produce only in the future. And if you would say that when Shmuel is saying that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri he was saying only that the halakha is such with regard to the surplus, there is a difficulty. One might say that since Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri disagrees with Rabbi Akiva, he apparently maintains that a woman’s surplus earnings belong to her husband, and therefore she cannot render them forbidden to him through a vow, and it is only with respect to this point that Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri. If this is the case, there is no contradiction between his ruling here and his ruling in Ketubot that the halakha with regard to one who consecrates his wife’s earnings is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan HaSandlar. But if so, let Shmuel clearly say: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri with regard to the surplus. Alternatively, he could have said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the first tanna, who also maintains that the surplus belongs to the husband. Alternatively, he could have said that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who asserts that the surplus belongs to the wife. Rather, Rav Yosef said that the apparent contradiction between Shmuel’s rulings can be resolved in the following manner: Although one cannot consecrate an entity that has not yet come into the world, konamot are different; since a person can prohibit to himself another’s produce by means of a konam, even though one cannot consecrate another’s produce to the Temple, he can also prohibit to himself an entity that has not yet come into the world. With regard to consecration, however, a person cannot dedicate to the Temple treasury something that is not currently in his possession, and he cannot consecrate an entity that has not yet entered the world, either. Abaye said to him: This is no proof at all. Granted, a person can prohibit another’s produce to himself, since a person can prohibit his own produce to another. But does it follow that he can also prohibit an entity that has not yet come into the world to another person, seeing that a person cannot prohibit another’s produce to that other person, as he has jurisdiction neither over the produce nor over the person to whom he wishes to prohibit it? Yet in the mishna here the woman prohibits her future earnings, which do not yet exist, to another person, i.e., her husband. Rather, Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: Here the mishna is dealing with a woman who says: My hands are consecrated to the One Who made them. Therefore, the case does not involve the issue of an entity that has not yet come into the world, as her hands are already in the world. The Gemara challenges this interpretation: And if she said her vow like this, are they consecrated and forbidden? But aren’t her hands pledged to her husband, to do the work she is obligated to perform for him? The Gemara answers: The mishna is referring to a woman who said: The vow will take effect when I become divorced. The Gemara raises a difficulty: She is not divorced now in any event, and from where is it learned that when she says her vow like this, the vow is effective? How is it learned that she can consecrate something in such a manner that it will become consecrated only in the future?
Daf 86a Rabbi Ila said: And what is the halakha if one person says to another before selling him a field: This field that I am selling to you now, when I will buy it back from you, let it be consecrated? Is the field not consecrated when it is repurchased? In similar fashion, a woman can consecrate her future handiwork, even though the sanctity cannot presently take effect. Rabbi Yirmeya objects to this comparison: Are the two cases comparable? When a person says: Let this field that I am selling to you now be consecrated when I buy it back from you, now at least the field is still in his possession, and he can therefore consecrate it now, stipulating that the consecration should take effect only when it returns to his ownership. As for the woman, however, is it currently in her power to consecrate her handiwork? At present it does not belong to her. This case is comparable only to that of one who said to another: With regard to this field that I sold to you in the past, when I will buy it back from you, let it be consecrated. In such a case, is the field consecrated when it is repurchased? Rav Pappa objects to this comparison: Are the cases comparable? In the case of the sale of a field, the matter is clear-cut, i.e., it is evident that the field belongs absolutely to its new owner, the buyer. In contrast, in the case of a woman, is the matter clear-cut? Even though the husband has rights to his wife’s handiwork, he does not own her body. Therefore, this case of a woman is comparable only to that of one person who said to another: With regard to this field that I pledged to you, when I will redeem it back from you, let it be consecrated. Here, the owner retains possession of the field itself, but another person enjoys the right to its fruit. In this case, is the field not consecrated when it is redeemed? Here too, a woman retains ownership of her body and she can consecrate her handiwork, stipulating that the consecration should take effect only after she is divorced. Rav Sheisha, son of Rav Idi, objects to this comparison: Are the cases comparable? In the case of a field, it is in the owner’s power to redeem it immediately by repaying his debt. But as for a woman, is it in her power to be divorced whenever she chooses? Therefore, this case is comparable only to that of one who said to another: With regard to this field that I pledged to you for ten years, when I will redeem it from you, let it be consecrated. In such a case, even though the owner cannot redeem the field for ten years, is it not consecrated once it is redeemed? Rav Ashi objects to this comparison: Are the cases comparable? There, in the case of a field, there is a fixed time frame of ten years. But in the case of a woman, is there a fixed time limit, so that she can know in advance when she will be divorced and released from her husband’s jurisdiction?
Daf 86b Rather, Rav Ashi said that this is the reason Shmuel ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri: Although a person cannot consecrate an entity that has not yet come into the world, konamot are different. They are stringent and take effect in all cases, as their prohibited status is considered akin to inherent sanctity. When one person prohibits another from deriving benefit from a particular item by means of a konam, the forbidden item is treated as if it has inherent sanctity. It cannot be redeemed and can never become permitted. Because of its severity, a woman can forbid her handiwork to her husband by means of a konam, even though she is obligated to hand over the fruits of her labor to him. And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rava. As Rava said: Consecration of an item to the Temple, becoming subject to the prohibition of leavened bread on Passover, and the emancipation of a slave abrogate any lien that exists upon them. The lien on that property does not prevent the consecration, the prohibition of leavened bread, or the emancipation of the slave from taking effect. In all three cases, the debtor loses his ownership of the liened property. The same halakha applies to a konam, whose prohibition has the severity of inherent sanctity. Even though the husband has a right to his wife’s handiwork, which could be described as a lien on her hands, that lien is abrogated when she renders her handiwork forbidden to him by means of a konam, and therefore the vow must be nullified. The Gemara asks: If so, why do I need Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri’s stated reason: Perhaps he will one day divorce her? If the woman’s konam abrogates the husband’s lien, the prohibition should take effect immediately. The Gemara answers: Teach that the vow takes effect right away, which is why the husband must nullify it. And furthermore, adds Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, even if you maintain that the Sages strengthened a husband’s lien so that the vow does not take effect immediately, there is another reason to nullify the vow, as perhaps he will one day divorce her. MISHNA: If a man’s wife took a vow and he thought that it was his daughter who had taken a vow, or if his daughter took a vow and he thought that it was his wife who had taken a vow, or if his wife vowed to be a nazirite and he thought that she had vowed to bring an offering, or if she vowed to bring an offering and he thought that she had vowed to be a nazirite, or if she took a vow that figs are forbidden to her and he thought that she had taken a vow that grapes are forbidden to her, or if she took a vow that grapes are forbidden to her and he thought that she had taken a vow that figs are forbidden to her, and he nullified any of these vows, in each case, when he realizes his error with regard to the vow, he must repeat the action and nullify the vow a second time. GEMARA: With regard to the mishna’s ruling that if a man’s wife took a vow, but he thought that it was his daughter who had taken the vow and he nullified the vow, he must nullify the vow a second time, the Gemara asks: Is this to say that the phrase “But if her husband disallowed her [otah]” (Numbers 30:9) is precise? In other words, does the use of the word her, otah, indicate that a man can nullify a vow only for the specific woman who took it?
Daf 87a The Gemara comments: But is it not so that with regard to the tears in one’s clothing that are made for the dead, as it is written “for,” “for,” and about which is written: “And David took hold of his garments and rent them, and likewise all the men that were with him, and they wailed, and wept, and fasted until the evening, for Saul, and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of the Lord, and for the house of Israel, because they were fallen by the sword” (II Samuel 1:11–12). The use of the word “for” with regard to each of them indicates that one must make a separate tear in his garment for each person who died. The Gemara asks: And yet it is taught in a baraita: If they said to him that his father had died and he rent his garment over his death, and afterward it was discovered that it was not his father who died, but his son, he has fulfilled his obligation of rending his garment. This shows that even if a person mistakenly tore his garment for the wrong person he has nevertheless fulfilled the obligation. Here too, if a man nullified the vow of his wife, thinking that it was the vow of his daughter, his nullification should be effective. The Gemara responds: The apparent contradiction is not difficult. That baraita refers to a case where he received a non-specific report, i.e., he was told that an unspecified relative died. In such a case his obligation to rend his garment has been discharged. And this mishna refers to a case where the bearer of the news mistakenly specified that his daughter had taken the vow, when in reality his wife had. In such a case, his nullification is ineffective. And it is taught similarly in the following baraita: If they said to him that his father had died and he rent his garment over his death, and afterward it was discovered that it was not his father who died, but his son, he has not fulfilled his obligation of rending his garment. If, however, they said to him that a relative of his had died, and he thought it was his father and he rent his garment over his death, and afterward it was discovered that it was not his father who died, but his son, he has fulfilled his obligation of rending his garment. This proves that a distinction is made between one who rends his garment relying on a specific report and one who does so following a non-specific report. Rav Ashi says that the discrepancy between the baraitot with regard to the rending of garments can be reconciled in a different manner: Here, the person who rent his garment for the wrong relative realized his error within the time required for speaking the short phrase: Greetings to you, my teacher. Until that time has passed his action is seen as incomplete and can therefore still be modified. There, the mistake was noted only after the time required for speaking a short phrase. This case, where you said that he has fulfilled his obligation of rending his garment even though he had initially been told explicitly that his father died, deals with a situation where it was discovered within the time required for speaking a short phrase, i.e., immediately after he rent his garment, that the deceased was his son. However, that case, where you said that he has not fulfilled his obligation of rending his garment, deals with a situation where he became aware of his mistake after the time required for speaking a short phrase, i.e., a short while later. And it is taught in the following baraita: One who has an ill relative in his house, and the latter fainted and lost consciousness, and it seemed to him that the ill person had died and therefore he rent his garment over his assumed death, if it turned out that he had not yet actually died at that point and it was only afterward that he died, the relative has not fulfilled his obligation of rending his garment. And with regard to this baraita, Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of Bar Kappara: They taught that he has not fulfilled his obligation of rending only if the ill person died after the time required for speaking a short phrase. But if he passed away within the time required for speaking a short phrase, it is all considered like continuous speech, and his relative has fulfilled his obligation. That is to say, his act of rending is not viewed as complete until the time required for saying a short phrase has elapsed, and until that time has passed the act can still be modified. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: The legal status of a pause or retraction within the time required for speaking a short phrase is like that of continuous speech, and so a person can retract what he first said if he issues the retraction within this period of time after he finished speaking. This principle holds true in almost every area of halakha, except for the case of one who blasphemes God; or in the case of an idol worshipper, who verbally accepts an idol as his god; or one who betroths a woman; or one who divorces his wife. In these four cases, a person cannot undo his action, even if he immediately retracts what he said within the time required for saying a short phrase. MISHNA: If a woman said: Tasting these figs and grapes is konam for me, and her husband upheld her vow with regard to figs, the entire vow is upheld, but if he nullified it with regard to figs it is not nullified until he also nullifies the vow with regard to grapes. If she said: Tasting a fig and tasting a grape are konam for me, these are viewed as two separate vows; if the husband upholds one of the vows it has no effect on the other one. GEMARA: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? The Gemara answers: It follows the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, as it is taught in a baraita: The verse concerning vows that states: “Her husband may uphold it, or her husband may nullify it” (Numbers 30:14), may be expounded as follows. If a woman said: Tasting these figs and grapes is konam for me, and her husband upheld her vow with regard to figs, the entire vow is upheld.
Daf 87b But if he nullified it with regard to figs, it is not nullified until he will also nullify the vow for grapes. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says that the verse states: “Her husband may uphold it, or her husband may nullify it.” Just as the words “may uphold it” [yekimennu] should be understood as if they read: He may uphold part of it [yakim mimmennu], implying that if he upheld part of the vow he has upheld all of it, so too, the words “he may nullify it” [yeferennu] should be understood as if they read: He may nullify part of it [yafer mimmennu]. And Rabbi Yishmael retorts: Is it written: He may nullify part of it, with a mem, as it is written with respect to a husband who upholds the vow? And Rabbi Akiva replies: The verse juxtaposes nullification to upholding; just as upholding means part of it, so too, nullification means part of it. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: This opinion, that a vow is treated as a single unit, so that the entire vow is upheld even if the husband upheld only a part of it, is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva. But the Rabbis say: The verse juxtaposes upholding to nullification; just as with regard to nullification, that which he nullified he has nullified, so too, with regard to upholding, that which he upheld he has upheld, but no more. The mishna teaches that if a woman said: Tasting a fig and tasting a grape are konam for me, these are viewed as two separate vows. Rava said: The mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, as Rabbi Shimon said that one is not liable to bring multiple offerings for taking false oaths to multiple people in the same utterance, for example, if he says: I take an oath that I do not have your item, nor yours, nor yours, unless he states an expression of an oath to each and every one of the creditors, for example by stating: I take an oath I do not have yours; I take an oath I do not have yours. Here too, only if she says: Tasting, with respect to each fruit are they viewed as two separate vows. MISHNA: If a man’s wife or daughter took a vow and he failed to nullify the vow on the day he heard it, but afterward he said: I know that there are vows, but I don’t know that there are those who can nullify them, i.e., he was unaware of the possibility of nullifying vows, he can nullify the vow of his wife or his daughter on the day he learned that he can nullify vows. If, however, he said: I know there are those who can nullify vows, but I refrained from nullifying the vow that I heard because I do not know that this is considered a vow, Rabbi Meir says he cannot nullify the vow at this point, but the Rabbis say that even in this case he can nullify the vow on the day that he learned of his mistake. GEMARA: The Gemara raises a contradiction from the following baraita: With regard to one who kills unintentionally, the verse states: “Without seeing” (Numbers 35:23), which serves to exclude a blind person from the category of those who are exiled to a city of refuge due to having killed unintentionally, as the verse indicates that it was only in this instance that he did not see, but he is generally able to see. A blind person who kills another unintentionally is considered a victim of circumstances beyond his control. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says the verse serves to include a blind person in the category of those who are exiled, as he too does not see. This shows that Rabbi Meir does not distinguish between different kinds of lack of knowledge, whereas the mishna suggests that he does accept such a distinction. The opposite is true of Rabbi Yehuda, who, unless it is otherwise indicated, is assumed to be Rabbi Meir’s disputant in all places.
Daf 88a Rava said: There is no contradiction here, as the dispute with regard to an unintentional killing is based on divergent interpretations of the verse. Here, the ruling follows from the context of the verse, and there, the ruling follows from the context of the verse. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that with regard to the exile of an unintentional killer it is written: “And a man who goes into the forest with his neighbor to hew wood” (Deuteronomy 19:5), which serves to include anyone who is capable of entering a forest, and a blind person is also capable of entering a forest. And if you say that the phrase “without seeing” serves to include a blind person, this is already derived from the word “forest,” as he too can enter a forest. Rather, learn from it that the phrase “without seeing” serves to exclude a blind person from the category of unintentional killers who are exiled to a city of refuge. By contrast, Rabbi Meir maintains: It is written in that same section: “One who strikes his neighbor without knowledge” (Deuteronomy 19:4), which indicates that the halakha applies to anyone who is capable of knowing the precise location of the people standing about him, but a blind person is not capable of knowing this. And if you say that the phrase “without seeing” serves to exclude a blind person, this is already derived from the words “without knowledge.” Rather, learn from it that the phrase “without seeing” serves to include a blind person in the halakha of exile, not to exclude him. MISHNA: With regard to one who vows that benefit from him is forbidden to his son-in-law, but he nevertheless wishes to give his daughter, i.e., the wife of that same son-in-law, money, then, though he cannot do so directly, as anything acquired by a woman belongs to her husband, he should say to her: This money is hereby given to you as a gift, provided that your husband has no rights to it, but the gift includes only that which you pick up and place in your mouth. GEMARA: Rav said that they taught this halakha only in a case where he actually said to her: That which you pick up and place in your mouth is yours. But if he said: Do as you please with the money, his stipulation is of no effect, and the husband acquires the money. And Shmuel says that even if he said: Do as you please with the money, the husband does not acquire it. Rabbi Zeira objects to this statement of Rav:
Daf 88b In accordance with whose opinion among the tanna’im does Rav’s halakha correspond? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who said as a principle that the hand of a woman is like the hand of her husband. According to Rabbi Meir, a slave has no independent right of acquisition, and anything given to a slave belongs to his master even if it was stipulated otherwise (see Kiddushin 23b). Rav assumes that similarly, a married woman has no independent right of acquisition, but rather, anything that she attempts to acquire for herself is automatically acquired by her husband. Rabbi Zeira continues: And raise a contradiction from an unattributed mishna (Eiruvin 73b), which presumably follows the opinion of Rabbi Meir: How does one merge the courtyards that open into an alleyway in order to permit its residents to carry on Shabbat from one courtyard to another in the same alley, if a person wishes to act on behalf of all the residents of the alleyway? He places a barrel filled with his own food or wine and says: This is for all the residents of the alleyway. For this gift to be acquired by the others, someone must accept it on their behalf, and the tanna therefore teaches that he may transfer possession to them even by means of his Hebrew slave or maidservant, whom he does not own, and likewise by means of his adult son or daughter, and similarly by means of his wife. These people may acquire the eiruv food on behalf of all the residents of the alleyway. Rabbi Zeira states the contradiction: And if you say that a woman’s husband acquires anything given to her, the eiruv food has consequently not left the husband’s domain when he gives it to his wife, for anything she acquires belongs to him. Rather, it can be seen from here that Rabbi Meir does not extend his principle from a slave to a married woman, in opposition of the ruling of Rav. Rava said in response: Even though Rabbi Meir said that in general the hand of a woman is like the hand of her husband, in accordance with the ruling of Rav, Rabbi Meir nevertheless concedes with regard to the merging of alleyways that since it is her aim to acquire the eiruv food for others from the hand of her husband, and not to acquire it for herself, she can acquire it from him for this purpose. Ravina raised an objection to Rav Ashi from the following baraita: These are the people who can acquire eiruv food on behalf of others: The eiruv food can be acquired by means of his adult son or daughter, and by means of his Hebrew slave or maidservant. And these are the people who cannot acquire an eiruv on behalf of others: The eiruv food cannot be acquired by means of his minor son or daughter, or by means of his Canaanite slave or maidservant, or by means of his wife. This indicates that a married woman does not have an independent right of acquisition to acquire the eiruv food on behalf of others, in opposition to the ruling of the mishna. Rather, Rav Ashi said: In the mishna in Eiruvin, we are dealing with a woman who possesses a courtyard of her own in that alleyway, i.e., it is a case where the husband had earlier stipulated that she should have property of her own, to which he renounces all his rights. As, since she acquires the eiruv food for herself by virtue of the courtyard that she owns in that alleyway, she likewise acquires it for others. MISHNA: The Torah states: “But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, with which she has bound her soul, shall stand against her” (Numbers 30:10). How so? If a widow or divorced woman said: I am hereby a nazirite after thirty days, then even if she was married within thirty days, her new husband cannot nullify her vow.
Daf 89a If she took a vow while she was under the jurisdiction of her husband, he can nullify the vow for her. How so? If she said when she was still married: I am hereby a nazirite for after thirty days, and her husband nullified the vow, then even if she was widowed or divorced within the thirty-day period, the vow is nullified. If she took a vow on that, i.e., one, day and was divorced on that same day, then even if her husband took her back as his wife on that same day, he cannot nullify her previous vows. This is the principle: Once she has left and gone into her own jurisdiction for even a single hour, then after they are remarried her husband can no longer nullify any vow she uttered during their first marriage. GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita: With regard to a widow or a divorcée who said: I am hereby a nazirite for when I will get married, and she was married, Rabbi Yishmael says her husband can nullify her vow, whereas Rabbi Akiva says he cannot nullify it. And the mnemonic device for the opinions of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva with regard to this halakha and the following one is the Hebrew acronym yod, lamed, lamed, yod: Yafer, lo yafer; lo yafer, yafer, i.e., he can nullify, he cannot nullify; he cannot nullify, he can nullify. As for a married woman who said while she was married: I am hereby a nazirite for when I will get divorced, and she was divorced, Rabbi Yishmael says her husband cannot nullify her vow, whereas Rabbi Akiva says he can nullify it. Rabbi Yishmael said: It says: “But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced…shall be upheld against her” (Numbers 30:10), which means that the practical application of the vow must be in the time of the woman’s widowhood or divorce. Only when the vow is to take effect when she is a widow or a divorcée shall it be upheld against her, since then it is impossible to nullify. Rabbi Akiva, by contrast, maintains: It says: “But every vow…with which she has bound her soul, shall be upheld against her,” which means that the binding of the vow, i.e., the taking of the vow creating the prohibition, must be at the time of the woman’s widowhood or divorce. Rav Ḥisda said: The mishna that links the possibility of nullification to the time of the taking of the vow is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Abaye said: Even if you say that the mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, there is no difficulty, for the mishna is referring to a woman who made her vow dependent on days, i.e., she specified that the vow should take effect after a fixed period of time. By contrast, the baraita is referring to a woman who made her vow dependent on marriage. In the case of the baraita, since the woman explicitly connected the application of her vow to her marital status, the possibility of nullifying the vow depends on the time that the vow takes effect. But in the case of the mishna, where the application of the vow is tied to a particular date, it is possible that the days will be completed and she was not divorced, or that the days will be completed and she was not married. Since there is no inherent connection between her marriage and the vow, Rabbi Yishmael agrees that the possibility of nullification depends on the time when the vow was pronounced. § The mishna in the previous chapter (71a) teaches that as long as a betrothed young woman has not gone out into her own jurisdiction for a single moment, her father and her husband can nullify her vows. The mishna in this chapter teaches the principle in the reverse: If she has gone out for even a single hour, her husband cannot nullify her vows. The Gemara addresses this repetition. The mishna of: This is the principle, which is taught in the chapter called: A betrothed young woman, serves to include a case where the father went with the messengers of the husband after handing over his daughter in marriage and a case where the messengers of the father went with the messengers of the husband. In the case of a betrothed young woman, since the father or his messengers were still with her, she has not yet left her father’s jurisdiction, and nevertheless the mishna teaches that her father and her husband can nullify her vows. The mishna of: This is the principle, which is taught in this chapter, called: And these are the vows, serves to include a case where the father handed over his daughter to the messengers of the husband, or a case where the messengers of the father handed her over to the messengers of the husband. Although neither the father nor his messengers accompanied her, and therefore she has been fully handed over to her husband, nevertheless, the mishna teaches that the husband cannot nullify previous vows, i.e., vows that preceded their marriage. MISHNA: There are nine young women whose vows are upheld and cannot be nullified: If she took a vow when she was a grown woman and she is an orphan; if she took a vow when she was a young woman, and has reached her majority, and she is an orphan;
Daf 89b if she took a vow when she was a young woman who had not yet reached her majority, and she is an orphan; if she took a vow when she was a grown woman and her father died; if she took a vow when she was a young woman, and she became a grown woman, and her father died; if she took a vow when she was a young woman who had not reached her majority, and her father died; if she took a vow when she was a young woman, and her father died, and after her father died she reached her majority; if she took a vow when she was a grown woman and her father is still alive; and if she took a vow when she was a young woman, and she became a grown woman, and her father is still alive. Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to even one who married off his minor daughter, and she was widowed or divorced and she returned to him, and according to her age she still is in the category of a young woman, her vows cannot be nullified. GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This mishna is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, who spelled out all the cases and listed nine young women whose vows are upheld. But the Rabbis say that it is unnecessary to go into such detail. Instead, they simply said: There are three young women whose vows are upheld and cannot be nullified: A grown woman, and an orphan, and an orphan in her father’s lifetime, i.e., a young woman who was divorced or widowed while her father was still alive and is considered an orphan in that her father no longer has jurisdiction over her. MISHNA: If a woman said to her husband: Deriving benefit from my father or from your father is konam for me if I will prepare anything for you; or if she said: Deriving benefit from you is konam for me if I will prepare anything for my father or for your father, the husband can nullify this vow. GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita: If a woman said to her husband: Deriving benefit from my father or from your father is konam for me if I will prepare anything for you, Rabbi Natan says her husband cannot nullify the vow. She must prepare food for him, as she is obligated to do so by virtue of their being married, and it is prohibited for her to benefit from their respective fathers. The husband cannot nullify a vow that has not yet taken effect and that depends on the fulfillment of a certain condition. And the Rabbis say that even in such a case he can nullify her vow. The baraita continues: If the woman said to her husband: I am removed from the Jews, i.e., the benefit of my engaging in sexual intercourse will be forbidden to all Jews, if I engage in sexual intercourse with you, Rabbi Natan says he cannot nullify the vow. Rather, she must engage in sexual intercourse with her husband, as she is obligated to do so by virtue of their marriage, and she will be forbidden to all other Jews. And the Rabbis say he can nullify her vow. § It is related that there was a certain man who took a vow that all benefit from the world should be forbidden to him if he marries a woman when he has not yet learned halakha. He would run up a ladder and rope but was not able to learn the material, i.e., despite all his efforts he failed in his studies. Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna came and misled him, allowing him to understand that even if he took a vow, the vow would not take effect, and so he married a woman.
Daf 90a And Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna then smeared him with clay to protect him from the elements, as it was now prohibited for him to benefit from the world by wearing clothes. And he then brought him before Rav Ḥisda, to dissolve his vow. Rava said: Who is wise enough to act in this manner, if not Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna, who is a great man? As he holds that just as the Rabbis and Rabbi Natan disagree with regard to nullification, whether it is possible to nullify a vow that has yet to take effect, so too, they disagree with regard to a request made to a halakhic authority to dissolve a vow, whether it is possible to request dissolution of such a vow. Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna’s plan was to have the vow go into effect, so that the man could request that it be dissolved. And Rav Pappi said with regard to this issue: The dispute between Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis is with regard to nullification only, as Rabbi Natan holds that a husband can nullify a vow only once the vow has taken effect, as it is written: “And the moon shall be confounded [ḥafera]” (Isaiah 24:23). He employs this phrase as an allusion, interpreting the word ḥafera as if it were hafara, nullification, and concludes from here that only a vow that already exists, like the moon, can be nullified. And the Rabbis hold that a husband can nullify a vow even though the vow has not yet taken effect, as it is written: “He nullifies the thoughts of the crafty” (Job 5:12), implying that nullification pertains even to thoughts, to prevent them from going into effect. But with regard to a request made to a halakhic authority to dissolve a vow, everyone, both Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis, agrees that a halakhic authority cannot dissolve anything unless the vow has already taken effect, as it is written: “He shall not profane his word” (Numbers 30:3), which indicates that the person himself who took the vow cannot profane his words and dissolve his vow, but a halakhic authority may do so. This, however, applies only if the vow has already gone into effect, as it says: “His word.” The Gemara suggests: Let us say that the following baraita supports Rav Pappi’s opinion: If one says: The property of so-and-so is konam for me, and for that reason I will not benefit from it, and deriving benefit from he who I will request dissolution for the vow is also konam for me, then, if he desires to dissolve the vows he must first request dissolution with regard to the first vow, and afterward he can request dissolution with regard to the second. And if you say that one can request dissolution of a vow even though the vow has not yet taken effect, why must he request dissolution of his two vows in the above order? If he so wishes, he can first request dissolution with regard to this vow, and if he wishes, he can first request dissolution with regard to that one. The Gemara refutes this argument: And does he know if this vow is first or if that vow is last? The baraita does not specify which vow is first and which is last. Perhaps first and last is referring not to the order in which the two vows were taken, but rather to the order in which they are dissolved, so that if he so wishes, he can first request dissolution of the vow not to derive benefit from the halakhic authority from whom he will request dissolution of his vow. Rather, let us say that a different baraita supports Rav Pappi’s opinion: If one says: The property of so-and-so is konam for me, and for that reason I will not benefit from it, and I am hereby a nazirite for when I will request dissolution of this vow, if he desires to dissolve the vows he must first request dissolution with regard to his vow not to derive benefit from a particular person, and afterward he can request dissolution with regard to his vow of naziriteship that he accepted upon himself should he request dissolution of his first vow. And if you say that one can request dissolution of a vow even though the vow has not yet taken effect, why must the two vows be dissolved in that order? If he so wishes, he can first request dissolution with regard to his vow not to derive benefit from that other person, and if he wishes, he can first request dissolution with regard to his vow of naziriteship. The Gemara rejects this argument: This is no proof, as it is possible that the baraita is taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, who maintains that a vow can be nullified only after it has gone into effect. The Rabbis, however, dispute this view. Ravina said: Mareimar said to me: This is what your father said in the name of Rav Pappi: The dispute between Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis is with regard to nullification only, as Rabbi Natan holds that a husband can nullify a vow only once the vow has taken effect, whereas the Rabbis hold that a husband can nullify a vow even though the vow has not yet taken effect. But with regard to a request made to a halakhic authority to dissolve a vow, everyone, both Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis, agrees, that he can dissolve the vow even though the vow has not yet taken effect. As it is written: “He shall not profane his word” (Numbers 30:3), which Ravina expounds as follows:
Daf 90b That is to say that there was not yet any action but only speech, and even so the halakhic authority can dissolve the vow. The Gemara raises an objection against this version of the tannaitic dispute from the aforementioned baraita: If one says: The property of so-and-so is konam for me, and for that reason I will not benefit from it, and deriving benefit from he who I will request dissolution for the vow is also konam for me, if he desires to dissolve the vows he must first request dissolution with regard to the first vow, and afterward he can request dissolution with regard to the second. But according to what was stated above, that all agree that a vow can be dissolved even before it has taken effect, why is this so? If he so wishes, he can first request dissolution with regard to this vow, and if he wishes, he can first request dissolution with regard to that one. The Gemara answers: Does he know which vow is first and which is the second? The wording of the baraita is not at all clear on this point. Perhaps, if he so wishes, he can first request dissolution of the vow not to derive benefit from the halakhic authority from whom he will request dissolution of his vow. The Gemara raises a further objection from the second baraita cited above: If one says: The property of so-and-so is konam for me, and for that reason I will not benefit from it, and I am hereby a nazirite for when I will request dissolution of this vow, if he desires to dissolve the vows he must first request dissolution with regard to his vow that rendered benefit from a particular person forbidden, and afterward he can request dissolution with regard to his vow of naziriteship that he accepted upon himself should he request dissolution of his first vow. But why must he proceed in this manner? If he so wishes he can first request dissolution with regard to his vow not to derive benefit from that other person, and if he wishes he can first request dissolution with regard to his vow of naziriteship. The fact that the baraita does not say this indicates that a vow can be dissolved only once it has gone into effect. The Gemara concludes: Here is a conclusive refutation of this version of the dispute between Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis. MISHNA: Initially the Sages would say that three women are divorced even against their husbands’ will, and nevertheless they receive payment of what is due to them according to their marriage contract. The first is the wife of a priest who says to her husband: I am defiled to you, i.e., she claims that she had been raped, so that she is now forbidden to her husband. The second is a woman who says to her husband: Heaven is between me and you, i.e., she declares that he is impotent, a claim she cannot prove, as the truth of it is known only to God. And the third is a woman who takes a vow, stating: I am removed from the Jews, i.e., benefit from sexual intercourse with any Jew, including my husband, is forbidden to me. They subsequently retracted their words and said that in order that a married woman should not cast her eyes on another man and to that end ruin her relationship with her husband and still receive payment of her marriage contract, these halakhot were modified as follows: A priest’s wife who says to her husband: I am defiled to you, must bring proof for her words that she was raped. As for a woman who says: Heaven is between me and you, the court must act and deal with the matter by way of a request, rather than force the husband to divorce his wife. And with regard to a woman who says: I am removed from the Jews, her husband must nullify his part, i.e., the aspect of the vow that concerns him, so that she should be permitted to him, and she may engage in sexual intercourse with him, but she is removed from all other Jews, so that if he divorces her she is forbidden to all. GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages, based on the second ruling of the mishna: If the wife of a priest said to her husband: I am defiled to you, what is the halakha with regard to whether she may partake of teruma? Is the halakha that just as she is not believed with regard to divorce, so she is not believed with regard to teruma, or is the halakha that with regard to teruma she is believed, and therefore it is prohibited for her to partake of teruma, as is the halakha of a woman married to a priest who engages in sexual intercourse with a man other than her husband? Rav Sheshet said: She may partake of teruma, so that she not cast aspersions on her children. If she is barred from partaking of teruma, people will see this as supporting her claim that she had been raped, and rumors will circulate that her sons are unfit for the priesthood. Rava said: She may not partake of teruma, as she can partake of non-sacred food, and it is preferable that her claim that she is no longer permitted to eat teruma be taken into account. Rava said: And Rav Sheshet concedes that if this wife of the priest who claimed to have been raped was then widowed from him, she may not continue to partake of teruma. Why? Isn’t the reason that she is permitted to partake of teruma only that she should not cast aspersions on her children? This being the case, if she was widowed or divorced, people will say that only now it occurred that she was raped, i.e., the entire incident occurred after she was no longer married to her husband. Therefore, rumors will not circulate that the children that she bore him beforehand are unfit. § Rav Pappa said: Rava tested us with the following question: As for the wife of a priest who was raped in the presence of witnesses, is she entitled to receive payment of her marriage contract or is she not entitled to receive payment of her marriage contract? The Gemara explains the two sides of the question: Is the halakha that since rape with regard to a woman married to a priest is like willing sexual intercourse with regard to a woman married to an Israelite, as the wife of a priest who was raped is obligated to leave her husband, just as the wife of an Israelite who willingly engaged in sexual intercourse with another man is obligated to leave her husband, she is therefore not entitled to receive payment of her marriage contract? Or perhaps she can say to him: I am fit to continue being married, as, if her husband were an Israelite she would not be forbidden to him after being raped.
Daf 91a And it is the man, her husband, whose field was flooded. In other words, like one whose field was flooded and destroyed, it is he who has suffered a natural disaster, as it is his status as a priest that forces him to divorce his wife. Therefore, she is entitled to receive payment of her marriage contract. And we said to Rava, in response to his question: The answer to your question is found in the mishna, which states: A woman who says to her husband: I am defiled to you, is entitled to receive payment of her marriage contract. The Gemara analyzes the mishna: With what are we dealing? If we say the mishna is speaking of the wife of an Israelite, consider the following: If she claims that she engaged in sexual intercourse willingly, does she have any right to receive payment of her marriage contract? And if she says it was by force, i.e., she was raped, is she thereby forbidden to the man, i.e., her husband? But rather, the mishna must be referring to the wife of a priest. Again, what are the circumstances? If she claims that she engaged in sexual intercourse willingly, does she have any right to receive payment of her marriage contract? Is her law any less stringent than that of the wife of an Israelite who willingly engaged in sexual intercourse with another man? Rather, is it not that the sexual intercourse was by force? And the tanna teaches that she has a right to receive payment of her marriage contract. This answers Rava’s question. § A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a woman said to her husband: You divorced me, what is the halakha? Is she believed or not? Rav Hamnuna said: Come and hear an answer to this question from what is stated in the mishna about a woman who says: I am defiled to you, that even according to the ultimate version of the mishna that teaches that she is not believed in her claim, it may be argued that it is only there that she is suspected of lying when she claims to have been defiled, as she knows that her husband does not know the truth about her. She is relating an incident that supposedly occurred in his absence. But concerning the claim: You divorced me, with regard to which he knows the truth about whether or not he actually divorced her, she is believed. Why? Because the court relies on the presumption that a woman is not brazen enough to lie in the presence of her husband and present a claim that he knows is patently false. Rava said to him: On the contrary, even according to the initial version of the mishna that teaches that the woman is believed in her claim that she is defiled to her husband, it may be argued that it is only there that she is believed, because a woman would not demean herself by claiming she was raped if she were not telling the truth. But here, where it is sometimes hard for her under the authority of the man, i.e., her husband, she would be brazen to his face, and therefore the court does not believe her. Rav Mesharshiyya raised an objection: Let the ruling of the initial version of the mishna, with regard to a woman who says: Heaven is between me and you, be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rava, as here she suffers no embarrassment on account of her claim, and yet the tanna teaches that she is believed. The Gemara answers: Rava maintains that there, since it is not sufficient for her if she does not state in precise detail her claim that he does not shoot like an arrow, i.e., his semen is not emitted forcefully, then, were it not as she said, she would not say it. She would be too ashamed to speak of such things before the court. It is for this reason that she is believed. The Gemara further comments: Let the ruling of the ultimate version of the mishna, with regard to a woman who says: Heaven is between me and you, be a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rav Hamnuna, who maintains that a woman who claims that her husband divorced her is believed. But here, as in the case of the alleged divorce, she knows and her husband also knows with regard to her whether or not she is lying, and yet the tanna of the mishna teaches that she is not believed. The Gemara answers: Rav Hamnuna maintains that here too, the woman herself says in her heart: Though he may know whether or not we engaged in sexual intercourse, does he know whether or not he shoots like an arrow? And it is due to that reason that she lies. Since the woman can make a false claim against her husband without having to fear that he will contradict her, she is not believed. A similar point cannot be made in the case of an alleged divorce, as the husband knows whether or not he divorced his wife, and therefore a woman who claims that her husband divorced her is believed. § It is related that there was a certain woman, who on every day of engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband, would rise early in the morning and wash her husband’s hands. One day she brought him water to wash his hands, in response to which he said to her: This matter, i.e., sexual intercourse, did not occur now. She said to him: If so, it may be that one of the gentile
Daf 91b aloe merchants [ahaloyei] who were here just now should be blamed; if it was not you, perhaps it was one of them. The case came before Rav Naḥman, who said: There is reason to suspect that she might have cast her eyes upon another man, and therefore there is no substance to her words. She lacks credibility and her statement is unreliable, and so she remains permitted to her husband. It is further related that there was a certain woman who was displeased with her man. He said to her: What is different now? What have I done to make you angry? She said to him: I am upset because you never hurt me while we were engaged in proper relations as you did just now. He said to her: This matter did not occur now. She said to him: If so, it may be that one of the gentile oil merchants [naftoyei] who were here just now should be blamed; if it was not you, perhaps it was one of them. Rav Naḥman said to them: Take no notice of her; she has cast her eyes upon another man, and her words are therefore unreliable. The Gemara relates another incident about a certain man who was secluding himself [meharzeik] in a house, he and a certain married woman. When the owner of the house entered, the adulterer burst through the wall of palm branches and fled. Rava said: The woman is permitted to her husband. The assumption is that she did not sin, for if it is so that the man had committed a transgression, he would have hidden himself in the house instead of revealing his identity by escaping in the open. The Gemara concludes with one final incident about a certain adulterer who entered the house of a certain married woman. When the man, i.e., her husband, came home, the adulterer went and sat himself behind the door, so that the husband would not know that he was there. There was some cress [taḥlei] lying there in the house, and the adulterer, but not the husband, saw that a snake had come and tasted of it, perhaps thereby contaminating it with its venom. The master of the house wanted to eat from that cress, without the woman’s knowledge. The adulterer said to him: Do not eat from the cress, as a snake has tasted of it. The case was brought before Rava, who said: His wife is permitted to him, for were it so that the adulterer had committed a transgression, it would have been preferable for him that the husband should eat the cress and die. This is because one who commits adultery is also suspected of bloodshed, as it is written: “For they have committed adultery and blood is on their hands” (Ezekiel 23:37), indicating that adultery leads to murder. The Gemara comments: It is obvious that this is the case. What then does Rava come to teach us? The Gemara answers: Rava’s ruling is necessary, lest you say that the man did in fact commit a transgression with the other man’s wife, and the reason that he said to the husband that he should not eat and saved his life is because it is preferable for him that the husband should not die. This is in order that his wife should be to him as it says in the verse: “Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant” (Proverbs 9:17). That is to say, a person derives greater pleasure from forbidden fruit. Rava therefore teaches us that this is not a concern. Rather, the assumption is that he had not yet actually sinned and therefore acted in the proper manner.