## Nedarim Daf 15b

###### Nedarim 15b:1
[Nedarim 15b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/15b:1)

וּתְיוּבְתָּא דְרַב יְהוּדָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** this is **a conclusive refutation** of the opinion **of Rav Yehuda.**


###### Nedarim 15b:2
[Nedarim 15b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/15b:2)

כִּי קָתָנֵי, דְּאִי אִיתְהֲנִי הֲרֵי זֶה בְּ״בַל יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **When** the mishna **teaches** this, it does not mean that before she went she was permitted to derive benefit from him *ab initio*. Rather, it means **that if she derived benefit** from him after the fact, **she is in** violation of: **He shall not profane his word.**


###### Nedarim 15b:3
[Nedarim 15b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/15b:3)

תְּנַן: ״שֶׁאַתְּ נֶהֱנֵית לִי עַד הֶחָג אִם תֵּלְכִי לְבֵית אָבִיךְ עַד הַפֶּסַח״, הָלְכָה לִפְנֵי הַפֶּסַח — אֲסוּרָה בַּהֲנָאָתוֹ עַד הֶחָג, וּמוּתֶּרֶת לֵילֵךְ אַחַר הַפֶּסַח.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**We learn** further on (57b) that if the husband said to his wife: **Deriving benefit from me until the festival** of *Sukkot* is *konam* **for you if you go to your father’s house until Passover,** then, if **she went before Passover, she** is **prohibited from deriving benefit from him until the festival** of *Sukkot*, as the vow took effect, **and she is permitted to go** to her father’s house **after Passover.**


###### Nedarim 15b:4
[Nedarim 15b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/15b:4)

הָלְכָה — אֲסוּרָה, לֹא הָלְכָה — לָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara infers: Only if **she went** before Passover is it **prohibited for her** to derive benefit from him. However, if **she did not go** it is **not** prohibited for her to do so. She may derive benefit from him, and there is no concern that she will subsequently go to her father’s house, transgressing the prohibition. This is difficult according to the opinion of Rav Yehuda that one may not perform an action that will be rendered retroactively a violation of a vow if the condition is met.


###### Nedarim 15b:5
[Nedarim 15b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/15b:5)

אָמַר רָבָא: הוּא הַדִּין דַּאֲפִילּוּ לֹא הָלְכָה אֲסוּרָה. הָלְכָה — אֲסוּרָה וְלוֹקָה, לֹא הָלְכָה — אֲסוּרָה בְּעָלְמָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said: The same is true, that even if she did not go, she** is **prohibited from** deriving benefit from him. The difference is that if **she went** it is not only **prohibited for her** to derive benefit from him, **but** if she does so **she is flogged;** whereas if **she did not go,** it is **merely prohibited for her** to derive benefit from him, lest she violate the vow by going to her father’s house before Passover.


###### Nedarim 15b:6
[Nedarim 15b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/15b:6)

מֵיתִיבִי: ״כִּכָּר זוֹ עָלַי הַיּוֹם אִם אֵלֵךְ לְמָקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי לְמָחָר״, אָכַל — הֲרֵי זֶה בְּ״בַל יֵלֵךְ״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara **raises an objection** to the opinion of Rav Yehuda: It is taught in a *baraita* that if one said: **This loaf is** forbidden **to me today if I go to such and such a place tomorrow,** then if **he ate** the loaf today, **he is subject to** the prohibition that **he shall not go** tomorrow. Apparently, he may eat it today, as there is no concern that he will go tomorrow.


###### Nedarim 15b:7
[Nedarim 15b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/15b:7)

מִי קָתָנֵי ״אוֹכֵל״? ״אָכַל״ קָתָנֵי, דְּכִי אֲכַל הֲרֵי זֶה בְּ״בַל יֵלֵךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Where is the contradiction? **Does** the *baraita* **teach** that **he may eat** the loaf *ab initio*? **It teaches** only that **he ate,** i.e., **that once he ate, he is subject to** the prohibition that **he shall not go.**


###### Nedarim 15b:8
[Nedarim 15b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/15b:8)

הָלַךְ — הֲרֵי זֶה בְּ״בַל יַחֵל״ דְּבָרוֹ. מְהַלֵּךְ — לָא. וְקַשְׁיָא לְרַב יְהוּדָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
It is further taught in the *baraita*: If **he went** the next day, **he is in** violation of: **He shall not profane his word.** The Gemara infers from the fact that the *baraita* is referring only to a case in which he went after the fact, that **he may not go** *ab initio*. This indicates that he is permitted to eat the loaf, thereby prohibiting himself from going the next day. This accords with the opinion of Rav Naḥman that one may cause a vow to take effect by fulfilling its condition, **and** it poses **a difficulty to** the opinion of **Rav Yehuda.**


###### Nedarim 15b:9
[Nedarim 15b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/15b:9)

אָמַר לָךְ רַב יְהוּדָה: הוּא הַדִּין דְּלִיתְנֵי ״מְהַלֵּךְ״. אַיְּידֵי דְּקָתָנֵי רֵישָׁא ״אָכַל״, דְּלָא מִיתְנֵי לֵיהּ ״אוֹכֵל״ — תָּנֵי סֵיפָא ״הָלַךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: **Rav Yehuda** could have **said to you** that **the same is true, that** the *baraita* **could have taught** that **he may go.** However, **since the first clause teaches** the *halakha* where **he ate** the loaf after the fact, **as it cannot teach** that **he may eat** it according to Rav Yehuda, who holds that it is prohibited for him to eat it *ab initio*, **the latter clause** also **teaches** the *halakha* in the case where **he went,** and does not teach that he may go, to maintain a uniform style. In conclusion, neither opinion is refuted.


###### Nedarim 15b:10
[Nedarim 15b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/15b:10)

הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשָּׁה ״קֻוֽנָּם שֶׁאֲנִי מְשַׁמְּשֵׁךְ״, הֲרֵי זֶה בְּ״בַל יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ״. וְהָא מִשְׁתַּעְבַּד לָהּ מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא, דִּכְתִיב: ״שְׁאֵרָהּ כְּסוּתָהּ וְעֹנָתָהּ לֹא יִגְרָע״!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ It is taught in the mishna that with regard to **one who says to his wife: Engaging in sexual intercourse with you is *konam* for me,** if he violates the vow **he is in** violation of the prohibition: **He shall not profane his word.** The Gemara asks: How can one render prohibited engaging in sexual intercourse with his wife? **But isn’t he duty bound by Torah law to** engage in sexual intercourse with **her, as it is written: “Her food, her clothing, and her conjugal rights he may not diminish”** (Exodus 21:10)?


###### Nedarim 15b:11
[Nedarim 15b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/15b:11)

בְּאוֹמֵר ״הֲנָאַת תַּשְׁמִישֵׁךְ עָלַי״, וְהָא לָא קָא נִיחָא לֵיהּ בְּתַשְׁמִישׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: The vow does not take effect if it is formulated as cited. Rather, the mishna is referring to a case **where he says: The pleasure** I derive **from** engaging in **sexual intercourse with you is** forbidden **to me, and sexual intercourse is** therefore **not amenable to him.** Since he is not obligated to experience the pleasure he derives from sexual intercourse with her, he can prohibit himself from experiencing this pleasure. In this manner he can render their sexual intercourse forbidden by means of a vow.


###### Nedarim 15b:12
[Nedarim 15b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/15b:12)

דְּאָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא: ״תַּשְׁמִישִׁי עָלֶיךָ״ — כּוֹפִין אוֹתָהּ וּמְשַׁמַּשְׁתּוֹ, דְּשַׁעְבּוֹדֵי מְשׁוּעְבֶּדֶת לֵיהּ. ״הֲנָאַת תַּשְׁמִישְׁךָ עָלַי״ — אָסוּר, שֶׁאֵין מַאֲכִילִין לוֹ לְאָדָם דָּבָר הָאָסוּר לוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rav Kahana said:** If a woman vows: **Sexual intercourse with me is** forbidden **to you,** the court **coerces her to engage in sexual intercourse with him, as she is duty bound to** engage in sexual intercourse with **him** due to his conjugal rights. However, if she vows: **The pleasure** I derive **from** engaging in **sexual intercourse with you is** forbidden **to me, it is prohibited** for them to engage in sexual intercourse, **as** she derives pleasure from the sexual intercourse and **one may not feed a person that which is forbidden to him.**


###### Nedarim 15b:13
[Nedarim 15b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/15b:13)

**מַתְנִי׳** שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵינִי יָשֵׁן, שֶׁאֵינִי מְדַבֵּר, שֶׁאֵינִי מְהַלֵּךְ — אָסוּר. קׇרְבָּן לֹא אוֹכַל לָךְ, הָא קׇרְבָּן שֶׁאוֹכַל לָךְ, לֹא קׇרְבָּן לֹא אוֹכַל לָךְ — מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If one says: I take **an oath that I will not sleep,** or: **That I will not speak,** or: **That I will not walk,** this activity is **prohibited** to him. As taught earlier (10a), one of the primary methods of taking a vow is by invoking an offering. The mishna provides several examples where invoking the term *korban* is not effective. If one says: **An offering [*korban*] that I will not eat of yours,** or: **This offering [*ha korban*] that I will eat of yours,** or: That which **I will not eat of yours** is **not an offering [*la korban*],** the food is **permitted.**