## Nedarim Daf 79b

###### Nedarim 79b:1
[Nedarim 79b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/79b:1)

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֵין אֵלּוּ נִדְרֵי עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ. וְאֵלּוּ הֵן נִדְרֵי עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ: אָמְרָה ״קֻוֽנָּם פֵּירוֹת הָעוֹלָם עָלַי״ — הֲרֵי זֶה יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. ״פֵּירוֹת מְדִינָה זוֹ עָלַי״ — יָבִיא לָהּ מִמְּדִינָה אַחֶרֶת. ״פֵּירוֹת חֶנְווֹנִי זֶה עָלַי״ — אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. וְאִם לֹא הָיְתָה פַּרְנָסָתוֹ אֶלָּא מִמֶּנּוּ — הֲרֵי זֶה יָפֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Nedarim 79b:2
[Nedarim 79b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/79b:2)

**גְּמָ׳** נִדְרֵי עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ הוּא דְּמֵפֵר, שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ אֵינוֹ מֵפֵר? וְהָא תַּנְיָא: ״בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ בֵּין אָב לְבִתּוֹ״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַבַּעַל מֵפֵר נְדָרִים שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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?


###### Nedarim 79b:3
[Nedarim 79b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/79b:3)

אָמְרִי: הָלֵין וְהָלֵין מֵפֵר, מִיהוּ עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ — מֵפֵר לְעוֹלָם. אֲבָל אֵין בָּהֶן עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ, כִּדְאִיתַהּ תְּחוֹתֵיהּ — הָוְיָא הֲפָרָה, מִכִּי מְגָרֵשׁ לַהּ — חָיֵיל עֲלַהּ נִדְרַהּ. בִּדְבָרִים שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ. אֲבָל יֵשׁ בָּהֶן עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ — לָא חָיֵיל עֲלַיהּ נִדְרַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nedarim 79b:4
[Nedarim 79b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/79b:4)

וּדְבָרִים שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶן עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ, כִּי מְגָרֵשׁ לַהּ חָיְילָא עֲלַהּ? וְהָא תְּנַן, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר: יָפֵר, שֶׁמָּא יְגָרְשֶׁנָּה וּתְהֵא אֲסוּרָה לוֹ. אַלְמָא: כִּי מְגָרֵשׁ לַהּ וּמֵפַר לַהּ מֵעִיקָּרָא — הָוְיָא הֲפָרָה!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nedarim 79b:5
[Nedarim 79b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/79b:5)

אָמְרִי: הָלֵין וְהָלֵין הָוְיָא הֲפָרָה. אֶלָּא: נִדְרֵי עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ מֵפֵר, בֵּין לְעַצְמוֹ וּבֵין לַאֲחֵרִים. אֵין בָּהֶן עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ, לְעַצְמוֹ — מֵפֵר, לַאֲחֵרִים — אֵינוֹ מֵפֵר. וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: אֵלּוּ נְדָרִים שֶׁהוּא מֵפֵר בֵּין לְעַצְמוֹ וּבֵין לַאֲחֵרִים — נְדָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Nedarim 79b:6
[Nedarim 79b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/79b:6)

״אִם אֶרְחַץ״, הֵיכִי קָאָמַר? אִילֵּימָא דְּאָמְרָה ״קֻוֽנָּם פֵּירוֹת עוֹלָם עָלַי אִם אֶרְחַץ״ — לְמָה לֵהּ הֲפָרָה? לָא תִּרְחַץ וְלָא לִיתַּסְרָן פֵּירוֹת עוֹלָם אֵלּוּ עֲלַהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.**


###### Nedarim 79b:7
[Nedarim 79b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/79b:7)

וְעוֹד: בְּהָא לֵימָא רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אֵין אֵלּוּ נִדְרֵי עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ? דִּלְמָא רָחֲצָה וְאִיתַּסְרוּ פֵּירוֹת עוֹלָם עֲלַהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.