## Nedarim Daf 80b

###### Nedarim 80b:1
[Nedarim 80b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/80b:1)

שַׁנֵּית ״אִם אֶרְחַץ״. ״אִם לֹא אֶרְחַץ״ הֵיכִי דָּמֵי? אִלֵּימָא דְּאָמְרָה: ״תִּיתְּסַר הֲנָאַת רְחִיצָה לְעוֹלָם עָלַי אִם לֹא אֶרְחַץ הַיּוֹם״ — לְמָה לָהּ הֲפָרָה? תִּתְסְחֵי! אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: דְּאָמְרָה ״הֲנָאַת רְחִיצָה עָלַי לְעוֹלָם אִם לֹא אֶרְחַץ בְּמֵי מִשְׁרָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nedarim 80b:2
[Nedarim 80b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/80b:2)

דִּכְווֹתֵיהּ דְּקָתָנֵי ״אִם לֹא אֶתְקַשֵּׁט״ — אִם לֹא אֶתְקַשֵּׁט בְּנֵפְטְ. לִכְלוּךְ הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nedarim 80b:3
[Nedarim 80b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/80b:3)

אָמַר [רַב יְהוּדָה], דְּאָמְרָה: ״הֲנָאַת רְחִיצָה לְעוֹלָם עָלַי אִם אֶרְחַץ הַיּוֹם, וּשְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶרְחַץ״, ״הֲנָאַת קִישּׁוּט עָלַי לְעוֹלָם אִם אֶתְקַשֵּׁט הַיּוֹם, וּשְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֶתְקַשֵּׁט״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nedarim 80b:4
[Nedarim 80b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/80b:4)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: הַאי ״אֵלּוּ נְדָרִים וּשְׁבוּעוֹת״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְמִיתְנֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנִי: אֵלּוּ נְדָרִים וּשְׁבוּעוֹת. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: שְׁבוּעוֹת נָמֵי הַיְינוּ נְדָרִים. דִּתְנַן: ״כְּנִדְרֵי רְשָׁעִים״ — נָדַר בְּנָזִיר וּבְקׇרְבָּן וּבִשְׁבוּעָה.

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


###### Nedarim 80b:5
[Nedarim 80b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/80b:5)

וַאֲמַרוּ רַבָּנַן: רְחִיצָה אִית בַּהּ עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ כִּי לָא רָחֲצָה? וּרְמִינְהִי: אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָסוּר בְּכוּלָּן — אֵין עָנוּשׁ כָּרֵת אֶלָּא בְּאוֹכֵל וְשׁוֹתֶה וְעוֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בִּלְבַד. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ כִּי לָא רָחֲצָה אִיכָּא עִנּוּי, בְּיוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים כִּי רָחַץ לִיחַיַּיב כָּרֵת!

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


###### Nedarim 80b:6
[Nedarim 80b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/80b:6)

אָמַר רָבָא: מֵעִנְיָנָא דִקְרָא. גַּבֵּי יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים דִּכְתִיב ״תְּעַנּוּ אֶת נַפְשׁוֹתֵיכֶם״ — מִילְּתָא דְּיָדַע עִינּוּיָא הַשְׁתָּא. רְחִיצָה לָא יָדַע עִינּוּיָא הַשְׁתָּא. גַּבֵּי נְדָרִים דִּכְתִיב ״כׇּל נֵדֶר וְכׇל שְׁבוּעַת אִסָּר לְעַנּוֹת נָפֶשׁ״ — מִילְּתָא דְּאָתְיָא לֵיהּ לִידֵי עִנּוּי, וְכִי לָא רָחֲצָה אָתְיָא לִידֵי עִנּוּי.

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


###### Nedarim 80b:7
[Nedarim 80b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/80b:7)

וְרָמֵי דְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אַדְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי: מַעְיָין שֶׁל בְּנֵי הָעִיר, חַיֵּיהֶן וְחַיֵּי אֲחֵרִים — חַיֵּיהֶן קוֹדְמִין לְחַיֵּי אֲחֵרִים. בְּהֶמְתָּם [וּבֶהֱמַת אֲחֵרִים — בְּהֶמְתָּם] קוֹדֶמֶת לְבֶהֱמַת אֲחֵרִים. כְּבִיסָתָן וּכְבִיסַת אֲחֵרִים — כְּבִיסָתָן קוֹדֶמֶת לִכְבִיסַת אֲחֵרִים. חַיֵּי אֲחֵרִים וּכְבִיסָתָן — חַיֵּי אֲחֵרִים קוֹדְמִין לִכְבִיסָתָן.

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


###### Nedarim 80b:8
[Nedarim 80b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/80b:8)

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: כְּבִיסָתָן קוֹדֶמֶת לְחַיֵּי אֲחֵרִים. הַשְׁתָּא כְּבִיסָה אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי יֵשׁ בָּהּ צַעַר,

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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,