## Nedarim Daf 84a

###### Nedarim 84a:1
[Nedarim 84a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/84a:1)

אֵיתִיבֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: וּבַעַל לָאו בִּכְלַל בְּרִיּוֹת הוּא? וְהָתְנַן: ״נְטוּלָה אֲנִי מִן הַיְּהוּדִים״ — יָפֵר חֶלְקוֹ, וּתְהֵא מְשַׁמַּשְׁתּוֹ, וּתְהֵא נְטוּלָה מִן הַיְּהוּדִים.

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


###### Nedarim 84a:2
[Nedarim 84a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/84a:2)

וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ בַּעַל לָאו בִּכְלַל ״בְּרִיּוֹת״ הוּא, נִדְרֵי עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ הֵן, וְיָפֵר לָהּ לְעוֹלָם!

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


###### Nedarim 84a:3
[Nedarim 84a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/84a:3)

אֵימָא לָךְ: שָׁאנֵי הָכָא, דְּמוֹכְחָא מִלְּתָא דְּעַל הֶיתֵּרָא קָאָסְרָה נַפְשַׁהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nedarim 84a:4
[Nedarim 84a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/84a:4)

יְכוֹלָה לֵיהָנוֹת בְּלֶקֶט שִׁכְחָה וּפֵאָה. וְלָא קָתָנֵי וּבְמַעְשַׂר עָנִי. וְהָתַנְיָא בְּבָרַיְיתָא: וּבְמַעְשַׂר עָנִי!

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


###### Nedarim 84a:5
[Nedarim 84a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/84a:5)

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: לָא קַשְׁיָא הָא — רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הָא — רַבָּנַן. דִּתְנַן, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: אֵין אָדָם צָרִיךְ לִקְרוֹת שֵׁם עַל מַעְשַׂר עָנִי שֶׁל דְּמַאי.

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