## Nedarim Daf 90b

###### Nedarim 90b:1
[Nedarim 90b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/90b:1)

לְמֵימְרָא דְּלָא הֲוָה בֵּיהּ מַעֲשֶׂה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**That is to say that there was not** yet any **action** but only speech, and even so the halakhic authority can dissolve the vow.


###### Nedarim 90b:2
[Nedarim 90b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/90b:2)

מֵיתִיבִי: ״קֻוֽנָּם שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי וּלְמִי שֶׁנִּשְׁאָל עָלָיו״ — נִשְׁאָל עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁאָל עַל הַשֵּׁנִי. אַמַּאי? אִי בָּעֵי — עַל הַאי נִיתְּשִׁיל בְּרֵישָׁא, וְאִי בָּעֵי — עַל הַאי נִיתְּשִׁיל בְּרֵישָׁא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nedarim 90b:3
[Nedarim 90b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/90b:3)

מִי יוֹדֵעַ הֵי רִאשׁוֹן וְהֵי שֵׁנִי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nedarim 90b:4
[Nedarim 90b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/90b:4)

מֵתִיבִי: ״קֻוֽנָּם שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה וַהֲרֵינִי נָזִיר לִכְשֶׁאֶשָּׁאֵל עָלָיו״ — נִשְׁאָל עַל נִדְרוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁאָל עַל נִזְרוֹ. וְאַמַּאי? אִי בָּעֵי — עַל נִדְרוֹ נִיתְּשִׁיל בְּרֵישָׁא, וְאִי בָּעֵי — עַל נִזְרוֹ נִיתְּשִׁיל בְּרֵישָׁא! תְּיוּבְתָּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nedarim 90b:5
[Nedarim 90b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/90b:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: שָׁלֹשׁ נָשִׁים יוֹצְאוֹת וְנוֹטְלוֹת כְּתוּבָה: הָאוֹמֶרֶת ״טְמֵאָה אֲנִי לָךְ״, ״שָׁמַיִם בֵּינִי לְבֵינָךְ״, וּ״נְטוּלָה אֲנִי מִן הַיְּהוּדִים״.

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


###### Nedarim 90b:6
[Nedarim 90b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/90b:6)

חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר, שֶׁלֹּא תְּהֵא אִשָּׁה נוֹתֶנֶת עֵינֶיהָ בְּאַחֵר וּמְקַלְקֶלֶת עַל בַּעְלָהּ: הָאוֹמֶרֶת ״טְמֵאָה אֲנִי לָךְ״ — תָּבִיא רְאָיָה לִדְבָרֶיהָ. ״הַשָּׁמַיִם בֵּינִי לְבֵינָךְ״ — יַעֲשׂוּ דֶּרֶךְ בַּקָּשָׁה. וּ״נְטוּלָה אֲנִי מִן הַיְּהוּדִים״ — יָפֵר לְחֶלְקוֹ, וּתְהֵא מְשַׁמַּשְׁתּוֹ, וּתְהֵא נְטוּלָה מִן הַיְּהוּדִים.

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


###### Nedarim 90b:7
[Nedarim 90b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/90b:7)

**גְּמָ׳** אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: אָמְרָה לְבַעְלָהּ ״טְמֵאָה אֲנִי״, מַהוּ שֶׁתֹּאכַל בִּתְרוּמָה? רַב שֵׁשֶׁת אָמַר: אוֹכֶלֶת, שֶׁלֹּא תּוֹצִיא לַעַז עַל בָּנֶיהָ. רָבָא אָמַר: אֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת, אֶפְשָׁר דְּאָכְלָה חוּלִּין.

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


###### Nedarim 90b:8
[Nedarim 90b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/90b:8)

אָמַר רָבָא: וּמוֹדֶה רַב שֵׁשֶׁת שֶׁאִם נִתְאַרְמְלָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת. מִידֵּי הוּא טַעְמָא אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם תּוֹצִיא לַעַז עַל בָּנֶיהָ. נִתְאַרְמְלָה וְנִתְגָּרְשָׁה, אָמְרִי: הַשְׁתָּא דְּאִיתְּנִיסָא.

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


###### Nedarim 90b:9
[Nedarim 90b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/90b:9)

אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא, בָּדֵיק לַן רָבָא: אֵשֶׁת כֹּהֵן שֶׁנֶּאֶנְסָה, יֵשׁ לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה אוֹ אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה? כֵּיוָן דְּאוֹנֶס לְגַבֵּי כֹּהֵן כְּרָצוֹן לְגַבֵּי יִשְׂרָאֵל דָּמֵי, אֵין לָהּ כְּתוּבָּה. אוֹ דִילְמָא מָצֵי אָמְרָה לֵיהּ: אֲנָא הָא חֲזֵינָא,

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