Study Nedarim folio 79B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
אמר רבי יוסי: אין אלו נדרי ענוי נפש. ואלו הן נדרי ענוי נפש: אמרה ״קונם פירות העולם עלי״ — הרי זה יכול להפר. ״פירות מדינה זו עלי״ — יביא לה ממדינה אחרת. ״פירות חנווני זה עלי״ — אינו יכול להפר. ואם לא היתה פרנסתו אלא ממנו — הרי זה יפר, דברי רבי יוסי.
R' 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 R' Yosei.
גמ׳ נדרי ענוי נפש הוא דמפר, שאין בהן ענוי נפש אינו מפר? והא תניא: ״בין איש לאשתו בין אב לבתו״ — מלמד שהבעל מפר נדרים שבינו לבינה!
Talmud: The Talmud raises a question with regard to the ruling of the Mishnah: 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 YHWH 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?
אמרי: הלין והלין מפר, מיהו ענוי נפש — מפר לעולם. אבל אין בהן ענוי נפש, כדאיתה תחותיה — הויא הפרה, מכי מגרש לה — חייל עלה נדרה. בדברים שבינו לבינה שאין בהן ענוי נפש. אבל יש בהן ענוי נפש — לא חייל עליה נדרה.
The rabbis 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.