Study Nedarim folio 80B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
שנית ״אם ארחץ״. ״אם לא ארחץ״ היכי דמי? אלימא דאמרה: ״תיתסר הנאת רחיצה לעולם עלי אם לא ארחץ היום״ — למה לה הפרה? תתסחי! אמר רב יהודה: דאמרה ״הנאת רחיצה עלי לעולם אם לא ארחץ במי משרה״.
The Talmud 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 should 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 Mishnah 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.
דכוותיה דקתני ״אם לא אתקשט״ — אם לא אתקשט בנפט. לכלוך הוא!
The Talmud 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.
אמר [רב יהודה], דאמרה: ״הנאת רחיצה לעולם עלי אם ארחץ היום, ושבועה שלא ארחץ״, ״הנאת קישוט עלי לעולם אם אתקשט היום, ושבועה שלא אתקשט״.
Rather, Rav Yehuda said that the Mishnah 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.