Study Nedarim folio 82A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
יפר חלקו, ומשמשתו, ותהא נטולה מן היהודים. ואי אמרת נדר ענוי נפש הוי, אמאי תהא נטולה מן היהודים? שמע מינה דברים שבינו לבינה הויין.
her husband must nullify his part, i.e., the part of the vow that affects him, so that she will be permitted to him, and she may have sex with him, but she is removed from all other Jews, so that if he divorces her, she is forbidden to everyone. And if you say that this is a vow of affliction, why should she be removed from all other Jews? Wasn’t it already established that when a husband nullifies a vow of affliction for his wife, he nullifies it not only with respect to himself but with respect to others as well? Rather, learn from here that such vows are under the category of matters that adversely affect the relationship between him and her, and therefore he can nullify it only with respect to himself.
לרבנן תבעי לך, משום ד״נטולה אני מן היהודים״ רבי יוסי קתני לה, דאמר רב הונא: כוליה פירקין רבי יוסי היא. ממאי — כיון דקתני: רבי יוסי אומר אין אלו נדרי עינוי נפש, למה ליה תו למיתנא ״הרי זה יפר, דברי רבי יוסי״? שמע מינה: מכאן ואילך רבי יוסי היא.
The Talmud notes: According to the Rabbis, you still have the dilemma, because the Mishnah dealing with a woman who says: I am removed from the Jews, was taught by R' Yosei. As Rav Huna said: Our entire chapter is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yosei. From where do we know this? Since the Mishnah teaches: R' Yosei says that these are not vows of affliction, why does it need to teach further, at the end of the Mishnah: He can nullify the vow; this is the statement of R' Yosei? Learn from this that from this point forward, the rest of the Mishnah is in accordance with the opinion of R' Yosei. Accordingly, this Mishnah teaches us only the opinion of R' Yosei, not that of the Rabbis.