Study Nedarim folio 84A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן: ובעל לאו בכלל בריות הוא? והתנן: ״נטולה אני מן היהודים״ — יפר חלקו, ותהא משמשתו, ותהא נטולה מן היהודים.
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 Mishnah (90b): If a woman said: I am removed from the Jews, i.e., the benefit of sex 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 have sex with him, but she is removed from all other Jews, so that if he divorces her, she is forbidden to all.
ואי אמרת בעל לאו בכלל ״בריות״ הוא, נדרי עינוי נפש הן, ויפר לה לעולם!
The Talmud 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.
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 sex 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.