Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 15, 2023 | 讻状讘 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讙

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

Nedarim 82

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Shaindy Kurzmann in loving memory of her mother A”H, Rivkah bat HaRav Simcha Bunim, on her 24th yahrzeit. 鈥淲ith deep appreciation for her encouragement to always keep learning.鈥

Rava asks Rav Nachman if, according to the rabbis, a vow to refrain from sexual relations is considered an affliction of the soul or something that affects the relationship between the husband and wife. Rav Nachman tries to answer it from a Mishna that appears later in our chapter, but Rava rejects the proof based on Rav Huna’s assertion that the rest of the chapter is all Rabbi Yosi’s opinion. Shmuel says in the name of Levi that if a woman forbids herself from someone in particular the husband can nullify the vow. Two difficulties are raised against this from cases in our Mishna which seem very similar, yet the husband can nullify them. An answer is brought but is rejected. In the end, the answer is that the Mishna is Rabbi Yosi’s opinion and Levi held by the rabbis. Shmuel and Rabbi Yochanan disagree about a case where a woman vowed not to eat two loaves and refraining from eating one was considered affliction for her, but the other was not. One says that he nullifies the entire vow and the other says he only nullifies the one that was considered affliction.

讬驻专 讞诇拽讜 讜诪砖诪砖转讜 讜转讛讗 谞讟讜诇讛 诪谉 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 谞讚专 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讛讜讬 讗诪讗讬 转讛讗 谞讟讜诇讛 诪谉 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 讛讜讬讬谉

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 engage in intercourse 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鈥檛 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.

诇专讘谞谉 转讘注讬 诇讱 诪砖讜诐 讚谞讟讜诇讛 讗谞讬 诪谉 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讜诇讬讛 驻讬专拽讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 诪诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚拽转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讗诇讜 谞讚专讬 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 转讜 诇诪讬转谞讗 讛专讬 讝讛 讬驻专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara notes: According to the Rabbis, you still have the dilemma, because the mishna dealing with a woman who says: I am removed from the Jews, was taught by Rabbi Yosei. As Rav Huna said: Our entire chapter is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. From where do we know this? Since the mishna teaches: Rabbi Yosei says that these are not vows of affliction, why does it need to teach further, at the end of the mishna: He can nullify the vow; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei? Learn from this that from this point forward, the rest of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Accordingly, this mishna teaches us only the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, not that of the Rabbis.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诇讜讬 讻诇 谞讚专讬诐 讘注诇 诪驻专 诇讗砖转讜 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛谞讗转讬 注诇 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪驻专 讗讘诇 讛谞讗转 驻诇讜谞讬 注诇讬 诪驻专

Shmuel said in the name of Levi: A husband can nullify all vows of affliction for his wife, except for the vow: Benefit from me is konam for so-and-so, which he cannot nullify, as it is entirely between her and another person. But if she says: Benefit derived from so-and-so is konam for me, he can nullify the vow, as it considered a vow of affliction, since she might one day need that person and be unable to avail herself of his services due to her vow.

转谞谉 驻讬专讜转 诪讚讬谞讛 讝讜 注诇讬 讬讘讬讗 诇讛 诪诪讚讬谞讛 讗讞专转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讚拽讗诪专讛 砖转讘讬讗

The Gemara raises an objection from that which we learned in the mishna: If she said: The produce of this country is konam for me, he cannot nullify the vow, as it does not involve affliction, since he can still bring her produce from another country. This vow is similar to a vow by which she prohibits herself from deriving benefit from another person. Why, then, does Shmuel say that the husband cannot nullify it? Rav Yosef said: The mishna is referring to a woman who said in her vow: That you bring. In other words, she did not prohibit herself from deriving benefit from the produce of that country entirely, but only from the produce that her husband himself would bring her. She may still enjoy that produce if it is brought to her by someone else or if she brings it for herself.

转讗 砖诪注 驻讬专讜转 讞谞讜谞讬 讝讛 注诇讬 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚拽讗 讗诪专讛 砖转讘讬讗 讗转讛

The Gemara raises another objection from the next clause of the mishna: Come and hear: If the woman took a vow saying: The produce of this storekeeper is konam for me, her husband cannot nullify the vow. But didn鈥檛 Shmuel say that if a woman prohibits herself from benefiting from a certain person, her husband can nullify the vow? The Gemara answers: Here too, the mishna is referring to a case where she said in her vow: The produce that you bring from this storekeeper is konam for me.

诇讗 讛讬转讛 驻专谞住转讜 讗诇讗 诪诪谞讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讬驻专 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讚拽讗 讗诪专讛 砖转讘讬讗 讗转讛 讗诪讗讬 讬驻专 讗诇讗 诪讚住讬驻讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讬转讬 讘注诇 讛讜讬 专讬砖讗 讚拽讗 诪讬讬转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara questions this resolution: But the continuation of the mishna states: But if the husband can obtain his sustenance only from him, i.e., that particular storekeeper, he can nullify his wife鈥檚 vow. And if you say that this is referring to a case where the woman said in her vow: The fruit that you bring from this storekeeper is konam for me, why can the husband nullify her vow? Other people can bring her the fruit on his behalf. Rather, from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna must be dealing with a case where the woman renders all fruit forbidden to herself, even that which the husband does not bring her, the first clause must also refer to a case where the woman renders forbidden even the fruit that she herself brings, and nevertheless the husband cannot nullify the vow. Therefore, the objection raised against Shmuel remains.

讗诇讗 专讬砖讗 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 讜讚拽讗 诪讬讬转讗 讛讬讗

Rather, the Gemara retracts its previous answer and explains the matter as follows: In the first clause the husband cannot nullify his wife鈥檚 vow, and the case is one where she renders forbidden even the fruit that she herself brings.

讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讜诇讬讛 驻专拽讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讜诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 诪砖讜诐 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讗讘诇 诪驻专 谞讚专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛

And the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who is more restrictive in his definition of affliction. As Rav Huna said: Our entire chapter is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Shmuel, on the other hand, rules in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And what does Rabbi Yosei mean when he says that the husband cannot nullify his wife鈥檚 vows? He means that he cannot nullify them as vows of affliction, but he can nullify them as vows that adversely affect the relationship between him and her.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞讚专讛 诪砖转讬 讻讻专讜转 讘讗讞转 诪转注谞讛 讜讘讗讞转 讗讬谉 诪转注谞讛 诪转讜讱 砖讛讜讗 诪驻专 诇诪转注谞讛 诪驻专 诇砖讗讬谞讜 诪转注谞讛 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪驻专 诇诪转注谞讛 讜讗讬谉 诪驻专 诇砖讗讬谉 诪转注谞讛

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: In a case where a woman vowed that two loaves are forbidden to her, and if she abstains from one of them she would deprive herself, as it is a fine-quality loaf, and if she abstains from the other one she would not deprive herself, as it is a poor-quality loaf, then, since the husband can nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would cause her to deprive herself, like any other vow of affliction, he can also nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would not cause her to deprive herself. And Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The husband can nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would cause her to deprive herself, but he cannot nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would not cause her to deprive herself.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讗住讬 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞讚专讛 诪砖转讬 讻讻专讜转 讘讗讞转 诪转注谞讛 讜讘讗讞转 讗讬谉 诪转注谞讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪驻专 诇诪转注谞讛 讜讗讬谉 诪驻专 诇砖讗讬谉 诪转注谞讛

And some say a different version of this dispute, according to which Rav Asi raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yo岣nan: In a case where a woman vowed not to eat from two loaves of bread, and if she abstains from one of them she would deprive herself, and if she abstains from the other one she would not deprive herself, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: The husband can nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would cause her to deprive herself, but he cannot nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would not cause her to deprive herself.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讛讗砖讛 砖谞讚专讛 讘谞讝讬专 讜讛讬转讛 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讜诪讟诪讗讛 诇诪转讬诐

Rav Asi raised an objection against Rabbi Yo岣nan from the following mishna (Nazir 23a): With regard to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite, and she transgressed her vow and drank wine or became impure by coming into contact with the dead,

  • This month's learning is sponsored by the Hadran Women of Silver Spring in memory of Nicki Toys, Nechama bat Shmuel Tzadok.

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nedarim: 78-84 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn the law if a husband is silent about his wife鈥檚 vow. Does his silence signify...
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 82: Combination Nedarim

More on the husband's revoking his wife's vows, and how he cannot do so when it comes to a vow...

Nedarim 82

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 82

讬驻专 讞诇拽讜 讜诪砖诪砖转讜 讜转讛讗 谞讟讜诇讛 诪谉 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 谞讚专 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讛讜讬 讗诪讗讬 转讛讗 谞讟讜诇讛 诪谉 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 讛讜讬讬谉

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 engage in intercourse 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鈥檛 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.

诇专讘谞谉 转讘注讬 诇讱 诪砖讜诐 讚谞讟讜诇讛 讗谞讬 诪谉 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 拽转谞讬 诇讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讜诇讬讛 驻讬专拽讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 诪诪讗讬 讻讬讜谉 讚拽转谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 讗诇讜 谞讚专讬 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 诇诪讛 诇讬讛 转讜 诇诪讬转谞讗 讛专讬 讝讛 讬驻专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诪讻讗谉 讜讗讬诇讱 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗

The Gemara notes: According to the Rabbis, you still have the dilemma, because the mishna dealing with a woman who says: I am removed from the Jews, was taught by Rabbi Yosei. As Rav Huna said: Our entire chapter is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. From where do we know this? Since the mishna teaches: Rabbi Yosei says that these are not vows of affliction, why does it need to teach further, at the end of the mishna: He can nullify the vow; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei? Learn from this that from this point forward, the rest of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Accordingly, this mishna teaches us only the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, not that of the Rabbis.

讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 诪砖诪讬讛 讚诇讜讬 讻诇 谞讚专讬诐 讘注诇 诪驻专 诇讗砖转讜 讞讜抓 诪谉 讛谞讗转讬 注诇 驻诇讜谞讬 砖讗讬谞讜 诪驻专 讗讘诇 讛谞讗转 驻诇讜谞讬 注诇讬 诪驻专

Shmuel said in the name of Levi: A husband can nullify all vows of affliction for his wife, except for the vow: Benefit from me is konam for so-and-so, which he cannot nullify, as it is entirely between her and another person. But if she says: Benefit derived from so-and-so is konam for me, he can nullify the vow, as it considered a vow of affliction, since she might one day need that person and be unable to avail herself of his services due to her vow.

转谞谉 驻讬专讜转 诪讚讬谞讛 讝讜 注诇讬 讬讘讬讗 诇讛 诪诪讚讬谞讛 讗讞专转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讚拽讗诪专讛 砖转讘讬讗

The Gemara raises an objection from that which we learned in the mishna: If she said: The produce of this country is konam for me, he cannot nullify the vow, as it does not involve affliction, since he can still bring her produce from another country. This vow is similar to a vow by which she prohibits herself from deriving benefit from another person. Why, then, does Shmuel say that the husband cannot nullify it? Rav Yosef said: The mishna is referring to a woman who said in her vow: That you bring. In other words, she did not prohibit herself from deriving benefit from the produce of that country entirely, but only from the produce that her husband himself would bring her. She may still enjoy that produce if it is brought to her by someone else or if she brings it for herself.

转讗 砖诪注 驻讬专讜转 讞谞讜谞讬 讝讛 注诇讬 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 讛讻讗 谞诪讬 讚拽讗 讗诪专讛 砖转讘讬讗 讗转讛

The Gemara raises another objection from the next clause of the mishna: Come and hear: If the woman took a vow saying: The produce of this storekeeper is konam for me, her husband cannot nullify the vow. But didn鈥檛 Shmuel say that if a woman prohibits herself from benefiting from a certain person, her husband can nullify the vow? The Gemara answers: Here too, the mishna is referring to a case where she said in her vow: The produce that you bring from this storekeeper is konam for me.

诇讗 讛讬转讛 驻专谞住转讜 讗诇讗 诪诪谞讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讬驻专 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讚拽讗 讗诪专讛 砖转讘讬讗 讗转讛 讗诪讗讬 讬驻专 讗诇讗 诪讚住讬驻讗 讚诇讗 诪讬讬转讬 讘注诇 讛讜讬 专讬砖讗 讚拽讗 诪讬讬转讗 讛讬讗

The Gemara questions this resolution: But the continuation of the mishna states: But if the husband can obtain his sustenance only from him, i.e., that particular storekeeper, he can nullify his wife鈥檚 vow. And if you say that this is referring to a case where the woman said in her vow: The fruit that you bring from this storekeeper is konam for me, why can the husband nullify her vow? Other people can bring her the fruit on his behalf. Rather, from the fact that the latter clause of the mishna must be dealing with a case where the woman renders all fruit forbidden to herself, even that which the husband does not bring her, the first clause must also refer to a case where the woman renders forbidden even the fruit that she herself brings, and nevertheless the husband cannot nullify the vow. Therefore, the objection raised against Shmuel remains.

讗诇讗 专讬砖讗 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 讜讚拽讗 诪讬讬转讗 讛讬讗

Rather, the Gemara retracts its previous answer and explains the matter as follows: In the first clause the husband cannot nullify his wife鈥檚 vow, and the case is one where she renders forbidden even the fruit that she herself brings.

讜诪转谞讬转讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讻讜诇讬讛 驻专拽讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讬讗 讜诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 诪砖讜诐 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讗讘诇 诪驻专 谞讚专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛

And the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, who is more restrictive in his definition of affliction. As Rav Huna said: Our entire chapter is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Shmuel, on the other hand, rules in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. And what does Rabbi Yosei mean when he says that the husband cannot nullify his wife鈥檚 vows? He means that he cannot nullify them as vows of affliction, but he can nullify them as vows that adversely affect the relationship between him and her.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 谞讚专讛 诪砖转讬 讻讻专讜转 讘讗讞转 诪转注谞讛 讜讘讗讞转 讗讬谉 诪转注谞讛 诪转讜讱 砖讛讜讗 诪驻专 诇诪转注谞讛 诪驻专 诇砖讗讬谞讜 诪转注谞讛 讜专讘 讗住讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 诪驻专 诇诪转注谞讛 讜讗讬谉 诪驻专 诇砖讗讬谉 诪转注谞讛

Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: In a case where a woman vowed that two loaves are forbidden to her, and if she abstains from one of them she would deprive herself, as it is a fine-quality loaf, and if she abstains from the other one she would not deprive herself, as it is a poor-quality loaf, then, since the husband can nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would cause her to deprive herself, like any other vow of affliction, he can also nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would not cause her to deprive herself. And Rav Asi said that Rabbi Yo岣nan said: The husband can nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would cause her to deprive herself, but he cannot nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would not cause her to deprive herself.

讜讗讬讻讗 讚讗诪专讬 讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘 讗住讬 诪专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞讚专讛 诪砖转讬 讻讻专讜转 讘讗讞转 诪转注谞讛 讜讘讗讞转 讗讬谉 诪转注谞讛 诪讛讜 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪驻专 诇诪转注谞讛 讜讗讬谉 诪驻专 诇砖讗讬谉 诪转注谞讛

And some say a different version of this dispute, according to which Rav Asi raised a dilemma before Rabbi Yo岣nan: In a case where a woman vowed not to eat from two loaves of bread, and if she abstains from one of them she would deprive herself, and if she abstains from the other one she would not deprive herself, what is the halakha? Rabbi Yo岣nan said to him: The husband can nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would cause her to deprive herself, but he cannot nullify the vow with regard to the loaf that would not cause her to deprive herself.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讛讗砖讛 砖谞讚专讛 讘谞讝讬专 讜讛讬转讛 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讜诪讟诪讗讛 诇诪转讬诐

Rav Asi raised an objection against Rabbi Yo岣nan from the following mishna (Nazir 23a): With regard to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite, and she transgressed her vow and drank wine or became impure by coming into contact with the dead,

Scroll To Top