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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 16, 2023 | 讻状讙 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 83

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Sari Esserman in memory of her aunt Miriam bat Yosef Hakohen.

Today鈥檚 daf is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to their son Eliav and his wife Noia on becoming parents! “Celebrating the Shabbat brit together was very meaningful yehi ratzon that Shachar Yosef will always reach out to Hashem, in the spirit of the pasuk that his parents related to in choosing his name – in Yeshayahu Chapter 26 “谞驻砖讬 讗讜讬转讬讱 讘诇讬诇讛 讗祝 专讜讞讬 讗砖讞专讱”, coupled with the memory of Debbie鈥檚 father 鈥 Yosef Gindsberg z”l,聽 a unique and loving聽 individual who epitomized the concept of Torah U’madda and beyond.”

According to a second version, Rav Asi asked Rabbi Yochanan about a case where a woman vowed not to eat two loaves of bread and refraining from eating one is considered suffering, but from the other is not. Rabbi Yochanan answered that he only nullifies the one that causes her d suffering and not the other. A mishna and braita from Nazir are brought to raise difficulties with Rabbi Yochanan鈥檚 answer, but the difficulties are resolved. Rav Yosef explains the first difficulty, by saying there is a unique law by a nazir that there is no taking on bring a nazir in a partial manner. Abaye makes an inference from Rav Yosef’s words and questions them and clarifies the statement Rav Yosef made. The Gemara then questions Abaye’s reading as well but resolves it.聽 The second difficulty is answered that both abstaining from drinking wine and refraining from becoming impure to the dead is considered suffering because he who eulogized, buries, cries for others, others will do it for them as well. If a woman forbids herself from benefitting from all people, the husband cannot nullify the vow because he is not included in all people, and in addition to that, she can take from gifts for the poor. This is one way to understand the words of the Mishna and that is assuming that the husband is not included in ‘all people.’ But there are two more ways to understand the words of the Mishna. In one they understand that the husband is included in ‘all people’ and she is actually forbidden to him as well and in the second it is assumed that the husband is not included in ‘all people’ and the two parts of the sentence in the Mishna speak of two different situations (a woman within the marriage and a woman after she has been divorced). If a woman has vowed that the Kohanim and Levites cannot benefit her, what happens to the gifts meant to be given to them from her produce?

讛专讬 讝讜 住讜驻讙转 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 讛驻专 诇讛 讘注诇讛 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 讬讚注讛 砖讛驻专 诇讛 讜讛讬转讛 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讜诪讬讟诪讗讛 诇诪转讬诐 讗讬谞讛 住讜驻讙转 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐

she incurs [sofeget] the forty lashes, the penalty for one who transgresses a Torah prohibition, as she violated the terms of her nazirite vow. If her husband nullified the vow for her, but she did not know that he nullified it for her, and she drank wine or became impure through contact with the dead, she does not incur the forty lashes. She did not commit a transgression, as her nazirite vow was nullified.

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 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 讚诇诪讗 诪谉 讬讬谉 讚讗讬转 诇讛 爪注专讗 讛驻专 诇讛 诪谉 讞专爪谉 讜诪谉 讝讙 诇讗 讛驻专 诇讛 讚讛讗 诇讗 讗讬转 诇讛 爪注专讗 讜转住驻讜讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐

And if you say that 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, the same reasoning should apply to a nazirite vow: Perhaps the husband nullified for her the vow that rendered wine forbidden to her, as she suffers pain when she refrains from drinking it. But as for her vow that rendered grape seeds and grape skins forbidden to her, he did not nullify it for her, as she suffers no pain when she abstains from them. And since even grape seeds and grape skins are forbidden to a nazirite, if the woman ate of them, she should receive the forty lashes, even if her husband nullified her vow.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讬谉 谞讝讬专讜转 诇讞爪讗讬谉

Rav Yosef said: Here it is different, as naziriteship cannot take effect partially. Since one cannot be a nazirite and accept only some of the prohibitions of naziriteship, the husband鈥檚 nullification cancels the entire vow. In the case of an ordinary vow, on the other hand, the husband can nullify only the part that causes his wife suffering.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛讗 拽专讘谉 诇讞爪讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬谉 谞讝讬专讜转 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讜讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 诇讞爪讗讬谉

Abaye said to him: The wording of your statement suggests that naziriteship cannot take effect partially, but that an offering is brought for partial observance of naziriteship. Rather, Abaye said that one should say as follows: Naziriteship cannot take effect partially, and no offering is brought for partial observance of naziriteship.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讗砖讛 砖谞讚专讛 讘谞讝讬专 讜讛驻专讬砖讛 讘讛诪转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛驻专 诇讛 讘注诇讛 诪讘讬讗讛 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讘讬讗讛 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 诇讞爪讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讗诪讗讬 诪讘讬讗讛 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝

The Gemara raises an objection from the following statement: With regard to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite and she designated her animal for her nazirite offering, and afterward her husband nullified her vow for her, she must bring a bird sin-offering but she does not bring a bird burnt-offering. And if you say that no offering is brought for partial observance of naziriteship, why must she bring a bird sin-offering?

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讬砖 拽专讘谉 诇讞爪讬 谞讝讬专讜转 砖诇砖 讘讛诪讜转 讘注讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞讟讗转 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 诇讞爪讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讜讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讚诪转讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讟讗转 注诇 讛住驻拽

The Gemara rejects this argument: But rather, what will you say? That an offering is brought for partial observance of naziriteship? If so, she should be required to bring three animals as offerings, a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and a peace-offering, in accordance with the halakha governing a nazirite who has completed the period of his vow. Rather, say as follows: Actually, no offering is brought for partial observance of naziriteship, and as for the bird sin-offering that she must bring, this is because a bird sin-offering can be brought in a case of uncertainty. She must therefore bring a sin-offering for the partial naziriteship that she observed.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讛讗砖讛 砖谞讚专讛 讘谞讝讬专 讜谞讟诪讗转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛驻专 诇讛 讘注诇讛 诪讘讬讗讛 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讛 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 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 Asi raised an objection against the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan from the following baraita: With regard to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite and she became ritually impure through contact with the dead, and afterward her husband nullified her vow for her, she must bring a bird sin-offering but does not bring a bird burnt-offering. And if you say that 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, the same reasoning should apply here:

讚诇诪讗 诪讬讬谉 讚讗讬转 诇讛 爪注专讗 讛驻专 诇讛 诪讟讜诪讗转 诪转 讚诇讬转 诇讛 爪注专讗 诇讗 讛驻专 诇讛

Perhaps the husband nullified for her the vow that rendered wine forbidden to her, as she suffers pain when she refrains from drinking it. But as for her vow that impurity imparted by the dead is forbidden to her, he did not nullify it for her, as she suffers no pain by not becoming impure through contact with the dead. Why, then, does she not bring the offerings that must be brought by a nazirite who became ritually impure through contact with the dead? This implies that since the husband can nullify a vow with regard to a matter that would cause her to deprive herself, he can also nullify a vow with regard to a matter that would not cause her to deprive herself.

讗诪专讬 诪讟讜诪讗转 诪转 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讛 爪注专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讞讬 讬转谉 讗诇 诇讘讜 讜转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讞讬 讬转谉 讗诇 诇讘讜 讚讬住驻讜讚 讬住驻讚讜谉 诇讬讛 讚讬讘讻讜谉 讬讘讻讜谉 诇讬讛 讚讬拽讘专 讬拽讘专讜谞讬讛

The Gemara rejects this argument: The Sages say in response that a woman who vows that impurity imparted by the dead is forbidden to her also suffers pain as a result. How so? As it is written: 鈥淎nd the living shall lay it to his heart鈥 (Ecclesiastes 7:2), and it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淎nd the living shall lay it to his heart鈥? This means that one who eulogizes others when they die will in turn be eulogized when he himself dies; one who weeps for others will be wept for when he himself passes away; and one who buries others will himself be buried upon his passing. A woman who cannot participate in the funerals of others because she is barred from contracting impurity through contact with a corpse is distressed by the thought that she will receive similar treatment when she dies. Therefore, her vow involves affliction and can be nullified by her husband. The conclusion is that this case does not present a difficulty for Rabbi Yo岣nan.

诪转谞讬壮 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇讘专讬讜转 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 讜讬讻讜诇讛 讛讬讗 诇讬讛谞讜转 讘诇拽讟 砖讻讞讛 讜讘驻讗讛

MISHNA: If a woman vowed: The property of other people is konam for me, and for that reason I will not benefit from it, her husband cannot nullify her vow, but nevertheless, if she is poor, she may benefit from the agricultural gifts that must be left for the poor: Gleanings, i.e., isolated stalks that fell during the harvest; forgotten sheaves; and produce of the corners [pe鈥檃] of the field that the owner is obligated to leave for the poor. Enjoyment of these gifts is not considered as benefit derived from people, as these gifts are not given voluntarily out of the kindness of the donors, but in the performance of a mitzva.

拽讜谞诐 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 谞讛谞讬诐 诇讬 讬讟诇讜 注诇 讻专讞讜 讻讛谞讬诐 讗诇讜 讜诇讜讬诐 讗诇讜 谞讛谞讬诐 诇讬 讬讟诇讜 讗讞专讬诐

If one said: I will not let priests and Levites benefit from me, as that is konam for me, they can take the priestly and Levitical gifts from him against his will. If, however, he said: I will not let these specific priests and these specific Levites benefit from me, as that is konam for me, they are taken by others.

讙诪壮 讗诇诪讗 讗驻砖专 讚诪转讝谞讛 诪讚讬诇讬讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讘注诇 诇讗讜 讘讻诇诇 讘专讬讜转 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讬讛谞讜转 讘诇拽讟 砖讻讞讛 讜驻讗讛 讗讘诇 诪讚讘注诇 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讗诇诪讗 讘注诇 讘讻诇诇 讘专讬讜转 讛讜讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if a woman vowed not to derive benefit from people, her husband cannot nullify her vow. The Gemara infers from this halakha: Apparently, this is because the woman can be sustained from his, i.e., her husband鈥檚, property, without having to take from others. This proves by inference that in this context a husband is not included in her reference to people, as, although she mentioned people in her vow, she did not mean to prohibit herself from deriving benefit from her husband. The Gemara asks: But say the latter clause of that same part of the mishna, which states: But she may benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe鈥檃. This implies that she may derive benefit from the gifts given to the poor, but she may not eat from property belonging to her husband. Apparently, a husband is in fact included in her reference to people, and she may not benefit from him either.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗讜 讘讻诇诇 讘专讬讜转 讛讜讗 讜注讜讚 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇讬讛谞讜转 讘诇拽讟 砖讻讞讛 讜驻讗讛

Ulla said: Actually, a husband is not included in her reference to people, and there is no contradiction. Rather, the mishna provides two reasons why he cannot nullify his wife鈥檚 vow. The first reason, which is merely implied by the mishna, is that she can be sustained by her husband. And furthermore there is the stated reason, that he cannot nullify the vow because she may benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe鈥檃.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讘注诇 讘讻诇诇 讘专讬讜转 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇讬讛谞讜转 讘诇拽讟 砖讻讞讛 讜驻讗讛

Rava said the opposite: Actually, a husband is included in her reference to people, and therefore his wife may not benefit from him. And when the mishna states the halakha, it employs the style known as: What is the reason, and it should be understood as follows: What is the reason that the husband cannot nullify his wife鈥檚 vow? Because she may benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe鈥檃.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讘注诇 诇讗讜 讘讻诇诇 讘专讬讜转 讛讜讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 谞转讙专砖讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讬讛谞讜转 讘诇拽讟 砖讻讞讛 讜驻讗讛

Rav Na岣an said: Actually, a husband is not included in her reference to people, and her vow not to derive benefit from all people does not include him, which is why he cannot nullify it. And this is what the mishna is teaching: The husband cannot nullify his wife鈥檚 vow, because even if she becomes divorced and can no longer derive benefit from her husband, as he is now included in her reference to people, she may still benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe鈥檃.

  • 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 83: If It’s a Mitzvah, It’s No Gift

What did R. Yochanan mean about partial revoking of vows? With the parallel to nezirut, and how it can't be...

Nedarim 83

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 83

讛专讬 讝讜 住讜驻讙转 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐 讛驻专 诇讛 讘注诇讛 讜讛讬讗 诇讗 讬讚注讛 砖讛驻专 诇讛 讜讛讬转讛 砖讜转讛 讬讬谉 讜诪讬讟诪讗讛 诇诪转讬诐 讗讬谞讛 住讜驻讙转 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐

she incurs [sofeget] the forty lashes, the penalty for one who transgresses a Torah prohibition, as she violated the terms of her nazirite vow. If her husband nullified the vow for her, but she did not know that he nullified it for her, and she drank wine or became impure through contact with the dead, she does not incur the forty lashes. She did not commit a transgression, as her nazirite vow was nullified.

讜讗讬 讗诪专转 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 讚诇诪讗 诪谉 讬讬谉 讚讗讬转 诇讛 爪注专讗 讛驻专 诇讛 诪谉 讞专爪谉 讜诪谉 讝讙 诇讗 讛驻专 诇讛 讚讛讗 诇讗 讗讬转 诇讛 爪注专讗 讜转住驻讜讙 讗转 讛讗专讘注讬诐

And if you say that 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, the same reasoning should apply to a nazirite vow: Perhaps the husband nullified for her the vow that rendered wine forbidden to her, as she suffers pain when she refrains from drinking it. But as for her vow that rendered grape seeds and grape skins forbidden to her, he did not nullify it for her, as she suffers no pain when she abstains from them. And since even grape seeds and grape skins are forbidden to a nazirite, if the woman ate of them, she should receive the forty lashes, even if her husband nullified her vow.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 讗讬谉 谞讝讬专讜转 诇讞爪讗讬谉

Rav Yosef said: Here it is different, as naziriteship cannot take effect partially. Since one cannot be a nazirite and accept only some of the prohibitions of naziriteship, the husband鈥檚 nullification cancels the entire vow. In the case of an ordinary vow, on the other hand, the husband can nullify only the part that causes his wife suffering.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讘讬讬 讛讗 拽专讘谉 诇讞爪讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讗讬讻讗 讗诇讗 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讗讬谉 谞讝讬专讜转 诇讞爪讗讬谉 讜讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 诇讞爪讗讬谉

Abaye said to him: The wording of your statement suggests that naziriteship cannot take effect partially, but that an offering is brought for partial observance of naziriteship. Rather, Abaye said that one should say as follows: Naziriteship cannot take effect partially, and no offering is brought for partial observance of naziriteship.

诪讬转讬讘讬 讛讗砖讛 砖谞讚专讛 讘谞讝讬专 讜讛驻专讬砖讛 讘讛诪转讛 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛驻专 诇讛 讘注诇讛 诪讘讬讗讛 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讜讗讬谞讛 诪讘讬讗讛 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 诇讞爪讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讗诪讗讬 诪讘讬讗讛 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝

The Gemara raises an objection from the following statement: With regard to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite and she designated her animal for her nazirite offering, and afterward her husband nullified her vow for her, she must bring a bird sin-offering but she does not bring a bird burnt-offering. And if you say that no offering is brought for partial observance of naziriteship, why must she bring a bird sin-offering?

讜讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讬砖 拽专讘谉 诇讞爪讬 谞讝讬专讜转 砖诇砖 讘讛诪讜转 讘注讬 诇讗转讜讬讬 讞讟讗转 注讜诇讛 讜砖诇诪讬诐 讗诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 讗讬谉 拽专讘谉 诇讞爪讬 谞讝讬专讜转 讜讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讚诪转讬讗 诪砖讜诐 讚讞讟讗转 注诇 讛住驻拽

The Gemara rejects this argument: But rather, what will you say? That an offering is brought for partial observance of naziriteship? If so, she should be required to bring three animals as offerings, a sin-offering, a burnt-offering, and a peace-offering, in accordance with the halakha governing a nazirite who has completed the period of his vow. Rather, say as follows: Actually, no offering is brought for partial observance of naziriteship, and as for the bird sin-offering that she must bring, this is because a bird sin-offering can be brought in a case of uncertainty. She must therefore bring a sin-offering for the partial naziriteship that she observed.

讗讬转讬讘讬讛 讛讗砖讛 砖谞讚专讛 讘谞讝讬专 讜谞讟诪讗转 讜讗讞专 讻讱 讛驻专 诇讛 讘注诇讛 诪讘讬讗讛 讞讟讗转 讛注讜祝 讜讗讬谉 诪讘讬讗讛 注讜诇转 讛注讜祝 讜讗讬 讗诪专转 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 Asi raised an objection against the opinion of Rabbi Yo岣nan from the following baraita: With regard to a woman who vowed to be a nazirite and she became ritually impure through contact with the dead, and afterward her husband nullified her vow for her, she must bring a bird sin-offering but does not bring a bird burnt-offering. And if you say that 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, the same reasoning should apply here:

讚诇诪讗 诪讬讬谉 讚讗讬转 诇讛 爪注专讗 讛驻专 诇讛 诪讟讜诪讗转 诪转 讚诇讬转 诇讛 爪注专讗 诇讗 讛驻专 诇讛

Perhaps the husband nullified for her the vow that rendered wine forbidden to her, as she suffers pain when she refrains from drinking it. But as for her vow that impurity imparted by the dead is forbidden to her, he did not nullify it for her, as she suffers no pain by not becoming impure through contact with the dead. Why, then, does she not bring the offerings that must be brought by a nazirite who became ritually impure through contact with the dead? This implies that since the husband can nullify a vow with regard to a matter that would cause her to deprive herself, he can also nullify a vow with regard to a matter that would not cause her to deprive herself.

讗诪专讬 诪讟讜诪讗转 诪转 谞诪讬 讗讬转 诇讛 爪注专讗 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讞讬 讬转谉 讗诇 诇讘讜 讜转谞讬讗 讛讬讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 讜讛讞讬 讬转谉 讗诇 诇讘讜 讚讬住驻讜讚 讬住驻讚讜谉 诇讬讛 讚讬讘讻讜谉 讬讘讻讜谉 诇讬讛 讚讬拽讘专 讬拽讘专讜谞讬讛

The Gemara rejects this argument: The Sages say in response that a woman who vows that impurity imparted by the dead is forbidden to her also suffers pain as a result. How so? As it is written: 鈥淎nd the living shall lay it to his heart鈥 (Ecclesiastes 7:2), and it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Meir would say: What is the meaning of that which is written: 鈥淎nd the living shall lay it to his heart鈥? This means that one who eulogizes others when they die will in turn be eulogized when he himself dies; one who weeps for others will be wept for when he himself passes away; and one who buries others will himself be buried upon his passing. A woman who cannot participate in the funerals of others because she is barred from contracting impurity through contact with a corpse is distressed by the thought that she will receive similar treatment when she dies. Therefore, her vow involves affliction and can be nullified by her husband. The conclusion is that this case does not present a difficulty for Rabbi Yo岣nan.

诪转谞讬壮 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇讘专讬讜转 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 讜讬讻讜诇讛 讛讬讗 诇讬讛谞讜转 讘诇拽讟 砖讻讞讛 讜讘驻讗讛

MISHNA: If a woman vowed: The property of other people is konam for me, and for that reason I will not benefit from it, her husband cannot nullify her vow, but nevertheless, if she is poor, she may benefit from the agricultural gifts that must be left for the poor: Gleanings, i.e., isolated stalks that fell during the harvest; forgotten sheaves; and produce of the corners [pe鈥檃] of the field that the owner is obligated to leave for the poor. Enjoyment of these gifts is not considered as benefit derived from people, as these gifts are not given voluntarily out of the kindness of the donors, but in the performance of a mitzva.

拽讜谞诐 讻讛谞讬诐 诇讜讬诐 谞讛谞讬诐 诇讬 讬讟诇讜 注诇 讻专讞讜 讻讛谞讬诐 讗诇讜 讜诇讜讬诐 讗诇讜 谞讛谞讬诐 诇讬 讬讟诇讜 讗讞专讬诐

If one said: I will not let priests and Levites benefit from me, as that is konam for me, they can take the priestly and Levitical gifts from him against his will. If, however, he said: I will not let these specific priests and these specific Levites benefit from me, as that is konam for me, they are taken by others.

讙诪壮 讗诇诪讗 讗驻砖专 讚诪转讝谞讛 诪讚讬诇讬讛 诪讻诇诇 讚讘注诇 诇讗讜 讘讻诇诇 讘专讬讜转 讛讜讗 讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讬讛谞讜转 讘诇拽讟 砖讻讞讛 讜驻讗讛 讗讘诇 诪讚讘注诇 诇讗 讗讻诇讛 讗诇诪讗 讘注诇 讘讻诇诇 讘专讬讜转 讛讜讗

GEMARA: The mishna teaches that if a woman vowed not to derive benefit from people, her husband cannot nullify her vow. The Gemara infers from this halakha: Apparently, this is because the woman can be sustained from his, i.e., her husband鈥檚, property, without having to take from others. This proves by inference that in this context a husband is not included in her reference to people, as, although she mentioned people in her vow, she did not mean to prohibit herself from deriving benefit from her husband. The Gemara asks: But say the latter clause of that same part of the mishna, which states: But she may benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe鈥檃. This implies that she may derive benefit from the gifts given to the poor, but she may not eat from property belonging to her husband. Apparently, a husband is in fact included in her reference to people, and she may not benefit from him either.

讗诪专 注讜诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 诇讗讜 讘讻诇诇 讘专讬讜转 讛讜讗 讜注讜讚 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇讬讛谞讜转 讘诇拽讟 砖讻讞讛 讜驻讗讛

Ulla said: Actually, a husband is not included in her reference to people, and there is no contradiction. Rather, the mishna provides two reasons why he cannot nullify his wife鈥檚 vow. The first reason, which is merely implied by the mishna, is that she can be sustained by her husband. And furthermore there is the stated reason, that he cannot nullify the vow because she may benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe鈥檃.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讘注诇 讘讻诇诇 讘专讬讜转 讛讜讗 讜诪讛 讟注诐 拽讗诪专 诪讛 讟注诐 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 诪驻谞讬 砖讬讻讜诇讛 诇讬讛谞讜转 讘诇拽讟 砖讻讞讛 讜驻讗讛

Rava said the opposite: Actually, a husband is included in her reference to people, and therefore his wife may not benefit from him. And when the mishna states the halakha, it employs the style known as: What is the reason, and it should be understood as follows: What is the reason that the husband cannot nullify his wife鈥檚 vow? Because she may benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe鈥檃.

专讘 谞讞诪谉 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讘注诇 诇讗讜 讘讻诇诇 讘专讬讜转 讛讜讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 谞转讙专砖讛 讬讻讜诇讛 诇讬讛谞讜转 讘诇拽讟 砖讻讞讛 讜驻讗讛

Rav Na岣an said: Actually, a husband is not included in her reference to people, and her vow not to derive benefit from all people does not include him, which is why he cannot nullify it. And this is what the mishna is teaching: The husband cannot nullify his wife鈥檚 vow, because even if she becomes divorced and can no longer derive benefit from her husband, as he is now included in her reference to people, she may still benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe鈥檃.

Scroll To Top