Reference for Gittin 91:14

חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני בד"א כשנדרה היא אבל נדר איהו יחזיר ואמר רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה מעשה נמי בצידן באחד שאמר לאשתו קונם אם איני מגרשיך וגירשה והתירו לו חכמים שיחזירנה מפני תיקון העולם

[make of this verse]? — [They reply:] Did the oath there become binding upon them at all? Since they [the Gibeonites] said, We are come from a far country,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Josh. IX. 9. ');">¹³</span> whereas they had not come from one, the oath was never binding; and the reason why the Israelites did not slay them was because [this would have impaired] the sanctity of God's name.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the princes had sworn to them by the Lord, ibid. ');">¹⁴</span> How many form a 'public'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H], lit., 'many'. ');">¹⁵</span> — R. Nahman says, three, R. Isaac says, ten. R. Nahman says three, [interpreting] 'days' [to mean] two and 'many' three.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In the verse, And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days (Lev. XV, 25), 'many' denoting there 'three', v. Nid. 73a. ');">¹⁶</span> R. Isaac says ten, because the Scripture calls ten a 'congregation'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XIV, 27: How long shall I bear with this evil congregation, where the reference is to ten of the twelve spies, v. Sanh. 2a. ');">¹⁷</span> R. MEIR SAYS, EVERY VOW THAT REQUIRES etc. It has been taught: 'R. Eleazar says: A vow requiring [investigation] was made a ground for prohibition only on account of a vow which does not require [investigation].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra n. 6. ');">¹⁸</span> What is the point at issue [between R. Meir and R. Eleazar]? — R. Meir held that a man does not mind the indignity of his wife appearing in a <i>Beth din</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To be questioned about her vow. R. Meir was of opinion that the reason of the prohibition was to prevent the husband from making mischief subsequently, and this he could do only if the vow was one which he could not annul but which a Sage could remit. ');">¹⁹</span> whereas R. Eleazar held that a man is averse to subjecting his wife to the indignity of appearing in a <i>Beth din</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And therefore by rights we should not prohibit remarrying if the divorce was given on the ground of a vow of this kind, since the husband cannot afterwards make mischief. R. Eleazar, however, holds that if the vow is one which the husband could have annulled (though he did not know it at the time), he can make mischief, and we do prohibit the remarriage, and since we prohibit in this case we prohibit also in the other. ');">²⁰</span> R. JOSE SON OF R. JUDAH SAID, A CASE HAPPENED IN SIDON etc. What has preceded that this should be given as an illustration?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hitherto the Mishnah has spoken of vows made by the wife, and R. Jose gives an instance of a vow made by a husband. ');">²¹</span> — There is a lacuna, and the Mishnah should run thus: 'These rules apply only in the case where the wife vowed, but if he vowed he may remarry, and R. Jose son of R. Judah adduced a case which happened in Sidon of a man who said to his wife, Konam if I shall not divorce you, and he did divorce her, and the Sages permitted him to remarry her, to prevent abuses.'

Jastrow