Nedarim 162

Chapter 162

א שלא מצינו שועל שמת בעפר פיר
1 because no fox dies in the earth of its own lair.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., being accustomed to it, he cannot be harmed thereby. Likewise, the husband, being accustomed to his wife, is unaffected by her refusal to bathe. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב תניא כוותיה דרב אדא בר אהבה דברים שיש בהן עינוי נפש מפר בין בינו לבינה בין בינה לבין אחרים שאין בהן עינוי נפש בינו לבינה מפר בינה לבין אחרים אינו מפר כיצד אמרה קונם פירות עלי ה"ז יפר קונם שאיני עושה לפי אבא לפי אחיך לפי אביך לפי אחי ושלא אתן תבן לפני בהמתך ומים לפני בקרך אין יכול להפר
2 It was taught in accordance with R. Adda b. Ahabah: Vows involving self-denial he [the husband] can annul in respect of both himself and herself, and in respect to herself and strangers;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. 79b. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ג שלא אכחול שלא אפקוס ושלא אשמש מטתי יפר משום דברים שבינו לבינה
3 but if they involve no self-denial, he can annul in respect of himself and herself, but not in respect to herself and strangers. E.g., if she vows, 'Konam be fruit unto me'? he can annul: 'Konam that I prepare nought for my father,' 'for your brother,' 'for your father,' 'for my brother,' or 'that I place no straw before your cattle,' or, 'water before your herds,' he cannot annul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is not a vow of mortification, nor is she under any obligation to do these things. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ד שלא אציע לך מטתך ושלא אמזוג לך את הכוס ושלא ארחץ לך פניך ידיך ורגליך אין צריך להפר
4 '[Konam] that I may not paint or rouge or cohabit,' he can annul as a matter affecting their mutual relationship; 'that I do not make your bed,' or, 'prepare<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'mix the cup' (of wine with water). ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ה ר"ג אומר יפר שנא' (במדבר ל, ג) לא יחל דברו דבר אחר לא יחל דברו מכאן לחכם שאין מתיר נדרי עצמו
5 you drink,' or, 'wash your hands or feet,' he need not annul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Such vows are automatically invalid, since she is under an obligation to do these things. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ו מאן שמעינן דאמר שלא אכחול ושלא אפקוס דברים שבינו לבינה הויין ר' יוסי וקתני דמפר משום דברים שבינו לבינה
6 R. Gamaliel said: He must annul [them], as it is written, he shall not break his word.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXX, 3; i.e., by a Rabbinical decree he must annul it, that she may not treat vows lightly. The law is not deduced from the verse, which is cited merely to shew the solemnity of vows. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ז אמר מר ושלא אשמש מטתי יפר משום דברים שבינו לבינה היכי דמי אילימא דאמרה הנאת תשמישי עליך למה לי הפרה הא משועבדת ליה אלא באומרת הנאת תשמישך עלי וכרב כהנא
7 Alternatively, 'he shall not break his word' teaches that a Sage cannot absolve himself from his own vows. Now, whom do we know to regard [a vow], 'that I paint not nor rouge' as matters affecting their mutual relationship [and not of self-denial]? R. Jose;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the Rabbis of the Mishnah hold it to be a vow of mortification. ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
ח דאמר רב כהנא הנאת תשמישי עליך כופה ומשמשתו הנאת תשמישך עלי יפר שאין מאכילין את האדם דבר האסור לו
8 yet it is stated that he can annul them as matters affecting their mutual relationship.
ט מאן תנא הא דתניא דברים המותרים ואחרים נהגו בהן איסור אי אתה רשאי לנהוג בהם היתר כדי לבטלן משום שנאמר לא יחל דברו דבר אחר לא יחל דברו מכאן לתלמיד חכם שאין מפר נדרי עצמו מני ר"ג היא
9 The Master said: '&nbsp;… "or cohabit," he can annul as a matter affecting their mutual relationship.' How so? If she vows, 'The pleasure of cohabitation with me [be forbidden] to you', why annul it, seeing that she is bound to afford it to him?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence it is automatically invalid. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
י בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן תשמיש המטה לרבנן עינוי נפש הוא או דברים שבינו לבינה אמר ליה תניתוה ונטולה אני מן היהודים
10 — But it means that she vowed, 'the pleasure of cohabitation with you be forbidden me,' and it accords with R. Kahana's dictum, viz., [If she vows,] 'The pleasure of cohabitation with me [be forbidden] to you,' she is compelled to grant it; but if she vows, 'The pleasure of cohabitation with you [be forbidden] to me,' he must annul it, because no person may be fed with what is forbidden to him. Who is the author of what was taught: Things that are in themselves permissible, and yet are treated by others as forbidden, you may not treat them as permitted in order to nullify them? Who is the author? — R. Gamaliel. For it was taught: R. Gamaliel said: He must annul them, as it is written, he shall not break his word;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Just as there, a self-imposed prohibition may not be lightly treated, so here too. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> alternatively, 'he shall not break his word' teaches that a Sage cannot absolve himself from his own vows.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Thus the text as amended by BaH. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> Raba asked R. Nahman: In the Rabbis' view, is [a vow to refrain from] cohabitation [a vow of] self-denial or a matter affecting their mutual relationship? — He replied, We have learnt this: [If she vows,] 'May I be removed from all Jews,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That no Jew shall cohabit with me. ');"><sup>11</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter