וְאֵלּוּ נְדָרִים שֶׁהוּא מֵפֵר, דְּבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ, אִם אֶרְחָץ וְאִם לֹא אֶרְחָץ, אִם אֶתְקַשֵּׁט וְאִם לֹא אֶתְקַשֵּׁט. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אֵין אֵלּוּ נִדְרֵי עִנּוּי נָפֶשׁ: And these are the vows that he, the husband or father, can nullify: The first category consists of matters that involve affliction for the woman who took the vow. For example, if a woman vowed: If I bathe, or: If I do not bathe; if she vowed: If I adorn myself [etkashet], or: If I do not adorn myself. Rabbi Yosei said: These are not vows of affliction.
וְאֵלּוּ הֵם נִדְרֵי עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ. אָמְרָה, קוֹנָם פֵּרוֹת הָעוֹלָם עָלָי, הֲרֵי זֶה יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. פֵּרוֹת מְדִינָה עָלָי, יָבִיא לָהּ מִמְּדִינָה אַחֶרֶת. פֵּרוֹת חֶנְוָנִי זֶה עָלָי, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. וְאִם לֹא הָיְתָה פַרְנָסָתוֹ אֶלָּא מִמֶּנּוּ, הֲרֵי זֶה יָפֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: Rather, these are vows of affliction: For example, if she said: The produce of the entire world is konam for me as if it were an offering, he can nullify the vow, as it certainly involves affliction. If, however, she said: The produce of this country is konam for me, he cannot nullify the vow, as it does not involve affliction, since he may still bring her produce from another country. Similarly, if she said: The produce of this storekeeper is konam for me, he cannot nullify her vow, as he may still bring her produce from another storekeeper. But if he can obtain his sustenance only from him, that particular storekeeper, he can nullify the vow. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.
קוֹנָם שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנָה לַבְּרִיּוֹת, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר, וִיכוֹלָה הִיא לֵהָנוֹת בְּלֶקֶט וּבְשִׁכְחָה וּבְפֵאָה. קוֹנָם כֹּהֲנִים וּלְוִיִּם נֶהֱנִים לִי, יִטְּלוּ עַל כָּרְחוֹ. כֹּהֲנִים אֵלּוּ וּלְוִיִּם אֵלּוּ נֶהֱנִים לִי, יִטְּלוּ אֲחֵרִים: 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’a] 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. 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.
קוֹנָם שֶׁאֵינִי עוֹשָׂה עַל פִּי אַבָּא, וְעַל פִּי אָבִיךָ, וְעַל פִּי אָחִי, וְעַל פִּי אָחִיךָ, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. שֶׁאֵינִי עוֹשָׂה עַל פִּיךָ, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְהָפֵר. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, יָפֵר, שֶׁמָּא תַעְדִּיף עָלָיו יוֹתֵר מִן הָרָאוּי לוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי אוֹמֵר, יָפֵר, שֶׁמָּא יְגָרְשֶׁנָּה וּתְהִי אֲסוּרָה עָלָיו: If a woman said: I will not produce anything for my father, as that is konam for me, or: For your father, or: For my brother, or: For your brother, her husband cannot nullify such vows, as they do not fall under the category of vows that adversely affect the relationship between him and her. By contrast, if she said: I will not produce anything for you, including the work that she is obligated to do for him according to the terms of her marriage contract, as that is konam for me, her husband need not nullify the vow at all. It is automatically void, since she is obligated to perform those tasks. Rabbi Akiva says: He should nevertheless nullify the vow, as perhaps she will exceed the required amount of work and do more for him than is fitting for him to receive. If she does more than the fixed amount of work that a woman is obligated to perform for her husband, the vow will be valid with respect to the excess to which he is not entitled, and he might inadvertently come to benefit from something that is forbidden to him. Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri also says that he should nullify the vow, but for a different reason: Perhaps he will one day divorce her, at which point the vow will take effect and she will then be forbidden to him forever, i.e., he will be unable to remarry her, lest he come to benefit from her labor.
נָדְרָה אִשְׁתּוֹ וְסָבוּר שֶׁנָּדְרָה בִתּוֹ, נָדְרָה בִתּוֹ וְסָבוּר שֶׁנָּדְרָה אִשְׁתּוֹ, נָדְרָה בְנָזִיר וְסָבוּר שֶׁנָּדְרָה בְקָרְבָּן, נָדְרָה בְקָרְבָּן וְסָבוּר שֶׁנָּדְרָה בְנָזִיר, נָדְרָה מִן הַתְּאֵנִים וְסָבוּר שֶׁנָּדְרָה מִן הָעֲנָבִים, נָדְרָה מִן הָעֲנָבִים וְסָבוּר שֶׁנָּדְרָה מִן הַתְּאֵנִים, הֲרֵי זֶה יַחֲזֹר וְיָפֵר: If a man’s wife took a vow and he thought that it was his daughter who had taken a vow, or if his daughter took a vow and he thought that it was his wife who had taken a vow, or if his wife vowed to be a nazirite and he thought that she had vowed to bring an offering, or if she vowed to bring an offering and he thought that she had vowed to be a nazirite, or if she took a vow that figs are forbidden to her and he thought that she had taken a vow that grapes are forbidden to her, or if she took a vow that grapes are forbidden to her and he thought that she had taken a vow that figs are forbidden to her, and he nullified any of these vows, in each case, when he realizes his error with regard to the vow, he must repeat the action and nullify the vow a second time.
אָמְרָה, קוֹנָם תְּאֵנִים וַעֲנָבִים אֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵינִי טוֹעֶמֶת, קִיֵּם לַתְּאֵנִים, כֻּלּוֹ קַיָּם. הֵפֵר לַתְּאֵנִים, אֵינוֹ מוּפָר עַד שֶׁיָּפֵר אַף לָעֲנָבִים. אָמְרָה, קוֹנָם תְּאֵנִים שֶׁאֵינִי טוֹעֶמֶת וַעֲנָבִים שֶׁאֵינִי טוֹעֶמֶת, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שְׁנֵי נְדָרִים: If a woman said: Tasting these figs and grapes is konam for me, and her husband upheld her vow with regard to figs, the entire vow is upheld, but if he nullified it with regard to figs it is not nullified until he also nullifies the vow with regard to grapes. If she said: Tasting a fig and tasting a grape are konam for me, these are viewed as two separate vows; if the husband upholds one of the vows it has no effect on the other one.
יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ נְדָרִים, אֲבָל אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁיֵּשׁ מְפֵרִין, יָפֵר. יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁיֵּשׁ מְפֵרִין אֲבָל אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁזֶּה נֶדֶר, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, לֹא יָפֵר, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, יָפֵר: If a man’s wife or daughter took a vow and he failed to nullify the vow on the day he heard it, but afterward he said: I know that there are vows, but I don’t know that there are those who can nullify them, i.e., he was unaware of the possibility of nullifying vows, he can nullify the vow of his wife or his daughter on the day he learned that he can nullify vows. If, however, he said: I know there are those who can nullify vows, but I refrained from nullifying the vow that I heard because I do not know that this is considered a vow, Rabbi Meir says he cannot nullify the vow at this point, but the Rabbis say that even in this case he can nullify the vow on the day that he learned of his mistake.
הַמֻּדָּר הֲנָאָה מֵחֲתָנוֹ וְהוּא רוֹצֶה לָתֵת לְבִתּוֹ מָעוֹת, אוֹמֵר לָהּ, הֲרֵי הַמָּעוֹת הָאֵלּוּ נְתוּנִים לָךְ בְּמַתָּנָה וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא לְבַעְלֵךְ רְשׁוּת בָּהֶן, אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁאַתְּ נוֹשֵׂאת וְנוֹתֶנֶת בְּפִיךְ: With regard to one who vows that benefit from him is forbidden to his son-in-law, but he nevertheless wishes to give his daughter, i.e., the wife of that same son-in-law, money, then, though he cannot do so directly, as anything acquired by a woman belongs to her husband, he should say to her: This money is hereby given to you as a gift, provided that your husband has no rights to it, but the gift includes only that which you pick up and place in your mouth.
וְנֵדֶר אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה יָקוּם עָלֶיהָ (במדבר ל). כֵּיצַד. אָמְרָה, הֲרֵינִי נְזִירָה לְאַחַר שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּשֵּׂאת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. נָדְרָה וְהִיא בִרְשׁוּת הַבַּעַל, מֵפֵר לָהּ. כֵּיצַד. אָמְרָה, הֲרֵינִי נְזִירָה לְאַחַר שְׁלשִׁים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁנִּתְאַלְמְנָה אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה בְתוֹךְ שְׁלשִׁים, הֲרֵי זֶה מוּפָר. נָדְרָה בוֹ בַיּוֹם, נִתְגָּרְשָׁה בוֹ בַיּוֹם, הֶחֱזִירָהּ בּוֹ בַיּוֹם, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. זֶה הַכְּלָל, כֹּל שֶׁיָּצָאת לִרְשׁוּת עַצְמָהּ שָׁעָה אַחַת, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר: The Torah states: “But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, with which she has bound her soul, shall stand against her” (Numbers 30:10). How so? If a widow or divorced woman said: I am hereby a nazirite after thirty days, then even if she was married within thirty days, her new husband cannot nullify her vow. If she took a vow while she was under the jurisdiction of her husband, he can nullify the vow for her. How so? If she said when she was still married: I am hereby a nazirite for after thirty days, and her husband nullified the vow, then even if she was widowed or divorced within the thirty-day period, the vow is nullified. If she took a vow on that, i.e., one, day and was divorced on that same day, then even if her husband took her back as his wife on that same day, he cannot nullify her previous vows. This is the principle: Once she has left and gone into her own jurisdiction for even a single hour, then after they are remarried her husband can no longer nullify any vow she uttered during their first marriage.
תֵּשַׁע נְעָרוֹת, נִדְרֵיהֶן קַיָּמִין. בּוֹגֶרֶת וְהִיא יְתוֹמָה, נַעֲרָה וּבָגְרָה וְהִיא יְתוֹמָה, נַעֲרָה שֶׁלֹּא בָגְרָה וְהִיא יְתוֹמָה, בּוֹגֶרֶת וּמֵת אָבִיהָ, נַעֲרָה בוֹגֶרֶת וּמֵת אָבִיהָ, נַעֲרָה שֶׁלֹּא בָגְרָה וּמֵת אָבִיהָ, נַעֲרָה שֶׁמֵּת אָבִיהָ וּמִשֶּׁמֵּת אָבִיהָ בָּגְרָה, בּוֹגֶרֶת וְאָבִיהָ קַיָּם, נַעֲרָה בוֹגֶרֶת וְאָבִיהָ קַיָּם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף הַמַּשִּׂיא בִתּוֹ הַקְּטַנָּה, וְנִתְאַלְמְנָה אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה וְחָזְרָה אֶצְלוֹ, עֲדַיִן הִיא נַעֲרָה: There are nine young women whose vows are upheld and cannot be nullified: If she took a vow when she was a grown woman and she is an orphan; if she took a vow when she was a young woman, and has reached her majority, and she is an orphan; if she took a vow when she was a young woman who had not yet reached her majority, and she is an orphan; if she took a vow when she was a grown woman and her father died; if she took a vow when she was a young woman, and she became a grown woman, and her father died; if she took a vow when she was a young woman who had not reached her majority, and her father died; if she took a vow when she was a young woman, and her father died, and after her father died she reached her majority; if she took a vow when she was a grown woman and her father is still alive; and if she took a vow when she was a young woman, and she became a grown woman, and her father is still alive. Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to even one who married off his minor daughter, and she was widowed or divorced and she returned to him, and according to her age she still is in the category of a young woman, her vows cannot be nullified.
קוֹנָם שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֵית לְאַבָּא וּלְאָבִיךָ אִם עוֹשָׂה אֲנִי עַל פִּיךָ, שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֵית לְךָ אִם עוֹשָׂה אֲנִי עַל פִּי אַבָּא, וְעַל פִּי אָבִיךָ, הֲרֵי זֶה יָפֵר: If a woman said to her husband: Deriving benefit from my father or from your father is konam for me if I will prepare anything for you; or if she said: Deriving benefit from you is konam for me if I will prepare anything for my father or for your father, the husband can nullify this vow.
בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים, שָׁלשׁ נָשִׁים יוֹצְאוֹת וְנוֹטְלוֹת כְּתֻבָּה, הָאוֹמֶרֶת טְמֵאָה אֲנִי לְךָ, שָׁמַיִם בֵּינִי לְבֵינֶךָ, נְטוּלָה אֲנִי מִן הַיְּהוּדִים. חָזְרוּ לוֹמַר, שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא אִשָּׁה נוֹתֶנֶת עֵינֶיהָ בְאַחֵר וּמְקַלְקֶלֶת עַל בַּעְלָהּ. אֶלָּא הָאוֹמֶרֶת טְמֵאָה אֲנִי לְךָ, תָּבִיא רְאָיָה לִדְבָרֶיהָ. שָׁמַיִם בֵּינִי לְבֵינֶךָ, יַעֲשׂוּ דֶרֶךְ בַּקָּשָׁה. נְטוּלָה אֲנִי מִן הַיְּהוּדִים, יָפֵר חֶלְקוֹ, וּתְהֵא מְשַׁמַּשְׁתּוֹ, וּתְהֵא נְטוּלָה מִן הַיְּהוּדִים: Initially the Sages would say that three women are divorced even against their husbands’ will, and nevertheless they receive payment of what is due to them according to their marriage contract. The first is the wife of a priest who says to her husband: I am defiled to you, i.e., she claims that she had been raped, so that she is now forbidden to her husband. The second is a woman who says to her husband: Heaven is between me and you, i.e., she declares that he is impotent, a claim she cannot prove, as the truth of it is known only to God. And the third is a woman who takes a vow, stating: I am removed from the Jews, i.e., benefit from sexual intercourse with any Jew, including my husband, is forbidden to me. They subsequently retracted their words and said that in order that a married woman should not cast her eyes on another man and to that end ruin her relationship with her husband and still receive payment of her marriage contract, these halakhot were modified as follows: A priest’s wife who says to her husband: I am defiled to you, must bring proof for her words that she was raped. As for a woman who says: Heaven is between me and you, the court must act and deal with the matter by way of a request, rather than force the husband to divorce his wife. And with regard to a woman who says: I am removed from the Jews, her husband must nullify his part, i.e., the aspect of the vow that concerns him, so that she should be permitted to him, and she may engage in sexual intercourse with him, but she is removed from all other Jews, so that if he divorces her she is forbidden to all.