Nedarim - Daf 82

  • If תשמיש המטה is a neder of inuy nefesh

A Baraisa on Daf 81b taught that according to Rebbe Yose, a neder to abstain from relations is דברים שבינו לבינה – matters between him and her. Rava inquired of Rav Nachman: According to the Rabbonon, is a neder to abstain from relations considered inuy nefesh, or only דברים שבינו לבינה? The nafka minah is if his hafarah is permanent, or only for as long as she is fit to be married to him. He answered that this can be resolved from a Mishnah which states: ונטולה אני מן היהודים – If she vowed: “I am removed from Jews,” meaning prohibited in relations with all Jews, יפר חלקו ומשמשתו – he may revoke his portion, i.e., as it pertains to him, and she may have relations with him, ותהא נטולה מן היהודים – but she will remain removed from all other Jews. This proves that a neder of relations is only דברים שבינו לבינה. The Gemara deflects this proof by saying that the Mishnah is Rebbe Yose’s opinion, because Rav Huna said that all anonymous rulings in our Perek were authored by Rebbe Yose. The question according to the Rabbonon remains.

  • הנאת פלוני עלי, מפר

Shmuel taught in the name of Levi: כל נדרים בעל מפר לאשתו חוץ מן הנאתי על פלוני שאינו מפר – All nedarim [of inuy nefesh] a husband can revoke, except “Benefit from me, is [konam] on Ploni,” which he cannot revoke because it does not afflict her. אבל הנאת פלוני עלי מפר – But a neder of “Ploni’s benefit is [konam] upon me,” he can revoke, because this may afflict her, although it is only about a single person. The Gemara challenges this from the Mishnah on Daf 79b, which taught that a neder from produce of a particular country is not revocable because she can obtain produce from other countries. Certainly, this would seem at least as afflictive as prohibiting benefit from a single person!? Rav Yosef answers, דקאמרה שתביא – the Mishnah is speaking where she said, “which you bring.” Since produce brought by someone else is permitted even from that country and produce brought by her husband from another country is also permitted, it is not considered inuy nefesh. The Gemara disproves this answer from the final clause of the Mishnah, and instead answers that the Mishnah (which holds that prohibiting benefit from a single source is not inuy nefesh) was authored by Rebbe Yose, and Shmuel’s ruling was according to the Rabbonon.

  • A neder two elements, one of which causes inuy nefesh. (Ex. Two loaves, one of fine flour, one of course)

Rav Yehudah said in the name of Shmuel: נדרה משתי ככרות באחת מתענה ובאחת אין מתענה – If she vowed from two loaves, one by which she is afflicted (e.g., it is of fine flour) and one by which she is not afflicted (e.g., it is of coarse flour), מתוך שהוא מפר למתענה מפר לשאינו מתענה – because he can revoke the afflictive element of the neder, he can also revoke the non-afflictive element, and both loaves are permitted. Rav Asi said in the name of Rebbe Yochanan that he may only revoke the afflictive element. The Ran explains that their dispute revolves around a derashah on Daf 87, which teaches that a husband must revoke the entire neder for the hafarah to be effective. Shmuel holds that if he could not revoke the non-afflictive element, the entire hafarah would thus be invalid, and this itself forces him to be able to revoke even the non-afflictive element. Rebbe Yochanan holds that the Torah only requires that he revoke the entire portion that is within his ability to revoke, so revoking the non-afflictive element is not required in order to revoke the afflictive element. The Gemara challenges Rebbe Yochanan’s opinion on the following Daf.