Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nedarim

Folio 90a

Shall we say that the following supports him? [If he vows,] 'Konam that I benefit not from So-and-so, and from anyone from whom I may obtain absolution for him,' he must obtain absolution in respect of the first, and then obtain absolution in respect of the second.⁷  But if you say, absolution may be granted even before the vow takes effect, surely he can be absolved in whatever order he pleases!⁸  — And who knows whether this one is first and that the other is the second?⁹

Shall we say that this supports him: [If he vows,] 'Konam that I benefit not from So-and-so, and behold! I will be a nazirite if I be absolved therefrom'; he must be absolved of his vow, and then of his naziriteship.¹⁰  But if you say, absolution may be granted before the vow takes effect, if he wishes, let him first be absolved of his vow; and if he wishes, let him first be absolved of being a nazirite? — This agrees with R. Nathan.¹¹

Rabina said: Meremar told me: Thus did your father say in R. Papi's name: The controversy is only in reference to annulment, but in respect to absolution all agree that he [the Sage] may grant it even before the vow is operative,¹²  because it is written, 'He shall not break his word,'

1. I.e., his garments. To show him that the services of other people were indispensable: he would straightway need someone to clean his garments (Ran).
2. For absolution.
3. V. supra 89b. R. Nathan maintains that since the vow is not yet operative, he cannot annul, whilst the Rabbis hold that he can annul it though as yet inoperative. So with reference to absolution: in R. Nathan's view, one can be absolved from his vow only when it is in effect etc. For that reason he caused him to marry first, and did not have the vow annulled immediately.
4. Isa. XXIV, 23; Heb. [H]. This is merely quoted as a sign. [H] is similar to [H] (and he shall disallow her), whilst [H] is connected with [H] to build, and thus, by a play on words, the phrase is translated: and he shall disallow her, when the edifice (of the vow) be erected, i.e., when the vow is operative, but not before. [It is however omitted from MS.M.]
5. Job V, 12, i.e., even when a vow is as yet merely an intention, not having taken effect, it can be annulled.
6. Num. XXX, 3: Rashi translates: he (the Rabbi) shall not break (i.e., grant absolution for) his vow, i.e., as long as it is only a word, which has not yet taken effect. Asheri observes: from this we deduce, he (who vowed) may not break his word, but another (sc. a Sage) may break it, i.e., grant absolution, but that is only when 'he must do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth,' viz., when the vow is operative.
7. I.e., the Sages who became subject to the vow on account of having granted absolution.
8. Lit., 'if he wishes, he can be absolved of this one first, and if he wishes, he can be absolved of the other first.' — Thus this supports R. Papa's contention.
9. I.e., indeed that is so: 'first' and 'second' need not refer to the order in which he vowed, but to the order of absolution.
10. Here it is explicitly stated that be can only be absolved of being a nazirite after absolution of his vow, when his conditional vow to be a nazirite has taken effect.
11. I.e., R. Abba b. R. Huna may be correct in asserting that this is a matter of dispute, and this Baraitha is taught according to R. Nathan.
12. The reverse of what was said above.

An objection is raised: [If he vows,] 'Konam that I benefit not from So-and-so, and from anyone from whom I obtain absolution for him'; he must be absolved in respect of the first, and then obtain absolution in respect of the second. But why so? Let him be absolved in whichever order he pleases!²  — Who knows which one is first or which one is second?³

An objection is raised: [If he vows,] 'Konam that I benefit not from So-and-so, and behold! I will be a nazirite if I be absolved therefrom': he must be absolved of his vow, and then of his naziriteship. But why so? If he wishes, let him first be absolved of his vow, and if he wishes, let him first be absolved of being a nazirite! This is indeed a refutation.

MISHNAH. AT FIRST IT WAS RULED THAT THREE WOMEN MUST BE DIVORCED AND RECEIVE THEIR KETHUBAH:⁴  SHE WHO DECLARES: I AM DEFILED TO YOU';⁵  OR 'HEAVEN IS BETWEEN YOU AND ME';⁶  AND 'MAY I BE REMOVED FROM JEWS.'⁷  BUT SUBSEQUENTLY, TO PREVENT HER FROM CONCEIVING A PASSION FOR ANOTHER⁸  TO THE INJURY OF HER HUSBAND,⁹  THE RULING WAS AMENDED THUS: SHE WHO DECLARED, 'I AM DEFILED UNTO YOU,' MUST BRING PROOF: 'HEAVEN IS BETWEEN ME AND YOU' — THEY SHOULD ENGAGE IN PRAYER,¹⁰  AND 'MAY I BE REMOVED FROM JEWS' — HE [THE HUSBAND] MUST ANNUL HIS PORTION,¹¹  AND SHE SHALL MINISTER TO HIM, WHILST REMAINING REMOVED FROM JEWS.

GEMARA. The scholars propounded: If she declared to her husband, 'I am defiled to you,'¹²  may she eat of terumah?¹³  — R. Shesheth ruled: She may eat thereof, so as not to cast a stigma upon her children.¹⁴  Raba said: She may not eat, for she can eat hullin.¹⁵  Raba said: Yet R. Shesheth admits that if she was widowed,¹⁶  she may not eat: is his reason aught but that she should not cast a stigma upon her children? But if she was widowed or divorced [and she ceases to eat of terumah], it will be said, It is only now that she was seduced.¹⁷

R. Papa said, Raba tested us: If the wife of a priest was forcibly ravished,¹⁸  does she receive her Kethubah or not? Since forcible seduction in respect to a priest is as voluntary infidelity in respect to an Israelite, she does not receive her Kethubah;¹⁹  or perhaps she can plead, 'I personally am fit;²⁰

1. V. p. 918, n. 2; the vow was not yet operative, and we deduce that the Sage can cause him, by absolution, to break his word. So Ran. Rashi: thus asserting that the act (sc. of R. Abba b. R. Huna, v. 89b end) was unnecessary.
2. V. p. 918, n. 4.
3. V. p. 918, n. 5.
4. V. Glos.
5. I.e., unfaithful.
6. I.e., her husband is impotent — a thing that, apart from herself, can be known only to Heaven.
7. Including her own husband. By this vow she shewed that cohabitation was unbearable to her, and therefore could demand to be divorced and receive her Kethubah.
8. Lit., 'casting her eyes at another man.'
9. [ [H]. A difficult phrase. According to the rendering adopted, the meaning is: She will purposely make one of these declarations in order to obtain her freedom against his will. Ran explains: She may go to a place where nothing is known of her vow and marry there. He seemed to have taken this phrase as denoting: She will act unseemly (whilst still) with her husband, and as referring only to the declaration 'May I be removed from Jews'.]
10. That his impotency might cease (Tosaf.) [Lit., 'They should act by way of a request'. Ran: attempts should be made to placate the wife. Rashi: the husband should be asked to agree to a divorce.]
11. I.e., as far as he personally is concerned.
12. This refers to the wife of a priest.
13. If it is true, she certainly must not. Yet the Mishnah in its second recession ruled that she must first prove it. Now the question arises, Do we disbelieve her in all respects, in which case she may eat of terumah, or only in respect of a divorce?
14. If she refrains, it will be assumed that she told the truth, in which case her children may be bastards.
15. None will observe that she consistently refrains from eating terumah and no aspersions will be cast upon her children.
16. Rashi and Tosaf. read: or divorced.
17. Thus her refraining leaves the honour of her children unaffected.
18. If the wife of an Israelite is seduced: if voluntarily, she becomes forbidden to him; if forcibly, she remains permitted. But the wife of a priest is forbidden in both cases.
19. As is the case of an Israelite's wife who committed adultery of her own free will.
20. Having been forcibly ravished, she has committed no wrong.