Mishnah
Mishnah

Talmud for Nedarim 11:2

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:

And these are vows of affliction: If she said: "Konam, (that I shall not eat) the fruits of the world," he can annul it. (If she said: "Konam, that I shall not eat) the fruits of that country," he can bring her fruits from a different country. "the fruits of that shopkeeper," he cannot annul it. And if his (the husband's) livelihood came only from him (that shopkeeper) [the shopkeeper giving the husband credit until he earned and repaid him], he may annul it. These are the words of R. Yossi. [R. Yossi is consistent with his view that the husband does not annul every vow of affliction, differentiating between great affliction and moderate affliction, and between long-term and short-term affliction. And all of the mishnayoth of this chapter are according to him and are not the halachah. But the husband may annul any vow of affliction, whether a one-day vow, a one-hour vow, or a long-term vow; whether it entails great affliction or moderate affliction. Likewise, he can annul vows and oaths in things "between him and her" even though it entails no affliction, as when she swore or vowed not to paint her eyes or not to adorn herself. Likewise, if she vowed not to eat the fruits of this country, the husband can annul it, bringing them from a different country entailing exertion. These are things which are "between him and her." And what is the difference between vows and oaths which are between him and her and vows and oaths of affliction? Vows and oaths of affliction he annuls both for himself and for others, e.g., if she vowed not to eat meat or to drink wine he annuls it and she is permitted to eat and drink, even after she is widowed or divorced and married to another. And vows and oaths "between him and her," e.g., if she forbade to herself cohabitation with all men forever or painting or adorning herself forever, he annuls what pertains to him, and she cohabits with him and paints and adorns herself so long as she is his wife. And when she is widowed or divorced, she is forbidden cohabitation with any man, as well as painting and adornment; and, likewise, in similar instances.]

Jerusalem Talmud Ketubot

For whom is it needed9The clause in the Mishnah that the husband has only the usufruct of any inheritance coming to his wife during the marriage.? For Rebbi Meïr! Even though for Rebbi Meïr the hand of the slave is his master’s hand10Similarly, R. Meïr holds that a wife cannot act legally except as her husband’s representative. It would seem reasonable that a wife can retain separate property by prenuptial agreement (cf. Yebamot 7:1, Note 1), but for R. Meïr one would expect that a wife can only acquire an inheritance as representative for her husband. Therefore, it is essential that the Mishnah state that an inheritance becomes the wife’s sole property for which the husband has to act as administrator. Cf. Nedarim 11:8, Note 70; Ma‘aser Šeni 4:4, Note 95; Babli Nedarim 88b, Qiddušin 23b. and if the wife acquired title the husband should have acquired it; he agrees that his rights over it11The inheritance. are restricted to the use of the yield. There, we have stated12Mishnah Baba Meṣi‘a 1:5.: “The finds of his underage son and daughter or of his Canaanite slave13It is not required that the slave be Phoenician. Any non-Jewish slave who became semi-Jewish by circumcision (for a male) and immersion in a miqweh is called “Canaanite slave”. In the theory of the Babli, the Canaanite slave’s body is the property of his master; therefore, if the slave lifts a find to acquire it, it is legally his master whose hand took it. or slave-girl as well as his wife’s find belong to him,” for he can direct them to do other work. Why do we say: “The finds of his adult son and daughter or of his Hebrew slave14While the rules for the treatment of Hebrew slaves (Ex. 21:1–11) are a frequent topic in the Talmudim, the subject is purely theoretical since the institution of Hebrew slavery disappeared with the end of the First Commonwealth. It is asserted that only the working capability of the slave is the master’s, not his body. Therefore, if he lifts a find to acquire it, it is not the master’s hand which lifts the find. or slave-girl belong to them,” because he cannot direct them to do other work15Obviously, the master can direct the Hebrew slave to perform any task he asks of him; but he cannot direct him not to use his hands for anything else.. But his wife he cannot direct to do other work16In Chapter 5, an exhaustive list was given of work the husband can demand from his wife. The wife’s body certainly is not her husband’s property. Therefore, one does not understand why her find should be her husband’s. and you say that her find belongs to him! Rebbi Joḥanan said, there is another reason for his wife. What is the other reason for his wife? Rebbi Ḥaggai says, because of quarrel17One has such a poor opinion of Jewish husbands that one is afraid he would be offended if the wife would not share her find with him [mentioned also in Baba Meṣi‘a 1:5 (8a 1. 15)]. This is the only explanation offered in the Babli, 96a; it is called “because of jealousy”.. Rebbi Yose does not say so, but that she should not smuggle away18Meaning: stealing. any of her husband’s property and say, I found it. Think of it, if another person gave it to her as a gift19The gift can be given on condition that the husband have no right to it. Should the wife not be believed if she says she received a gift?! A gift is public knowledge, a find is not public knowledge. Think of it, if she found it in the presence of witnesses! This because of that20R. Yose will agree that in the case of a find in the presence of other people his reason is invalid. He holds that, nevertheless, the rabbinic decree giving the find to the husband stands because ịt would be impractical to admit exceptions.. Rebbi Yoḥanan said, if they21This refers to the adult children to whom the Mishnah in Baba Meṣi‘a assigns their finds. This is qualified; the Mishnah applies only if the children are financially independent. In the Babli, this is formulated that “they are not dependent on their father’s table.” Cf. Peah 4:6, Note 107; Baba Meṣi‘a 1:5 (8a 1.3); Babli Baba Meṣi‘a 12b. are not dependent on their father. But if they are dependent on their father, their finds belong to him.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse