Nedarim 82

Sugya Map

• Issue: Does the husband's power to nullify a wife’s vow extend to others (eroding the vow entirely) or only to himself (preserving the vow against the world)?
• Nafka Mina: Whether the vow constitutes inui nefesh (affliction/health) or devarim she-beino le-veinah (interpersonal dynamics).
• Primary Sources: Nedarim 82a; Mishna Nedarim 11:1; Ran ad loc.

Text Snapshot

• Text: "ותהא נטולה מן היהודים... שמע מינה דברים שבינו לבינה הויין" (82a).
• Nuance: Rashi (s.v. ותהא נטולה) explains that the wife’s vow remains binding post-divorce ("אסורה לעלמא"). The Gemara infers that because the husband’s annulment does not unlock her from the rest of the world, the vow cannot be inui nefesh—which would trigger total dissolution—but must be interpersonal, allowing for only partial nullification.

Readings

• Ran (ad loc. s.v. כולהו סתמי): Observes that the entire chapter is attributed to Rabbi Yosei. He emphasizes that since the ba'aya (dilemma) regarding the Rabbis' view remains unresolved (teiku), we rule stringently (l'chumra)—treating the vow as having "interpersonal" status, thus limiting the husband's power to nullify only his own benefit.
• Tosafot (82a, s.v. שמע מינה): Focuses on the logical inversion: if it were inui, the husband would have to be an agent of total dissolution. The fact that the Mishna restricts the effect proves the category is inherently bilateral.

Friction

• Kushya: If the husband nullifies the vow because it affects him, yet the vow was intended to restrict her from everyone, why does the nullification affect his access to her at all? If the vow is a "wall" between her and the world, why does his hatara not collapse the entire wall?
• Terutz: The Gemara posits that the husband acts as a "breaker" only where the vow impinges on his rights. He cannot nullify the vow's effect on the public, because he lacks the agency to dissolve a prohibition that does not concern his own marital entitlement.

Intertext

• SA YD 234:55: Codifies the distinction: where a vow is devarim she-beino le-veinah, the husband nullifies only for himself, confirming the Nedarim 82a conclusion.
• Nazir 23a: The parallel discussion on inui in the context of Naziriteship helps define the threshold of what constitutes "affliction."

Psak/Practice

The teiku status requires a protective approach. In contemporary application, if a wife’s vow creates a domestic stalemate that does not rise to the level of physical or health-related inui, the husband’s nullification is functionally limited to the domestic sphere.

Takeaway

The husband’s power of annulment is not an absolute legislative veto; it is an exercise of his specific marital standing. If he cannot prove inui, he is merely a "partial liberator," unable to dismantle a vow that she has cast against the world.