Nedarim 83 - January 16, 23 Tevet

Study Guide Nedarim 83 Today’s daf is sponsored by Sari Esserman in memory of her aunt Miriam bat Yosef Hakohen. Today’s daf is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to their son Eliav and his wife Noia on becoming parents! "Celebrating the Shabbat brit together was very meaningful yehi ratzon that Shachar Yosef will always reach out to Hashem, in the spirit of the pasuk that his parents related to in choosing his name - in Yeshayahu Chapter 26 "נפשי אויתיך בלילה אף רוחי אשחרך", coupled with the memory of Debbie’s father – Yosef Gindsberg z"l,  a unique and loving  individual who epitomized the concept of Torah U'madda and beyond." According to a second version, Rav Asi asked Rabbi Yochanan about a case where a woman vowed not to eat two loaves of bread and refraining from eating one is considered suffering, but from the other is not. Rabbi Yochanan answered that he only nullifies the one that causes her d suffering and not the other. A mishna and braita from Nazir are brought to raise difficulties with Rabbi Yochanan’s answer, but the difficulties are resolved. Rav Yosef explains the first difficulty, by saying there is a unique law by a nazir that there is no taking on bring a nazir in a partial manner. Abaye makes an inference from Rav Yosef's words and questions them and clarifies the statement Rav Yosef made. The Gemara then questions Abaye's reading as well but resolves it.  The second difficulty is answered that both abstaining from drinking wine and refraining from becoming impure to the dead is considered suffering because he who eulogized, buries, cries for others, others will do it for them as well. If a woman forbids herself from benefitting from all people, the husband cannot nullify the vow because he is not included in all people, and in addition to that, she can take from gifts for the poor. This is one way to understand the words of the Mishna and that is assuming that the husband is not included in 'all people.' But there are two more ways to understand the words of the Mishna. In one they understand that the husband is included in 'all people' and she is actually forbidden to him as well and in the second it is assumed that the husband is not included in 'all people' and the two parts of the sentence in the Mishna speak of two different situations (a woman within the marriage and a woman after she has been divorced). If a woman has vowed that the Kohanim and Levites cannot benefit her, what happens to the gifts meant to be given to them from her produce?