In fact, arrangements are made with creditors. Rather, Rabbi Akiva is saying that they do not tear the document of the marriage contract. Even if in practice he is left with enough to survive on, the debt remains in force, so that when he will have more money, she will be paid in full.

MISHNA: If one vowed that certain food or drink or all food and drink be forbidden to him, the halakhic authorities may broach dissolution by raising the issue of Festivals and Shabbatot. They ask him whether he realized at the time he stated his vow that he would have to uphold it on these festive days as well. At first they said that on those days that he did not intend to include in his vow, that item is permitted, but on all the rest of the days, food and drink are still forbidden by his vow, until Rabbi Akiva came and taught that a vow that is partially dissolved is dissolved entirely.

How so? In the case of one who said to a group of people: I will not benefit from all of you as it is konam for me, if benefit from one of them was permitted for whatever reason, benefit from all of them is permitted.

However, if one said: I will not benefit from this one and from that one as it is konam for me, then if benefit from the first one was permitted for whatever reason, benefit from all of them is permitted. But if benefit from the last one was permitted, benefit from the last one alone is permitted, but benefit from all the others is forbidden, as the benefit from each is considered to have been prohibited by a separate vow. If benefit from the middle one was permitted, then from him and below, i.e., all those enumerated after him, benefit is permitted; from him and above, i.e., those listed before him, benefit is forbidden.

The mishna gives another example of interconnected vows: If one stated: I will not benefit from this one, as if he were an offering, and from that one, as if he were an offering, then an extenuation enabling the dissolution of a vow is required for each and every one, as they have the status of separate vows.

The mishna gives another example of a vow that was partially dissolved. If one stated in a vow: Wine is konam for me and I will not taste it, as wine is bad for the intestines, and they said to him: But aged wine is good for the intestines, then the vow is dissolved with regard to aged wine. And not only with regard to aged wine is it dissolved, but with regard to all types of wine, since a vow that has been partially dissolved is entirely dissolved. Likewise, if one stated in a vow: Onions are konam for me and I will not taste them, as onions are bad for the heart, and they said to him: But the kuferi onion is good for the heart, then, in this case too, it is dissolved with regard to kuferi onions, and not only with regard to kuferi onions is it dissolved, but with regard to all types of onions. The mishna relates that an incident of this kind occurred, and Rabbi Meir dissolved the vow with regard to all types of onions.

GEMARA: The mishna taught: If benefit from the last one was permitted, benefit from the last one alone is permitted but benefit from all the others is forbidden. If one stated: I will not benefit from this one, as if he were an offering, and from that one, as if he were an offering, then an extenuation enabling the dissolution of a vow is required for each and every one. The Gemara poses a question: Who is the tanna that taught this mishna?

Rava said: It is taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that one who utters a false oath to several people at once is not liable to bring an offering for each false oath unless he says: An oath, in his oath to each and every one (Shevuot 38a). If he said: An oath, only once, even if he specified each person by saying: Not to you, not to you, it is still considered to be a single oath. Otherwise, it is viewed as one oath. The mishna, which requires a separate extenuation for each person only if he stated: As if he were an offering, with regard to each of them, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon stated with regard to oaths.

The mishna taught that if one said: Wine is konam for me and I will not taste it, as wine is bad for the intestines, his vow is dissolved, for aged wine is good for the intestines. The Gemara asks: And let him derive that the vow is dissolved from the fact that aged wine is not bad for the intestines. Even if it is not actively good for the intestines, the vow should nevertheless be considered mistaken. Rabbi Abba said: The mishna teaches: And furthermore, it is good. In other words, even if aged wine is merely not harmful to the intestines the vow is dissolved, and they strengthened their claim by pointing out that it is in fact beneficial.

The mishna taught: If one said: Onions are konam for me and I will not taste them, as onions are bad for the heart, his vow is dissolved, for kuferi onions are good for the heart. The Gemara asks: And let him derive that the vow is dissolved from the fact that the kuferi onion is not bad for the heart. Rabbi Abba said: The mishna teaches: And furthermore, it is good. Here too, they added that the kuferi onion is actually good for the heart, but this addition was not needed to justify the dissolution of the vow.

MISHNA: The halakhic authorities may broach dissolution for a person by raising the issue of his own honor and the honor of his children. For example, if he took a vow that resulted in his needing to divorce his wife, they may say to him: Had you known that tomorrow people will say about you: This is the habit [veset] of so-and-so, that he divorces his wives due to vows, and they will say about your daughters: They are daughters of divorce, or they will ask: What did their mother see to divorce, thereby giving them a bad reputation. And if the man who vowed said: Had I known it was so, I would not have vowed, it is dissolved.

The Mishna continues: If a man said: Marrying ugly so-and-so is konam for me, and she is in fact beautiful, or if, in vowing not to marry her, he called her black, and she is in fact white, or if, in vowing not to marry her, he called her short, and she is in fact tall, he is permitted to her. Not because she was ugly and became beautiful, black and became white, or short and became tall, but rather, because the vow was mistaken from the outset.

The Mishna relates: And an incident occurred with regard to one who vowed against deriving benefit from the daughter of his sister, as he did not wish to marry her. And they brought her into the house of Rabbi Yishmael and he beautified her. When she was later brought before the one who took the vow, Rabbi Yishmael said to him: My son, did you vow that you would not derive benefit from this woman? He said to him: No, and Rabbi Yishmael permitted her to him, as he demonstrated that the vow had been made in error.

At that time Rabbi Yishmael wept and said: The daughters of Israel are beautiful, but poverty makes them ugly. And when Rabbi Yishmael died, the daughters of Israel raised a lamentation, saying: Daughters of Israel, weep for Rabbi Yishmael. And it likewise states about Saul, who also concerned himself with the welfare of the daughters of Israel: “Daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet with other delights, who put ornaments of gold upon your apparel” (II Samuel 1:24).

GEMARA: The Gemara poses a question: Was an incident cited to contradict what was just taught? It first taught that if she was ugly and was later beautified, the vow is not dissolved, and then the mishna quoted an incident involving Rabbi Yishmael where he did dissolve the vow. The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: Rabbi Yishmael says: Even if she was ugly and became beautiful, black and became white, short and became tall, the vow can be dissolved. An incident occurred with regard to one who vowed against having benefit from the daughter of his sister, as he did not wish to marry her. And they brought her into Rabbi Yishmael’s house and he beautified her.