And it cannot be argued that if the woman refrains from bathing or adorning herself, it will negatively impact on her relationship with her husband, as we do not find a fox dying in the earth of the lair to which it is accustomed. Similarly, a husband who is accustomed to his wife will not come to avoid engaging in sexual intercourse with her merely because she has not bathed.

The Gemara comments that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava: Vows taken by a woman concerning matters that involve affliction the husband can nullify, whether they relate to matters between him and her or to matters between her and others. As for vows concerning matters that do not involve affliction, if they relate to matters between him and her, he can nullify them, but if they relate to matters between her and others, he cannot nullify them. How so? If she said: Produce is konam for me, he can nullify the vow, as it falls into the category of vows of affliction. If, however, she said: I will not prepare anything for my father, as that is konam for me or: For your brother, or: For your father, or: For my brother, or: I will not place straw before your animal, or: I will not place water before your cattle, he cannot nullify such vows, as they do not touch upon the relationship between husband and wife, nor do they cause her affliction.

A wife said: I will not paint my eyes, as that is konam for me; I will not rouge [efkos] my cheeks, as that is konam for me; or: I will not engage in sexual intercourse, as that is konam for me. If she made any of these statements, her husband can nullify them, as they are matters that adversely affect the relationship between him and her.

A wife said: I will not make your bed, as that is konam for me; or: I will not prepare your cup for you, mixing your wine with water, as that is konam for me; or: I will not wash your face, your hands, or your feet, as that is konam for me. If she made these statements, her husband need not nullify these vows. They do not take effect, since she is obligated to perform these tasks as part of her marital duties.

Rabban Gamliel says: He should nevertheless nullify such vows, as it is stated: “He shall not profane his word” (Numbers 30:3), which teaches that it is improper for one to take a vow and not fulfill it. The Gemara presents another interpretation of the verse: Alternatively, the verse states: “He shall not profane his word,” from here it may be derived that a halakhic authority cannot dissolve his own vows.

After having cited the entire baraita, the Gemara proceeds to analyze the relevant component: Of whom have we heard that he said that if a woman says: I will not paint my eyes, as that is konam for me, or: I will not rouge my cheeks, the vows fall into the category of matters that adversely affect the relationship between him and her? It is Rabbi Yosei, as the Rabbis, who disagree with him, maintain that they are vows of affliction, and the baraita teaches that the husband can nullify such vows as matters that adversely affect the relationship between him and her. Therefore, the baraita supports Rav Adda bar Ahava’s understanding of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

The Master said in the baraita that if the woman said: I will not engage in sexual intercourse, as that is konam for me, her husband can nullify the vow as an example of matters that adversely affects the relationship between him and her. The Gemara raises a question: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say that she said: The benefit of my engaging in intercourse with you is forbidden to you, why do I need the husband’s nullification at all? She is obligated to engage in intercourse with him by the very nature of their marriage, and it is not within her power to release herself from this duty by means of a vow. Rather, the baraita must refer to a case where she said: The benefit of your engaging in intercourse with me is forbidden to me, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana.

As Rav Kahana said that if a woman says: The benefit of my engaging in intercourse with you is forbidden to you, he can compel her to have relations with him. If, however, she said: The benefit of your engaging in intercourse with me is forbidden to me, he must nullify her vow. Why must the husband nullify it if she is obligated to have relations with him? It is because we do not feed a person something that is forbidden to him. Although she cannot release herself from her duty, since she prohibited herself from deriving pleasure from the act, she may not engage in sexual intercourse, as it would entail forbidden pleasure.

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to matters that are permitted, but others were accustomed to treat them as a prohibition, you are not allowed to treat them as permitted in a manner that may cause the negation of their custom, as it is stated: “He shall not profane his word” (Numbers 30:3). The verse indicates that any vow in which a person renders a matter forbidden to himself, i.e., “his word,” is considered a quasi-vow, which may not be profaned. The Gemara presents another interpretation of the verse: Alternatively, the verse states: “He shall not profane his word”; from here it may be derived that a halakhic authority cannot dissolve his own vows. Whose opinion is this? It is that of Rabban Gamliel, who maintains that a man should nullify his wife’s vow even if it does not actually take effect.

Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: If a woman took a vow that sexual intercourse with her husband is forbidden to her, then, according to the Rabbis, is it a vow of affliction or does it fall within the category of matters that adversely affect the relationship between him and her? Rav Naḥman said to him: You learned the answer to this question in a mishna (90b): And if a woman said: I am removed from the Jews, i.e., the benefit of my engaging in intercourse is forbidden to all Jews,