Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 11:1

משנה: אֵילּוּ נְדָרִים שֶׁהוּא מֵיפֵר. דְּבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ אִם אֶרְחַץ וְאִם לֹא אֶרְחַץ אִם אֶתְקַשֵּׁט וְאִם לֹא אֶתְקַשֵּׁט. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אֵין אֵילּוּ נִדְרֵי עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ. MISHNAH: These are the vows which he may dissolve: Matters connected with mortification¹In addition, he can dissolve vows impinging on their marital relations, as explained later.. [E. g.], “if I wash, if I do not wash; if I wear jewels, if I do not wear jewels.²These examples refer to conditional vows. One derives from the contract of the tribes of Gad and Reuben with Moses (Numbers.32.29-30">Num. 32:29–30) that a legally valid conditional contract must spell out the conditions both positively and negatively: If I do certain things, there is a stipulated consequence; if I do not, then the consequence is stipulated not to happen (Kiddushin 3:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Kiddushin.3.3.1">Mishnah Qiddušin 3:3). The vow is understood to be: A qônām should be a certain thing for me if I ever wash; if I do not wash, the thing shall not be qônām. Since not washing is mortification, the husband has the right to void the vow. If the vow had been unconditional, the husband would have no jurisdiction over it.” Rebbi Yose said, these are not vows of mortification³His position is explained in Nedarim 11:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.11.2.1">Mishnah 2..

הלכה: אֵילּוּ נְדָרִים שֶׁהוּא מֵיפֵר כול׳. כְּתִיב כָּל־נֵדֶר וְכָל־שְׁבוּעַת אִסָּר לַעֲנוֹת נָפֶשׁ. אֵין לִי אֶלָּא נְדָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ. נְדָרִים שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ מְנַיִין. בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּבַעַל. בָּאָב מְנַיִין. מַה הַבַּעַל אֵינוֹ מֵיפֵר אֶלָּא נְדָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ וּנְדָרִים שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ. אַף הָאָב אֵינוֹ מֵיפֵר אֶלָּא נְדָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ וּנְדָרִים שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ. HALAKHAH: “These are the vows which he can dissolve,” etc. It is written⁵Numbers.30.14">Num. 30:14. The verse ends: “Her husband shall confirm it or her husband shall dissolve it.”: “Any vow and any oath of prohibition to mortify.” That covers only vows which contain mortification. Vows regarding the relations between him and her, from where? “Between a man and his wife⁶Numbers.30.17">Num. 30:17. One opinion in this Halakhah (Notes 11 ff.) and the consensus in the Nedarim.79b">Babli (79b) hold that the dissolution of vows of mortification is permanent since it is expressly sanctioned by the verse but that dissolution of a vow regarding marital relations, which is the result of an indirect inference, is valid only as long as the marriage continues. Such a dissolution would be automatically voided for the divorcee or widow. The Mishnah mentions only vows the husband can permanently dissolve..” So far the husband; the father from where? Since the husband can dissolve only vows of mortification and matters between him and her, so the father can dissolve only vows of mortification and matters between him and her⁷This argument seems to be taken out of thin air. It is explained in Sifry Num. 155: V. 17 reads “These are the principles which the Eternal commanded to Moses between a husband and his wife, between a father and his daughter, in her adolescence, in her father’s house.” Now this verse is really an appendix to the laws governing the married wife. It is concluded that the restrictions which apply to the husband in relation with his wife in his house also apply to the father in relation to the adolescent daughter in his house..

רִבִּי יַעֲקֹב בַּר אָחָא אָמַר. אִיתְפַּלְּגוּן רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. בֵּין לִנְדָרִים בֵּין לִשְׁבוּעוֹת הַבַעַל מֵיפֵר. רִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. לִנְדָרִים מֵיפֵר וְלֹא לִשְׁבוּעוֹת. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. אַף בְּנִדְרֵי הַזָּקֵן פְּלִיגִין רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. בֵּין לִנְדָרִים בֵּין לִשְׁבוּעוֹת הַזָּקֵן מַתִּיר. וְרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר. לִנְדָרִים הַזָּקֵן מַתִּיר וְלִשְׁבוּעוֹת אֵין הַזָּקֵן מַתִּיר. וְאַתְייָא דְּרִבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ כְּהָדָא דְאִיסִי. חַד בַּר נַשׁ אֲתַא מִישְׁרֵי נִדְרָא קוֹמֵי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מִתְעַטֵּף וִיתִיב לֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. מָה אִשְׁתַּבָּעַת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. איפופי יִשְׂרָאֵל. לֹא עַללַה לְבֵיתִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. איפופי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְלֹא עַללַה לְבֵייתָךְ. Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish disagree. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the husband dissolves both vows and oaths⁸The heading of the paragraph, Numbers.30.2">Num. 30:2, speaks of vows and oaths. (A vow refers to a thing, an oath implies the use of God’s name.). Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he dissolves vows but not oaths⁹Except for v. 2, oaths are never mentioned.. Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, Rebbi Joḥanan and Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish also disagree about the vows submitted to the Elder. Rebbi Joḥanan said, the Elder permits both vows and oaths. Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Elder permits vows, the Elder does not permit oaths. That of Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish parallels that of Issi (Assi). A person came before Rebbi Yasa¹⁰Since Yerushalmi אִיסִּי is the same as Babylonian אַסִּי, the formal name should not be יוֹסֵי but יָסָה. to have his vow permitted. He asked him, what did you swear? He answered, ὢ πόποι¹¹Greek πόποι is classically an exclamation of surprise, anger, pain, etc.; it is later explained as “divinities, gods”. While the husband avoided using Hebrew or Aramaic expressions for God’s name, the Greek in this case has the meaning of “God of Israel”; this classifies the act as an oath, which R. Yasa refused to annul. The husband swore that his wife should no longer enter his house, i. e., he forced himself to divorce her and pay her the divorce settlement. Israel, that she should not enter my house. He said to him, ὢ πόποι Israel, she shall not enter your house!

רִבִּי זְעִירָא פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָא אֵילּוּ נְדָרִים שֶׁמֵיפֶר. נְדָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ. אִם אֶרְחַץ וְאִם לֹא אֶרְחַץ. אִם אֶתְקַשֵּׁט וְאִם לֹא אֶתְקַשֵּׁט. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. אֵין אֵילּוּ נִידְרֵי עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ אֶלָּא נְדָרִים שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ. אֵילּוּ הֵן נִדְרֵי עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ כְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. כְּשֶׁאָֽמְרָה קוֹנָם פֶּירוֹת הָעוֹלָם עָלַי. הֲרֵי זֶה יָפֵר. רַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין. נִדְרֵי עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ הֵיפֵר לָהּ מוּפָר לְעוֹלָם. נְדָרִים שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ אֵינוֹ מוּפָר אֶלָּא כָל־זְמָן שֶׁהִיא עִמּוֹ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. בֵּין נִדְרֵי עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ בֵּין נְדָרִים שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ הֵיפֵר לָהּ מוּפָר לְעוֹלָם. וְהָא רַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין. נִדְרֵי עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ הֵפֵר לָהּ מוּפָר לְעוֹלָם. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר. נְדָרִים שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ הֵיפֵר לָהּ מוּפָר לְעוֹלָם. מַה בֵּינִיהוֹן. בְּשֶׁאָֽמְרָה. קוֹנָם הֲנָייָתִי עָלֶיךָ אִם אֵצֵא מִרְשׁוּתָךְ. וְיָפֵר לָהּ. בְּשֶלֹּא אָֽמְרָה. קוֹנָם הֲנָייַת גּוּפִי עָלֶיךָ לִכְשֶׁאֵצֵא מִרְשׁוּתָךְ. רַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין. נִדְרֵי עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ הֵן. רִבִּי זְעוּרָא וְרִבִּי הִילָא תְּרֵיהוֹן אָֽמְרִין. נְדָרִים שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ כֵּן. עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי זְעוּרָא רִבִּי יוֹסֵי וְרִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי שְׁנֵיהֶן אָֽמְרוּ דָבָר אֶחָד. דַּתַנִּינָן תַּמָּן. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. יָפֵר. שֶׁמָּא יְגָֽרְשֶׁנָּהּ וּתְהֵא אֲסוּרָה לַחֲזוֹר לוֹ. Rebbi Ze‘ira explained the Mishnah: “These are the vows which he can dissolve: Matters connected with mortification. [E. g.], ‘if I wash, if I do not wash; if I shall wear jewels, if I do not wear jewels.’ Rebbi Yose said, these are not vows of mortification” but vows between him and her. “The following are vows of mortification¹²Nedarim 11:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.11.2.1">Mishnah 11:2. In this interpretation, Nedarim 11:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.11.2.1">Mishnah 2 is the continuation of the remark of R. Yose in Nedarim 11:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.11.1.1">Mishnah 1.” following Rebbi Yose. For example, “she said, all produce of the world is qônām for me, he may dissolve.” The rabbis say, if he dissolves vows of mortification, they are permanently dissolved. Vows between him and her are only dissolved as long as she is married to him. Rebbi Yose says, both vows of mortification and vows between him and her, if he dissolved them they are permanently dissolved¹³Since R. Yose also agrees that the husband dissolves both vows of mortification and those between him and her, there must be a practical difference between the two classes of vows to make the classification important.. That means, the rabbis say, if he dissolves vows of mortification, they are permanently dissolved. Rebi Yose says, if he dissolves vows between him and her, they are permanently dissolved. What is the difference between them? If she said, any benefit from me shall be qônām for you when I leave your domain. Why can he not dissolve that? Because she did not say, any benefit from my body shall be qônām for you when I leave your domain¹⁴A vow between him and her is only subject to the husband’s dissolution if it interferes with their marital relations. For R. Yose, he can dissolve a vow that would permanently forbid any sex with her after divorce; for the rabbis, he cannot dissolve the vow which comes into effect only after he will have lost the right of dissolution.. Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Hila, both of them say: That is the essence of vows between him and her. In the opinion of Rebbi Ze‘ira, Rebbi Yose and Rebbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said the same thing since we stated there¹⁵Nedarim 11:4:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.11.4.1">Mishnah 11:4, about a woman who vows not to do anything he tells her to do. The rabbis hold that he does not have to dissolve the vow since by law she is required to live with him and keep house for him, and nobody can abolish his duties under the law by making a vow. R. Aqiba holds that he must dissolve the vow since she might do more for him than is legally required and then would violate her vow. R. Joḥanan ben Nuri says that he would be well advised to dissolve the vow since she would not be able to do anything for him after a divorce. This implies that the husband may dissolve now the vow regarding matters between him and her which would become effective only after a future divorce.: “Rebbi Joḥanan said, he shall dissolve it since maybe he would divorce her, then she would be forbidden to return to him.”

רִבִּי הִילָא פָּתַר מַתְנִיתָא אֵילּוּ נְדָרִים שֶׁהוּא מֵיפֵר לָהּ. נְדָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ. אִם אֶרְחַץ אִם לֹא אֶרְחַץ. אִם אֶתְקַשֵּׁט אִם לֹא אֶתְקַשֵּׁט. מָהוּ אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי אֵין אִילֵּין נְדָרִים נִדְרֵי עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ אֶלָּא אֵילּוּ נְדָרִים שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ. אֵילּוּ הֵן נִידְרֵי עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ. דִּבְרֵי הכֹּל. Rebbi Hila explained the Mishnah: “These are the vows which he can dissolve: Matters connected with mortification. [E. g.], ‘if I wash, if I do not wash; if I wear jewels, if I do not wear jewels.’ ” What means “Rebbi Yose said, these vows are not vows of mortification”? They are vows between him and her. “The following are vows of mortification” is everybody’s opinion¹⁶He holds that Nedarim 11:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.11.2.1">Mishnah 2 can be read as being accepted by everybody. This implies that R. Yose does not disagree with the anonymous majority that the husband’s powers of dissolution of vows between him and her are restricted to the time of their marriage. He simply disagrees with the classification of the two examples quoted in the Mishnah and holds that not washing or not wearing jewellery is not done as mortification but to spite the husband..

אִם אֶרְחַץ אִם לֹא אֶרְחַץ. וְתַנֵּי כֵן. נִדְרֵי עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ. אִם אֶרְחַץ אִם לֹא אֶרְחַץ. אִם אֶתְקַשֵּׁט אִם לֹא אֶתְקַשֵּׁט. בֵּין עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי זְעִירָא בֵּין עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּרִבִּי הִילָא מִחְלְפָה שִיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. דְּתַנֵּי. מַעֲייָן שֶׁלִּבְנֵי הָעִיר. הֵן וָאֲחֵרִים. הֵן קוֹדְמִין לָאֲחֵרִים. אֲחֵרִים וּבְהֶמְתָּן. אֲחֵרִים קוֹדְמִין לִבְהֶמְתָּן. כְּבִיסָתָן וְחַיֵּי אֲחֵרִים. כְּבִיסָתָן קוֹדֶמֶת לְחַיֵּי אֲחֵרִים. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. מָאן תַּנָּא. כְּבִיסָה חַיֵּי נֶפֶשׁ. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה. דְּתַנֵי. אֵין נוֹתְנִין מֵהֶן לֹא לְמִשְׁרָה וְלֹא לִכְבִיסָה. רִבִּי יוֹסֵי מַתִּיר בִּכְבִיסָה. מִחְלְפָה שִׁיטָּתֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵי. תַּמָּן הוּא אָמַר. אֵין רְחִיצָה חַיֵּי נֶפֶשׁ. וָכָא הוּא אָמַר. כְּבִיסָה חָיֵּי נֶפֶשׁ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא אָדָם מְגַלְגֵּל בִּרְחִיצָה אֵין אָדָם מְגַלְגֵּל בִּכְבִיסָה. “If I wash, if I do not wash.” It was stated¹⁷In a baraita not otherwise recorded.: “If I wash, if I do not wash; if I wear jewels, if I do not wear jewels”, these are vows of mortification. Both according to Rebbi Ze‘ira or according to Rebbi Hila, Rebbi Yose seems to contradict his own opinion, as ¹⁸From here to the end of the next paragraph, the text is from Sheviit 8:5:4-5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sheviit.8.5.4-5">Ševi‘it 8:5, Notes 77–84. it was stated: “A water source belonging to the townspeople, between them and outsiders, they have precedence over outsiders. Between outsiders and their animals, the outsiders have precedence over their animals. Their washing and the lives of outsiders, their washing has precedence over the lives of outsiders.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, who is the Tanna who said that washing is a necessity for survival? Rebbi Yose! As it was stated: “One may use it neither for steeping nor for washing. But Rebbi Yose permits it for washing.” The opinions of Rebbi Yose are contradictory. There he says, washing oneself is not a necessity of life¹⁹“There” is the Mishnah here, where R. Yose qualifies not washing as not being a mortification.. And here, he says washing one’s garments is a necessity of life! Rebbi Mana said, a person might put off washing himself but nobody puts off washing his clothes.

יְהוּדָה אִישׁ הוּצָא עֲבִיד טְמִיר בִּמְעָֽרְתָא תְּלָתָא יוֹמִין מֵיקוֹם עַל הָדֵין טַעֲמָא. מְנַייִן שֶׁחַיֵּי הָעִיר הַזֹּאת קוֹדְמִין לְחַיֵּי עִיר אֲחֶרֶת. אָתָא לְגַבֵּי רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֶּן חֲלַפְתָּא. אָמַר לֵיהּ. אִית לִי טְמִיר בִּמְעָֽרְתָא תְּלָתָא יוֹמִין מֵיקוֹם עַל הָדֵין טַעֲמָא. מְנַייִן שֶׁחַיֵּי הָעִיר הַזֹּאת קוֹדְמִין לְחַיֵּי עִיר אֲחֶרֶת. קָרָא לְרִבִּי אַבָּא בְּרֵיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ הָדֵין טַעֲמָא. מְנַייִן שֶׁחַיֵּי הָעִיר הַזֹּאת קוֹדְמִין לְחַיֵּי עִיר אֲחֶרֶת. אָמַר לֵיהּ. תִּהְייֶנָּה הֶעָרִים הָאֵלֶּא תִּהְייֶנָּה עִיר וְאַחַר כָּךְ מִגְרְשֶׁיהָ סְבִיבוֹתֶיהָ. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מִי גָּרַם לָךְ. דְּלֹא יְלַפְתְּ עִם חֲבֵירֶיךָ. ¹⁸From here to the end of the next paragraph, the text is from Sheviit 8:5:4-5" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sheviit.8.5.4-5">Ševi‘it 8:5, Notes 77–84. Jehudah from Ḥusa hid himself in a cave for three days because he wanted to find the reason why the necessities of life of one’s town have precedence over the necessities of life of another town. He came to Rabbi Yose bar Ḥalaphta and said, I was hiding in a cave for three days because I wanted to find the reason why the necessities of life of one’s town have precedence over the necessities of life of another town. He called his son Rebbi Abba and asked him about the reason why the necessities of life of one’s town have precedence over the necessities of life of another town. He said to him (Numbers.35.15">Num. 35:15): “These [six] cities shall be”, each town shall be, and only afterwards their surroundings around them. He [R. Yose] said to him [Jehudah from Huṣa], what did cause you [this emharassment]? That you did not study with your companions!

נִיחָא אִם אֶרְחַץ. אִם לֹא אֶרְחַץ. וְתִרְחַץ. אָמַר רִבִּי מָנָא. בְּשֶׁאָֽמְרָה. קוֹנָם הֲנָייָתִי עָלֶיךָ מִשֶּׁאֶרְחַץ אִם אֶרְחַץ. וְיָפֵר לָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן. בְּשֶׁלֹּא אָֽמְרָה אֶלָּא. קוֹנָם הֲנָייַת גּוּפִי עָלֶיךָ לִכְשֶׁאֶרְחַץ. וְיִכּוֹף. לֹא כֵן אָמַר רַב הוּנָא. הֲנָייָתִי עָלֶיךָ. כּוֹפֶה וּמְשַׁמְּשָׁתוֹ. הֲנָייָֽתְךָ עָלַי. הֲרֵי זֶה יָפֵר. שַׁנְייָא הִיא שֶׁהִיא הֲנָייָתוֹ וַהֲנָייָתָהּ. אָמַר רִבִּי אַבָּא מָרִי. אִם אֶרְחַץ אִם לֹא אֶרְחַץ לְעוֹלָם. אִם אֶתְקַשֵּׁט וְאִם לֹא אֶתְקַשֵּׁט לְעוֹלָם. רַבָּנִין דְּקַיְסָרִין בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי נָסָא. אִם אֶרְחַץ וְאִם לֹא אֶתְקַשֵּׁט. אִם אֶתְקַשֵּׁט וְאִם לֹא אֶרְחַץ. We understand “if I wash²⁰The discussion here is to understand R. Yose, who classifies the vows as being between him and her. He cannot accept the explanation given in Nedarim 11:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.11.1.1">Note 2 but it must somehow refer to marital relations. If she makes a vow not to have any relations with him if she washes, it is clear that he may dissolve the vow as one between him and her. But if she makes the vow not to have any relations with him if she does not wash, why can we not rely on her washing, as normal people do?”. “If I do not wash”? Let her wash! Rebbi Mana said, if she said: “Any benefit from me shall be qônām for you after I shall have washed myself, if I ever wash myself.²¹The mention of “not washing” is not an independent vow. She makes the vow not to have any relations with him if she washes and then reinforces her statement by the assertion that she will not wash.” Why should he not dissolve for her? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, only when she said, “any benefit from my body shall be qônām for you after I shall have washed myself.²²It is only a vow between him and her if she makes it clear that she refers to marital intercourse.” Why can he not force? Did not Rebbi Huna say, [if she vowed] any benefit from me [shall be forbidden] to you, he forces her²³He goes to court and has her declared an unruly wife; the court will deduct 7 denar from her marriage settlement per week and, if that settlement was reduced to zero, give the husband the right to claim 7 denar per week from any future inheritance or earnings (Ketubot 5:6:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Ketubot.5.6.1">Mishnah Ketubot 5:7). and sleeps with her. Any benefit from you [shall be forbidden] to me, he has to dissolve²⁴Since it is in his hand to dissolve the vow, he cannot sleep with her as long as her vow is in existence since “one does not feed a person anything forbidden to him” (Nedarim.81b">Babli 81b).. There is a difference because it²⁵Sexual relations. is a benefit for him and her. Rebbi Abba Mari said, If I wash [today], I shall not wash forever. If I wear jewellery [today], I shall not wear jewellery forever²⁶R. Abba Mari disagrees with the preceding and holds that the vow means what it says, that it is only about washing (or wearing jewellery) and not about sex. R. Yose holds that a person can go for a day without washing or wearing jewellery; therefore, the vow described in the Mishnah is neither a vow of mortification nor one between him and her; the husband has no way of interfering with that vow. It might become a vow between him and her if she should wash that day.. The rabbis of Caesarea in the name of Rebbi Nasa: If I wash I shall not wear jewellery; if I wear jewellery I shall not wash.