1) If you compare the item to an Issur, it’s permitted {Ran: even if it’s sacrifices for idols that are forbidden to take pleasure from, and it can’t become permitted because a non-Jew cancels it. This also includes Trumah, even though separating it might be considered somewhat like a vow.} Even an Am Ha’aretz doesn’t need to annul it by a Chachum, since it’s a Gezeiras Hakasuv. {Ran says: it’s better to Darshen from the extra “forbid a prohibition” to say the vow takes effect if you compare what you want to forbid to an individual’s vow that’s not upon the masses, like fasting on the anniversary of your father’s death, than to say that it tells us that it takes effect when you compare it to prohibitions. After all, the item you vowed upon is not compared to a prohibition, like pork, since the Torah forbids pork, but the Torah didn’t forbid this item.}

2) We have a Mishna saying that, if you compared your wife in a vow to be forbidden like your mother, you need to annul it from another place {Ran: I.e., but you can’t say that you wouldn’t make the Neder if you realized that it would be disgraceful to your mother. However, even this Mishna held it’s only rabbinically forbidden.} Yet, a Braisa says that it’s nothing. Abaya reconciles: it’s nothing from the Torah since it doesn’t take effect on comparing to prohibitions. {Ran says: but on a wife, since people regularly make Neders on them, they enacted to annul so not to take Nedarim lightly. However, they didn’t feel the need to enact on other Nedarim since they’re uncommon.} Rava reconciles: they take effect for an Am Ha’aretz, but not for a Talmid Chachum since we don’t need to worry that he’ll take other Nedarim lightly.

3) {Ran says: the Halacha is that it doesn’t take effect on prohibitions unless by a wife to an Am Ha’aretz because of the above concern. Forbidding through comparison is only applicable by Nedarim since it takes effect on the object, so it helps comparing it to other objects that become forbidden through a vow. However, swearing can’t take effect by comparing it to other items that you swore on, since it doesn't take effect on the object, but on the person swearing. Therefore, since the object is not forbidden per se, how can comparing it to another item make the other item forbidden?}

4) If you made a Neder with a Torah {Ran: I.e., you swore on the Torah}, it’s not forbidden. R’ Yehuda still needs it annulled, and R’ Nachman didn’t need it for a Talmid Chachum. {Ran explains: the reason they enacted to get it annulled since, sometimes, the swearing takes effect on a Sefer Torah, as we say later; so we’re afraid an Am Ha’aretz will confuse it.}

5) The reason why it doesn’t really take effect since it’s like swearing on the parchment, and not the words of the Torah. However, if he says “on what’s written inside it,” it takes effect. Then the Braisa says: and if he says “on it and what’s written inside it” it takes effect. The Gemara asks: why do we need this extra part? The Gemara answers: the first part refers to a Torah that’s in your hands, so when you say “what’s in it,” it refers to the writing. However, the latter one refers to when it’s on the ground, and if you say “what’s inside it,” it can refer to the parchment {Ran: i.e., what’s the Torah written in it,} therefore, it doesn’t take effect until you say “on it and what’s written inside it.”

6) Alternatively, {Ran explains: the later case reveals what the first case refers to, when it’s on the ground}, and still, if you say “what’s in it,” it takes effect.

7) Alternatively, the Gemara answers: the first case refers to when it’s on the ground, and it only takes effect by saying what’s in it, but not by saying “on it.” The second case is when it’s in your hands, and it means to say; even if you say ‘on it,’ it’s as if you said “what’s inside it,” and it takes effect.

8) {Ran quotes the Raavad who says that we only refer to a Neder, and if you compare it to the parchment, it’s as if you compared it to a prohibition, and when you compare it to the writing, it’s like comparing it to a vow, since, when you write the names of Hashem, you need to prepare and designate them to write them, but it’s not referring to swearing. However, the Rambam explains it to go on swearing and Nedarim.}

9) If someone vows that his eyes won't sleep today if I sleep tomorrow, Rav holds he can't sleep today since he might sleep tomorrow. R’ Nachman held that he can sleep today and we don't need to worry that he'll sleep tomorrow. They only argue when the second day was the condition, since people take the condition lightly, but if the second day is the vow itself saying his eyes won't sleep tomorrow if I sleep today, he can sleep today since we’re not worried he’ll sleep tomorrow because people take seriously the day of the prohibition.

10) A Mishna says: when he says “Konam from sleeping,” he transgresses “don’t profane your words.” We can’t take it at face value since sleeping has no substance and not an object that a vow can take effect on it. (As this is a way that swearing is more stringent than vows, since they could take effect on non-substance.) We must say that we refer to a case where he vows that his eyes won't sleep. {Ran says: you can’t say that he just said it for today, or that would be too simple.} You can’t say that he made the Konam forever, as we see that if if someone swears not to sleep for three days, {Ran: it's a swearing in vaIn (since it's impossible to keep)} and you give him lashes immediately and put him to sleep, {Ran says: since the prohibition through the swearing doesn’t take effect, and so too, it doesn’t take effect by a vow.} Also, it can’t be that he said his eyes won't sleep tomorrow if I sleep today, since it’s permitted according to all to sleep today, so it’s simple {Ran: therefore, it would have been better to make the case that his eyes won't sleep today if I sleep tomorrow. Rather, it’s a case of} that his eyes won't sleep today if I sleep tomorrow, and the Chiddush would be that you can sleep today despite that if you sleep the next day, you’ll come to transgress “don’t profane your words.” However, Rav can explain the Mishna that if he slept today, he would have a problem of “don’t profane your words” {Ran: and thus, you shouldn’t sleep today so it shouldn’t lead to transgressing this Lav.}

11) Raveina answers: really it’s like the simple reading that he vowed from sleeping. Granted, it doesn’t take effect from the Torah since sleep doesn’t have any substance, but it rabbinically takes effect.

12) {Ran says: the Halacha is like Rav since the Gemara explains him when he agrees to R’ Nachman, and much of the give and take revolves around his opinion.}

13) If you tell your wife “Konam my relations on you,” she’s not forbidden since he’s already obligated to her from the Torah. {Ran says: even though Konam makes a Kedusha on the body that usually uproots obligations; we must say that the rabbis strengthen her obligation so that it won’t be uprooted (as they did by the obligations to the husband, as it says in Kesuvos.)} However, if he says that “Konam the pleasure of your relations on me,” the vow takes effect {Ran: and the obligation then becomes uprooted by itself. Although it’s only a rabbinically forbidden vow since it’s not on a substance (since he forbade relations, and not his wife’s body similar to what we said that he forbade sleep and not his eyes) we don’t say that the Asei from the Torah to have relations with your wife and be fruitful will supersede this rabbinical vow; since the rabbis have the power to passively uproot a Torah law. Although we say that Mitzvos weren’t given to have pleasure, that’s only for the pleasure of fulfilling the Mitzvah, but not the physical pleasures one has when he fulfills the Mitzvah. This is like vowing from having pleasure from a spring; you can only Toivel there during the winter, but not during the summer.}

14) If he swears “not to eat from you” or “Hei swearing that I’ll eat from you” {Ran: and you can’t say it’s swearing in the life of a Korban like we said by “Hei Korban” that it’s swearing on the life of a Korban; since it’s not applicable to swear by a the life of a swearing}; or if he says “it’s not swearing what I won’t eat from you,” they’re all forbidden. {Ran explains: it implies that he’s swearing on what he will eat. This is even according to R’ Meir who holds that you can’t infer a flip side, that’s only on a vow that’s on money, but you’re swearing on actions that have no substance, where R’ Meir agrees that you don’t need the flip side.}

15) The Gemara infers from here that “Hei swearing that I’ll eat from you,” that it means he’s swearing not to eat, but in Shvuos it implies that “I’ll eat from you” means to swear that he will eat from you. Abaya reconciles: it implies both ways. Therefore, it depends on the context. If he was trying to appease a friend that he’ll truly eat by him and said “I’ll eat by you, I’ll eat by you and I swear I’ll eat from you,” he’s swearing to eat. However, if he’s trying to get out of eating by him and says “I won’t eat by you, I won’t eat by you and I swear I’ll eat from you,” he’s swearing not to eat from him. {Ran says: the same way he needs context to say it means not to eat, he needs context to say it means to eat. However, the Gemara in Shvuos implies that regularly it means that you’ll eat without any extra context, and that seems to be the main opinion.}

16) R’ Ashi answers: our Mishna refers to saying “Ee Ochel,” which means that you don’t eat, and we don’t say that he was just stretching out the Aleph of ‘Ochel’ and not trying to say ‘Ee,’ that he won’t eat. {Ran says: we might have thought to assume this since it’s not the regular way of saying not to eat, since he would have said “Lo Ochal;” so we’re taught otherwise.}

17) R’ Ashi didn’t want to answer like Abaya since the words “Lo Sochal,” which both Mishnayos say that it means not to eat, could also, according to Abaya, mean both ways, and should also mean that he’ll eat if he was saying before that “I’ll eat.” {Ran explains: it’s not swearing that he’ll eat but it’s as if he’s bewildered why he would assume he won’t eat by him saying; “am I swearing to you that I won’t eat?”} Therefore, the fact that the Tanna didn’t differentiate by Lo Sochel, he’s saying that, in all cases, when he says “I’ll eat,” it means that he’ll eat in all cases just like when he says “I won’t eat,” it means that he won’t eat in all cases.

18) Nedarim are stricter than swearing in the aspect that it can fall on Mitzvos. Therefore, if he says “Konam the Sukka that I’ll build,” the Neder takes effect. However, if he swears not to sit in the Sukka, he may sit in the Sukka. {Ran explains: however, he gets lashes for making a Shvua Shav, (making an inconsequential swearing.)} After all, you can’t swear to cancel yourself from doing a Mitzvah. The difference between them {Ran: although it’s a Drasha, but the reason we assume the Drasha that it takes effect is on Nedarim, and the Drasha that says that it doesn’t take effect is on swearing}, Abaya says: by Neder, he says that the pleasure of the Sukka is upon him {Ran: since it takes effect on the object, and once the Sukka is something forbidden to him, you can’t make him do the Issur.} However, by swearing, he says that I swear that I won’t have pleasure from the Sukka {Ran: i.e., that I won’t sit in the Sukka, and that can’t uproot his obligation to sit in the Sukka.}

19) Rava asks {Ran: not on the answer per se, but on the term of having pleasure} since Mitzvos weren't given to have pleasure from them. (Reshas says- although we said that it’s forbidden to have physical pleasure from the Mitzvah, and here he’s having pleasure from the shade; we must say that it’s not pleasure since he has a house that he could protect himself, and is only sitting in the Sukka for the Mitzvah.) Rather, we must say that the Neder was made that Konam from sitting in the Sukka. [The Ran says: it’s not something that doesn’t have substance, since we mean that he said that the Sukka is forbidden to him regarding sitting. However, Tosfos differentiates that, as long as you mention an object in your Neder, it takes effect. Although usually a Neder only forbids you to have pleasure, but you may touch the object as long as you don’t have pleasure, which is not applicable by Sukka since there’s no pleasure in a Mitzvah; that’s regularly when you didn’t specify, but here you made the Neder on this action of sitting, or a Neder from throwing a rock in the sea, it takes effect and is forbidden without pleasure.}

20) You can have a Neder within a Neder {Ran: by Naziris}, as if you say that “I’m a Nazir if I eat, and I’m a Nazir if I eat,” if he eats, he made two Naziris. However, there’s no swearing within a swearing. Thus, if he says twice “I swear I won’t eat,” he’s only Chayiv for one of them {Ran: since swearing can’t take effect on items that are already forbidden, like we said earlier.}

21) {The Ran says: there are some text that the Gemara ask on this; why do you need to make the Naziris depend on eating, since the same would apply by just saying twice that he’s a Nazir. Also, once you make it dependent on eating, he could make him have many Naziris by once saying “I’m a Nazir if I eat,” and by eating twice, by being warned between each eating. (Reshas asks: why would this be so, since he might only want one Naziris if he eats once and is not vowing a Naziris for each time he eats.) As we see that, if someone swears that he won’t eat, he’s Chayiv for each time he eats as long as he was warned between them. The Gemara answers: in truth, it was not necessary to make the Nazris depend on eating, but it only framed it this way to parallel it to the case of swearing.}

22) R’ Huna says: we only say that a Naziris takes effect on Naziris when he says I’m a Nazir today, and I’ll be a Nazir tomorrow, {Ran: since the thirtieth day of the second Naziris is an addition to the first one. Once it takes effect for that day, you need a thirty day Naziris afterwards since Naziris can’t be for less than thirty days, like anytime you make a Naziris for one day.} However, if he says twice “I’m a Nazir today,” the second one doesn’t take effect. (The case that the second swearing won’t take effect that would parallel making a Naziris for today and tomorrow [despite being simple that swearing on two separate objects that he’s Chayiv for each one] is that he swore the first one not to eat figs, and then swears not to eat figs and grapes {Ran: i.e., eat them together, and this is similar to the Naziris case that there’s overlap in the time of the first and second Naziris. The practical difference that he’s exempt from the second one (if he anyhow gets Malkos for transgressing the first one, and you can’t get Malkos for the second one for just eating grapes) if he ate both figs and grapes together, and he was only warned for the second swearing.} We need to say that he argues with Rabbah who says that you’re Chayiv for both swearings in this case.)

23) However, R’ Huna asks: if so, why doesn’t the Mishna differentiate between the cases of making the second Naziris on the same day or on the morrow {Ran: so that people wouldn’t mistake it thinking that there is no difference.}

24) Shmuel held that, even when you say twice that you’re a Nazir today, both Naziros take effect.

25) According to R’ Huna, if he made the two Neziros, if he counts the first Neziros, separates his Karbanos, and then asks a Chachum to annul his first Neziros, his keeping of Neziros can count for his second Neziros. (Granted, if he said the second one starts the next day, he didn’t get all his days of Naziros) we mean that it counts for the second Neziros besides the last day. Alternatively, we refer to a case where he accepted the two Neziros at the same time. {Ran says: since there’s no one that takes effect before the other to say that the second Neziros can’t take effect on it. The Gemara could have said like Rava later on that, even if the second one won’t take effect now, but it waits until the first one is asked by a Chachum to get annulled, and then it finds a place for it to take effect. However, the Gemara doesn’t know at this point Rava’s Halacha.}

26) According to R’ Huna, the reason why we need a Drasha on the “double Lashon” of “Nazir L’hazir” that Neziros takes effect on other Neziros, (but to Shmuel, it’s simply needed to say that the second Naziris takes effect the same way that it doesn’t take effect when it’s swearing), to tell us that you can have two Naziris take effect when you make them at the same time {Ran: that they should be considered as two separate Naziris and you need to separate Korbanos after the first thirty days and they’re not one long sixty day Neziris. Otherwise, it’s simple, and doesn’t need a Drasha.}

27) {Ran says: it seems from here that a regular Neder can’t take effect on other Nedarim since they only say that it works by a specialized Neder, I.e. Nazir. However, although a swearing can’t take effect after you made a Neder on it (since you can’t swear on things that are already forbidden to you, or that you’re already obligated to do; but only things that are voluntary for you) but a Neder can take effect on a swearing. This is true even if you make the Neder that stops you from fulfilling what you swore to do the same way that the Neder can make the object of a Mitzvah forbidden to you that you passively need to abandon doing the Mitzvah, and of course, if the Neder enforces what you swear, since now there’s a prohibition on the object that you forbid, and not only a prohibition on the person when doing it. However, you can’t say that, when you swear after a Neder, that it adds a prohibition on the person besides on the object, since Nedarim, like all Lavs, have a prohibition on the person from partaking in the object. This is also the implications from the Yerushalmi.}

28) Rava says: although there’s no swearing after one swearing, but if you asked a Chachum to annul your first swearing, the second one can now take effect in its place. {Ran says the Halacha is like Rava.}

29) The average type of vowing, if it’s a question to explain it in a way for a Neder to take effect or not, you need to be strict, but the explanations of them we can be lenient {Ran explains: he’s believed to say that he intended that a vow shouldn’t be made.} Therefore, if he says that an item is like “salted meat or libated wine,” if he explained like those to serve Hashem, the vow takes effect. If he explained like those for idols, it doesn’t take effect. If it was unqualified, it’s forbidden.

30) Although we have a Braisa that says to be lenient by a Safeik Neziris; originally we want to say that it’s R’ Elazar who says that someone doesn’t even want to get involved with anything Safeik when it comes to his money, so even if he made “all his wild and domestic animals Kodesh,” his Koy (that’s a Safeik if it’s domestic or wild) is not Kodesh, and of course he doesn’t want to get involved when it involves his body, like a Nazir. (Our Mishna would be his Rabanan who does say the Koy is Kodesh and he wants to get involved with a Safeik by his money, and he would hold the same by his body.) Although the end of the Braisa says that a Safeik Bechor is forbidden to work and to shear, since that’s not up to a person whether he wants to get involved with a Safeik, but it comes by itself.

31) However, it’s difficult from what we see that R' Elazar holds that if you have a Safeik whether the liquid itself became Tamai, you need to be stringent and treat it as being Tamai. However, if it's a Safeik whether it made another item Tamai, we assume it to be Tahor, since it's a Safeik Drabanan. Although he holds that liquid can’t become Tamai from the Torah, as we see Yossi b. Yoeizer testified that the liquid in the Mikdash's butchering area is Tahor since liquid is Tahor from the Torah {Ran: and they didn't enact to make it Tamai in the Mikdash, so not to increase Tumah there}. However, this fits well to Shmuel who says that he's only saying that it didn't make others Tamai, but the liquid itself became Tamai since it's from the Torah; but it's difficult according to Rav that says even the liquid doesn't become Tamai. {Ran explains: the Gemara feels that rabbinical Tumah shouldn’t take effect from a Safeik, although it comes by itself more than a Safeik Naziris since it’s from the Torah, although it’s coming from a person. Although R’ Elazar hold that a Koy doesn’t become Kodesh even if he wants to be involved in the Safeik, since he holds that people don’t call a Koy neither a domestic nor a wild animal.}

32) Rather, we must say that the argument between the Mishna and the Braisa if a Safeik Neder or Naziris is strict or lenient depends on the argument between R’ Shimon and R’ Yehuda if someone says “I’m a Nazir if there’s a hundred Kur in the grain pile” and he went and found that the pile was lost or stolen; R’ Shimon forbids him as a Nazir and R’ Yehuda permits him not to be a Nazir. Although we see that R’ Yehuda holds in our Mishna that we need to be strict by a Safeik Neder; we must say that Naziris is different since he won’t be able to bring Korbanos to allow him to get a haircut. {Ran says: you can’t say let him just get a haircut by bringing an Olah and Shlomim, which he could bring on a Safeik with making a condition that, if he’s not a Nazir, they’ll be voluntary; that’s only B’deived, but he can’t get a haircut L’chatchila without bringing the Chatos. Thus, there’s no real fix for a Safeik Nazir.}

33) Even if he said to be a Nazir forever, still, there’s a practical difference since, if his hair comes too heavy, he may lighten it with a razor and bring three Korbanos on it, but won’t be able to do that on a Safeik. However, if he made a Naziris Shimshon, where he can never lighten his hair by cutting it, there’s no practical difference to need to bring Korbanos, so even R’ Yehuda should agree that you should be strict by it. However, there’s a Tanna who says that R’ Yehuda’s opinion is even with a Naziris Shimshon, so it’s difficult. {Ran says: thus, we need to say that it’s a Tannaic argument what R’ Yehuda held, if a Safeik Neder is lenient or strict.}

34) R’ Ashi explains that the reason for R’ Yehuda is like how he holds in the name of R’ Tarfon that you don’t become a Nazir unless there’s a definitive Naziris made. Therefore, he’s not a Nazir unless he knows at the exact time he made it that he’ll be a Nazir. If so, he would hold this way even if the pile wasn’t lost or stolen, and the only reason the case was composed that it was lost or stolen to show the extreme of R’ Shimon that, even in that case when it’s a Safeik, he decides to be a Nazir from a Safeik.

35) If he says “I’m like a Cherem,” if he explains a Cherem to Hashem,” he’s forbidden, and if he explains “a Cherem for Kohanim,” he’s permitted. However, unqualified, he’s forbidden. The same if he says “like Trumah” if he explains a Trumah of the Lishka,” he’s forbidden, and if he explains “a Trumah from the granary,” he’s permitted. However, unqualified, he’s forbidden. However, R’ Yehuda says: in Galil, where they’re not used to Trumah of the Lishka, we can assume, when unqualified, they meant granary. However, in Judea, where they’re used to both types of Trumah, R’ Yehuda admits that we need to be strict on the Safeik.

36) R’ Elazar b. Tzodok says that a Safeik Neder is lenient {Ran: and we could have said he was the Tanna of the Braisa that a Safeik Naziris is lenient.} Therefore, he held the only time saying “a Cherem” unqualified is forbidden is in Galil when they’re not used to having Kohanim, and thus, Cherem for Kohanim, but in Judea, where both types were common, we can be lenient. {Ran says: the Halacha is like our unnamed Mishna that we need to be strict for a Safeik Neder.}

37) This, which we said, that if you explain what your meant by your Neder, you can be lenient according to the explanation; thus, if he said “a Cherem” and he explains “a Cherem of the sea” {Ran: the nets that they trap fish}, he’s permitted. The same applies if he vows like a Korban” and explains that he means like the Korbans (gifts) that they give to kings, if he says “my bones are a Korban” and he says that it referred to bones he kept in his house, and if he says that “a Konam on my wife,” and he explains that it refers to his ex-wife who he already divorced. {Ran says: this is a Chiddush in these cases where the explanations are very distant from the simple meaning, which should make it forbidden, he’s still believed.} He doesn’t even need to annul it if he’s a Talmid Chachum. However, an Am Ha’aretz that mistakes and asked for it to be annulled, we are strict on him and we don’t even allow with a simple regret, and if he transgresses it before annulling, we punish him by not allowing it annulled until the amount of days passed that he kept the Neder like he transgressed it like regular Nedarim, as we’ll say later. However, R’ Yehuda says that we do allow him to have an opening to annul it from a side issue {Ran: that’s not about the actual Neder, and also, we don’t punish him like the Tanna Kama says} but we teach him {Ran: to keep the Neder} so not to take Nedarim lightly. {Ran says: it’s only by these explanations that are very distant from the simple meaning, but for an explanation of Cherem to be “of the Kohanim,” or for Trumah to be “of the granary,” we don’t need to be strict even to Am Ha’aratzim.}

38) R’ Yehuda says: if someone transgresses his Naziris, Beis Din doesn’t allow him to annul it until it passes and keeps the Naziris for the amount of days that he transgressed it. R’ Yossi says: that’s only if it’s a short amount of days, but a long amount of days {Ran: i.e., more than thirty days}, he only needs to keep it thirty days.

39) Therefore, a Chachum who annuls it when he needs to wait is doing wrong, so he should be excommunicated. {Ran quotes Ramban: the same is true if the Chachum needs to teach the Am Ha’aretz to keep those Nedarim, (were his definition that it’s really permitted is far-fetched), if he allows it, is doing wrong, so he should be excommunicated. Tosfos brought a case where someone made a Neder from all fruit besides grains, and he transgressed it, and the rabbi annulled it right away. He claimed that this obligation to make him wait wasn’t applicable here since it’s something so difficult to keep, it will only make him stumble to transgress it again. Also, it made him weak and deterring him in doing his work for Heaven.}

40) We say someone shouldn’t be used to making Nedarim since it will bring you to transgress swearing {Ran: which is more strict since the Torah says “I will never cleanse him” on it.} Also, you shouldn’t look at your wife in her usually covered areas when she’s a Nidda {Ran: even though she has a Heter afterwards.}

41) R’ Yochanan b. Dahavai held that lame people come from a union that have anal relations {Ran: since they sin with the thigh, the thigh is smitten.} Mute people come from a union that the husband kissed her Ervah. Deaf people come from a union that they spoke at relations things that weren’t necessary for the relations {Ran: but he may speak what’s necessary for the relations to make her want it.} Blind people come from a union that the husband looked at the Ervah.

42) R’ Eliezer only had relations in middle of the night so to give time to forget all the women he saw during the day, and it shouldn’t be too close to the morning so that he shouldn’t hear the women walking in the street in the morning, so that he shouldn’t think of them. At the time of relations, he covered a Tefach and only uncovered a Tefach {Ran explains: we say that you should uncover two Tefachim when you urinate (not to soil your clothing, but here, you should only uncover one of those two Tefachim and leave the other Tefach uncovered.} Also, he did it as if he was forced by a demon {Ran explains: he did it fast as if he was in a rush like people who are possessed by demons.}

43) R’ Yochanan quote the Chachumim that the Halacha is not like R’ Yochanan b. Dahavai and one can have anal relations just like someone’s food can be prepared in any way he wants {Ran quotes Rambam: as long as he he doesn’t release his semen to go to waste.}

44) He shouldn’t “drink from this cup and think about another cup.” I.,e think about another woman, even if they’re both your wives.

45) The children of the following {Ran: that have some sin with their conception} will revolt against Hashem. Children of fear {Ran: the husband scares the wife to have relations with him}, children of rape {Ran: which are worse than the children of fear, which is not actual rape}, children of hate {Ran: so, since he hates her, we assume he’s thinking of another woman}, children of excommunication {Ran: the husband has relations with her when she’s under excommunication} children of drunkenness {Ran: and since he’s drunk, he won’t think about his wife}, children of divorced {Ran: he made up his mind to divorce her}, children of mix up {Ran: that many men had relations with her}, children of Chutzpah {Ran: she had the Chutzpah to ask for relations.} However, this is only if she asks for it explicitly, but if she just shows in her actions that she wants it, it’s a virtue and she’ll merit sons who will be scholars.