Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

July 30, 2015 | ื™ืดื“ ื‘ืื‘ ืชืฉืขืดื”

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Nedarim 67

ื”ืคืจ ื”ืื‘ ื•ืœื ื”ืคืจ ื”ื‘ืขืœ ื”ืคืจ ื”ื‘ืขืœ ื•ืœื ื”ืคืจ ื”ืื‘ ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืคืจ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉืงื™ื™ื ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ

If the father nullified her vow and the husband did not nullify it, or if the husband nullified it and the father did not nullify it, then the vow is not nullified. And needless to say, it is not nullified if one of them ratified the vow.

ื’ืžืณ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืจื™ืฉื ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื‘ืขืœื” ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื” ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืื• ืื‘ื™ื” ืื• ื‘ืขืœื” ืงืชื ื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

GEMARA: The mishna states that if the father nullified her vow and the husband did not nullify it, or if the husband nullified it and the father did not nullify it, then the vow is not nullified. The Gemara asks: Is this not the same as the first clause of the mishna, which states: Her father and her husband nullify her vows? The Gemara answers: The second clause is necessary, lest you say: The mishna is teaching that either her father or her husband can nullify her vows, but there is no need for both of them to do so, which is also a possible interpretation of the Hebrew phrase used. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that it means that both of them must nullify the vow.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉืงื™ื™ื ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžื™ืชื ื ื”ืฉืชื ื™ืฉ ืœื•ืžืจ ื”ืคืจ ื–ื” ื‘ืœื ื–ื” ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ืงื™ื™ื ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืชื ื™

At the end of the mishna it is stated: And needless to say, it is not nullified if one of them ratified the vow. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach this? Now, it was stated that if one of them nullified the vow without the other, it is nothing, her vow is not nullified. If one of them ratified it, why do I need it to state that her vow is not nullified? Is it necessary to teach this?

ื›ื™ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœื™ื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ื”ืคืจ ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ื•ืงื™ื™ื ืื—ื“ ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื”ืžืงื™ื™ื ื•ื ืฉืืœ ืขืœ ื”ืงืžืชื• ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืžืื™ ื“ืื•ืงื™ ื”ื ืขืงืจื™ื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the mishna to mention this in a case where one of them nullified the vow and the other one ratified it, and the one who ratified the womanโ€™s vow retracted and requested dissolution of his ratification from a halakhic authority, who dissolved it. Lest you say: That which he ratified is what he uprooted, by asking the halakhic authority to dissolve his ratification, and therefore the vow is no more, the mishna teaches us that they both must nullify it together.

ื•ื ืขืจื” ื”ืžืื•ืจืกื” ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื‘ืขืœื” ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื” ืžื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืื ื”ื™ื• ืชื”ื™ื” ืœืื™ืฉ ื•ื ื“ืจื™ื” ืขืœื™ื” ืžื›ืืŸ ืœื ืขืจื” ื”ืžืื•ืจืกื” ืฉืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื‘ืขืœื” ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื” ืื™ืžื ื”ืื™ ืงืจื ื‘ื ืฉื•ืื” ื›ืชื™ื‘

ยง The mishna teaches: And with regard to a betrothed young woman, her father and her husband nullify her vows. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? Since she is still in her fatherโ€™s house, he should be authorized to nullify her vows by himself. Rabba said: The verse states: โ€œAnd if she be to a husband, and her vows are upon herโ€ฆBut if her husband disallows her on the day that he hears itโ€ (Numbers 30:7โ€“9). From here can be derived with regard to a betrothed young woman that her father and her husband nullify her vows. The Gemara asks: Is it not possible to say that this verse is written with regard to a married woman?

ืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื ืฉื•ืื” ืงืจื ืื—ืจื™ื ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืื ื‘ื™ืช ืื™ืฉื” ื ื“ืจื” ืื™ืžื ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื‘ื ืฉื•ืื” ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืชืจื™ ืงืจืื™ ื‘ื ืฉื•ืื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืžื™ืคืจ ื‘ืงื•ื“ืžื™ืŸ

The Gemara answers: No, if you say that it is written due to a need to teach the halakha of a married woman, it cannot be, as a different verse is written for that purpose: โ€œAnd if a woman vowed in her husbandโ€™s houseโ€ (Numbers 30:11). The earlier verses therefore refer to a betrothed young woman, who is not yet in her husbandโ€™s house. The Gemara suggests: Say that both sets of verses are written with regard to a married woman. And if you would say: Why do I need two verses written with regard to a married woman? It is to say that the husband cannot nullify earlier vows made before her marriage but only those made โ€œin her husbandโ€™s house.โ€

ื•ืœืื• ืžืžื™ืœื ืฉืžืขืช ืžื™ื ื”

The Gemara rejects this, stating: And do you not learn it by itself, from the words โ€œAnd if she vowed in her husbandโ€™s houseโ€ (Numbers 30:11)? As the verse indicates that her husband can nullify only vows made after the couple is fully married, and not those made beforehand, the earlier verse is unnecessary.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื“ื”ื•ื™ื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืžืฉืžืข

The Gemara suggests an alternative method of demonstrating that the first verse is referring to a betrothed woman: Or if you wish, say that the words โ€œand if she be to a husbandโ€ (Numbers 30:7) must be referring to a betrothed woman, since the usage of the term โ€œshe beโ€ indicates betrothal rather than marriage.

ืื™ืžื ืื‘ ืœื—ื•ื“ื™ื” ืžื™ืคืจ ืื ื›ืŸ ื•ืืกืจื” ืืกืจ ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื™ื ื™ื ืื•ืชื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื”ืฉืชื ื™ืฉ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืืจื•ืก ืžื™ืคืจ ืื‘ ืœื—ื•ื“ื™ื” ืฉืœื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืืจื•ืก ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื

The Gemara proposes: Say that a father can nullify the vows of his betrothed daughter on his own. The Gemara responds: If so, why do I need the verse to teach that in a case where she binds herself with a bond in her fatherโ€™s house, her father can disallow her, i.e., nullify her vow (see Numbers 30:4โ€“6). Now when it can be said that in the presence of a betrothed, i.e., when she is betrothed, the father nullifies his daughterโ€™s vows on his own, is it necessary to state that he can do so where there is no betrothed? Therefore, the fact that the Torah specifically states that the father nullifies her vows by himself when she is not betrothed indicates that he does not have that power when she is betrothed.

ืื™ืžื ืื‘ ืœื™ื‘ืขื™ ืืจื•ืก ื•ืืจื•ืก ืœื—ื•ื“ื™ื” ืžื™ืคืจ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืื‘ ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื“ืื™ ื”ืงื™ื ื”ืงื™ื

The Gemara suggests: Say that the father requires the betrothedโ€™s participation in order to nullify his daughterโ€™s vows but that the betrothed can nullify them on his own. And if you would say: If the womanโ€™s betrothed can nullify them on his own, why do I need the reference to the father that the Merciful One writes with regard to the vows of a betrothed young woman, implying that the participation of the father is necessary to nullify her vows. One can explain that the need to mention the father is necessary in order to teach us that if the father ratified the vow, it is ratified, and her betrothed can no longer nullify it.

ืื ื›ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ืื™ืฉื” ื ื“ืจื” ืœืžืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื•ืžื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืื‘ ืืจื•ืก ืžื™ืคืจ ืœื—ื•ื“ื™ื” ืฉืœื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืื‘ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If so, for what purpose did the Torah write โ€œAnd if she vowed in her husbandโ€™s houseโ€ (Numbers 30:11), which indicates that a married womanโ€™s husband nullifies her vows on his own? That could be derived by an a fortiori inference: If in the presence of the father, a betrothed man nevertheless nullifies her vows on his own, then when she is no longer in the presence of the father, i.e., she is married and no longer subject to his authority, is it necessary to state that her husband nullifies her vows on his own?

ืื™ืžื ืื ื‘ื™ืช ืื™ืฉื” ื ื“ืจื” ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืžื™ืคืจ ื‘ืงื•ื“ืžื™ืŸ

The Gemara suggests: Say that the betrothed can nullify her vows by himself, and the words โ€œAnd if she vowed in her husbandโ€™s houseโ€ (Numbers 30:11) are in fact not necessary to teach that a fully married husband can nullify her vows on his own. Rather, they come to say, i.e., to teach, that the husband cannot nullify vows that preceded the betrothal.

ื•ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืืจื•ืก ืžื™ืคืจ ื‘ืงื•ื“ืžื™ืŸ

The Gemara answers: But from that, i.e., from the fact that the verse precludes only the full-fledged husband from nullifying vows that preceded the betrothal, one may infer that the betrothed can nullify by himself vows that preceded the betrothal. Such a conclusion is unreasonable, as the fully married man has greater authority over her than the betrothed.

ืืœื ืœืื• ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื•ืชืคื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืื‘

Rather, is it not the case that the betrothed cannot nullify vows on his own, and his ability to do so is only because of his partnership with the father?

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nedarim 67

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 67

ื”ืคืจ ื”ืื‘ ื•ืœื ื”ืคืจ ื”ื‘ืขืœ ื”ืคืจ ื”ื‘ืขืœ ื•ืœื ื”ืคืจ ื”ืื‘ ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืคืจ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉืงื™ื™ื ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ

If the father nullified her vow and the husband did not nullify it, or if the husband nullified it and the father did not nullify it, then the vow is not nullified. And needless to say, it is not nullified if one of them ratified the vow.

ื’ืžืณ ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืจื™ืฉื ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื‘ืขืœื” ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื” ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืื• ืื‘ื™ื” ืื• ื‘ืขืœื” ืงืชื ื™ ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ

GEMARA: The mishna states that if the father nullified her vow and the husband did not nullify it, or if the husband nullified it and the father did not nullify it, then the vow is not nullified. The Gemara asks: Is this not the same as the first clause of the mishna, which states: Her father and her husband nullify her vows? The Gemara answers: The second clause is necessary, lest you say: The mishna is teaching that either her father or her husband can nullify her vows, but there is no need for both of them to do so, which is also a possible interpretation of the Hebrew phrase used. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that it means that both of them must nullify the vow.

ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฆืจื™ืš ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉืงื™ื™ื ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžื™ืชื ื ื”ืฉืชื ื™ืฉ ืœื•ืžืจ ื”ืคืจ ื–ื” ื‘ืœื ื–ื” ื•ืœื ื›ืœื•ื ืงื™ื™ื ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืฆืจื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืชื ื™

At the end of the mishna it is stated: And needless to say, it is not nullified if one of them ratified the vow. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach this? Now, it was stated that if one of them nullified the vow without the other, it is nothing, her vow is not nullified. If one of them ratified it, why do I need it to state that her vow is not nullified? Is it necessary to teach this?

ื›ื™ ืื™ืฆื˜ืจื™ืš ืœื™ื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ื”ืคืจ ืื—ื“ ืžื”ืŸ ื•ืงื™ื™ื ืื—ื“ ื•ื—ื–ืจ ื”ืžืงื™ื™ื ื•ื ืฉืืœ ืขืœ ื”ืงืžืชื• ืžื”ื• ื“ืชื™ืžื ืžืื™ ื“ืื•ืงื™ ื”ื ืขืงืจื™ื” ืงื ืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ื“ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ืฉื ื™ื”ื ื‘ื‘ืช ืื—ืช

The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the mishna to mention this in a case where one of them nullified the vow and the other one ratified it, and the one who ratified the womanโ€™s vow retracted and requested dissolution of his ratification from a halakhic authority, who dissolved it. Lest you say: That which he ratified is what he uprooted, by asking the halakhic authority to dissolve his ratification, and therefore the vow is no more, the mishna teaches us that they both must nullify it together.

ื•ื ืขืจื” ื”ืžืื•ืจืกื” ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื‘ืขืœื” ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื” ืžื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืื ื”ื™ื• ืชื”ื™ื” ืœืื™ืฉ ื•ื ื“ืจื™ื” ืขืœื™ื” ืžื›ืืŸ ืœื ืขืจื” ื”ืžืื•ืจืกื” ืฉืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื‘ืขืœื” ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื” ืื™ืžื ื”ืื™ ืงืจื ื‘ื ืฉื•ืื” ื›ืชื™ื‘

ยง The mishna teaches: And with regard to a betrothed young woman, her father and her husband nullify her vows. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? Since she is still in her fatherโ€™s house, he should be authorized to nullify her vows by himself. Rabba said: The verse states: โ€œAnd if she be to a husband, and her vows are upon herโ€ฆBut if her husband disallows her on the day that he hears itโ€ (Numbers 30:7โ€“9). From here can be derived with regard to a betrothed young woman that her father and her husband nullify her vows. The Gemara asks: Is it not possible to say that this verse is written with regard to a married woman?

ืื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื ืฉื•ืื” ืงืจื ืื—ืจื™ื ื ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ืื ื‘ื™ืช ืื™ืฉื” ื ื“ืจื” ืื™ืžื ืชืจื•ื™ื™ื”ื• ื‘ื ืฉื•ืื” ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืชืจื™ ืงืจืื™ ื‘ื ืฉื•ืื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžื™ืžืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืžื™ืคืจ ื‘ืงื•ื“ืžื™ืŸ

The Gemara answers: No, if you say that it is written due to a need to teach the halakha of a married woman, it cannot be, as a different verse is written for that purpose: โ€œAnd if a woman vowed in her husbandโ€™s houseโ€ (Numbers 30:11). The earlier verses therefore refer to a betrothed young woman, who is not yet in her husbandโ€™s house. The Gemara suggests: Say that both sets of verses are written with regard to a married woman. And if you would say: Why do I need two verses written with regard to a married woman? It is to say that the husband cannot nullify earlier vows made before her marriage but only those made โ€œin her husbandโ€™s house.โ€

ื•ืœืื• ืžืžื™ืœื ืฉืžืขืช ืžื™ื ื”

The Gemara rejects this, stating: And do you not learn it by itself, from the words โ€œAnd if she vowed in her husbandโ€™s houseโ€ (Numbers 30:11)? As the verse indicates that her husband can nullify only vows made after the couple is fully married, and not those made beforehand, the earlier verse is unnecessary.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ืช ืื™ืžื ื“ื”ื•ื™ื” ืงื“ื•ืฉื™ืŸ ืžืฉืžืข

The Gemara suggests an alternative method of demonstrating that the first verse is referring to a betrothed woman: Or if you wish, say that the words โ€œand if she be to a husbandโ€ (Numbers 30:7) must be referring to a betrothed woman, since the usage of the term โ€œshe beโ€ indicates betrothal rather than marriage.

ืื™ืžื ืื‘ ืœื—ื•ื“ื™ื” ืžื™ืคืจ ืื ื›ืŸ ื•ืืกืจื” ืืกืจ ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื™ื ื™ื ืื•ืชื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ื”ืฉืชื ื™ืฉ ืœื•ืžืจ ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืืจื•ืก ืžื™ืคืจ ืื‘ ืœื—ื•ื“ื™ื” ืฉืœื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืืจื•ืก ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื

The Gemara proposes: Say that a father can nullify the vows of his betrothed daughter on his own. The Gemara responds: If so, why do I need the verse to teach that in a case where she binds herself with a bond in her fatherโ€™s house, her father can disallow her, i.e., nullify her vow (see Numbers 30:4โ€“6). Now when it can be said that in the presence of a betrothed, i.e., when she is betrothed, the father nullifies his daughterโ€™s vows on his own, is it necessary to state that he can do so where there is no betrothed? Therefore, the fact that the Torah specifically states that the father nullifies her vows by himself when she is not betrothed indicates that he does not have that power when she is betrothed.

ืื™ืžื ืื‘ ืœื™ื‘ืขื™ ืืจื•ืก ื•ืืจื•ืก ืœื—ื•ื“ื™ื” ืžื™ืคืจ ื•ื›ื™ ืชื™ืžื ืื‘ ื“ื›ืชื‘ ืจื—ืžื ื ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ ืœื™ื” ื“ืื™ ื”ืงื™ื ื”ืงื™ื

The Gemara suggests: Say that the father requires the betrothedโ€™s participation in order to nullify his daughterโ€™s vows but that the betrothed can nullify them on his own. And if you would say: If the womanโ€™s betrothed can nullify them on his own, why do I need the reference to the father that the Merciful One writes with regard to the vows of a betrothed young woman, implying that the participation of the father is necessary to nullify her vows. One can explain that the need to mention the father is necessary in order to teach us that if the father ratified the vow, it is ratified, and her betrothed can no longer nullify it.

ืื ื›ืŸ ื‘ื™ืช ืื™ืฉื” ื ื“ืจื” ืœืžืื™ ื›ืชื‘ ืงืœ ื•ื—ื•ืžืจ ื•ืžื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืื‘ ืืจื•ืก ืžื™ืคืจ ืœื—ื•ื“ื™ื” ืฉืœื ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืื‘ ืžื™ื‘ืขื™ื

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If so, for what purpose did the Torah write โ€œAnd if she vowed in her husbandโ€™s houseโ€ (Numbers 30:11), which indicates that a married womanโ€™s husband nullifies her vows on his own? That could be derived by an a fortiori inference: If in the presence of the father, a betrothed man nevertheless nullifies her vows on his own, then when she is no longer in the presence of the father, i.e., she is married and no longer subject to his authority, is it necessary to state that her husband nullifies her vows on his own?

ืื™ืžื ืื ื‘ื™ืช ืื™ืฉื” ื ื“ืจื” ืœื•ืžืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืžื™ืคืจ ื‘ืงื•ื“ืžื™ืŸ

The Gemara suggests: Say that the betrothed can nullify her vows by himself, and the words โ€œAnd if she vowed in her husbandโ€™s houseโ€ (Numbers 30:11) are in fact not necessary to teach that a fully married husband can nullify her vows on his own. Rather, they come to say, i.e., to teach, that the husband cannot nullify vows that preceded the betrothal.

ื•ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืืจื•ืก ืžื™ืคืจ ื‘ืงื•ื“ืžื™ืŸ

The Gemara answers: But from that, i.e., from the fact that the verse precludes only the full-fledged husband from nullifying vows that preceded the betrothal, one may infer that the betrothed can nullify by himself vows that preceded the betrothal. Such a conclusion is unreasonable, as the fully married man has greater authority over her than the betrothed.

ืืœื ืœืื• ืžืฉื•ื ืฉื•ืชืคื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืื‘

Rather, is it not the case that the betrothed cannot nullify vows on his own, and his ability to do so is only because of his partnership with the father?

Scroll To Top