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

Today's Daf Yomi

December 31, 2022 | 讝壮 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讙

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Nedarim 67 – Shabbat December 31

This is the daf for Shabbat. For Friday鈥檚 daf please click here.

When a woman is betrothed, both her father and her finance together can annul her vows. From where is this derived? Raba learns it from a verse in Bamidbar 30:7.聽 The Gemara raises three difficulties against his proof, but resolves them, while analyzing the three sections in that chapter regarding the annulment of a woman’s vows at different stages of her life.

讛驻专 讛讗讘 讜诇讗 讛驻专 讛讘注诇 讛驻专 讛讘注诇 讜诇讗 讛驻专 讛讗讘 讗讬谞讜 诪讜驻专 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 砖拽讬讬诐 讗讞讚 诪讛谉

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.

讙诪壮 讛讬讬谞讜 专讬砖讗 讗讘讬讛 讜讘注诇讛 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讜 讗讘讬讛 讗讜 讘注诇讛 拽转谞讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 砖拽讬讬诐 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 讛砖转讗 讬砖 诇讜诪专 讛驻专 讝讛 讘诇讗 讝讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 拽讬讬诐 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬转谞讬

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?

讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讛驻专 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜拽讬讬诐 讗讞讚 讜讞讝专 讛诪拽讬讬诐 讜谞砖讗诇 注诇 讛拽诪转讜 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讗讬 讚讗讜拽讬 讛讗 注拽专讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪驻讬专讬谉 砖谞讬讛诐 讘讘转 讗讞转

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 woman鈥檚 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.

讜谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讗讘讬讛 讜讘注诇讛 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬讛 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗讬砖 讜谞讚专讬讛 注诇讬讛 诪讻讗谉 诇谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 砖讗讘讬讛 讜讘注诇讛 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬讛 讗讬诪讗 讛讗讬 拽专讗 讘谞砖讜讗讛 讻转讬讘

搂 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 father鈥檚 house, he should be authorized to nullify her vows by himself. Rabba said: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if she be to a husband, and her vows are upon her鈥But if her husband disallows her on the day that he hears it鈥 (Numbers 30:7鈥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?

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 谞砖讜讗讛 拽专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讻转讬讘 讜讗诐 讘讬转 讗讬砖讛 谞讚专讛 讗讬诪讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘谞砖讜讗讛 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讘谞砖讜讗讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 砖讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 诪讬驻专 讘拽讜讚诪讬谉

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: 鈥淎nd if a woman vowed in her husband鈥檚 house鈥 (Numbers 30:11). The earlier verses therefore refer to a betrothed young woman, who is not yet in her husband鈥檚 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 鈥渋n her husband鈥檚 house.鈥

讜诇讗讜 诪诪讬诇讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara rejects this, stating: And do you not learn it by itself, from the words 鈥淎nd if she vowed in her husband鈥檚 house鈥 (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.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讛讜讬讛 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诪砖诪注

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 鈥渁nd if she be to a husband鈥 (Numbers 30:7) must be referring to a betrothed woman, since the usage of the term 鈥渟he be鈥 indicates betrothal rather than marriage.

讗讬诪讗 讗讘 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诪讬驻专 讗诐 讻谉 讜讗住专讛 讗住专 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讬谞讬讗 讗讜转讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛砖转讗 讬砖 诇讜诪专 讘诪拽讜诐 讗专讜住 诪讬驻专 讗讘 诇讞讜讚讬讛 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讗专讜住 诪讬讘注讬讗

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 father鈥檚 house, her father can disallow her, i.e., nullify her vow (see Numbers 30:4鈥6). Now when it can be said that in the presence of a betrothed, i.e., when she is betrothed, the father nullifies his daughter鈥檚 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.

讗讬诪讗 讗讘 诇讬讘注讬 讗专讜住 讜讗专讜住 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诪讬驻专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讘 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讚讗讬 讛拽讬诐 讛拽讬诐

The Gemara suggests: Say that the father requires the betrothed鈥檚 participation in order to nullify his daughter鈥檚 vows but that the betrothed can nullify them on his own. And if you would say: If the woman鈥檚 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.

讗诐 讻谉 讘讬转 讗讬砖讛 谞讚专讛 诇诪讗讬 讻转讘 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘 讗专讜住 诪讬驻专 诇讞讜讚讬讛 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘 诪讬讘注讬讗

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If so, for what purpose did the Torah write 鈥淎nd if she vowed in her husband鈥檚 house鈥 (Numbers 30:11), which indicates that a married woman鈥檚 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?

讗讬诪讗 讗诐 讘讬转 讗讬砖讛 谞讚专讛 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 诪讬驻专 讘拽讜讚诪讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Say that the betrothed can nullify her vows by himself, and the words 鈥淎nd if she vowed in her husband鈥檚 house鈥 (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.

讜诪讬谞讬讛 讗专讜住 诪讬驻专 讘拽讜讚诪讬谉

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.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讜转驻讜转讬讛 讚讗讘

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?

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

on second thought thumbnail

The Father, the Husband and a Woman’s Vows – On Second Thought 3

Breaking a woman's vow: when? and why? On Second Thought: Delving Into the Sugya with Rabbanit Yafit Clymer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MlEg_uw6Ex8  
learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nedarim: 64-69 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn the ninth chapter of Masechet Nedarim. We will learn the concept of 鈥渇inding an opening...
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 67: Revoking a Young Woman’s Vows

Another quick December 31 request for support for Talking Talmud. || Introducing the halakhit pertaining to a husband and father...

Nedarim 67 – Shabbat December 31

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 67 – Shabbat December 31

讛驻专 讛讗讘 讜诇讗 讛驻专 讛讘注诇 讛驻专 讛讘注诇 讜诇讗 讛驻专 讛讗讘 讗讬谞讜 诪讜驻专 讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 砖拽讬讬诐 讗讞讚 诪讛谉

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.

讙诪壮 讛讬讬谞讜 专讬砖讗 讗讘讬讛 讜讘注诇讛 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬讛 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 讗讜 讗讘讬讛 讗讜 讘注诇讛 拽转谞讬 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉

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.

讜讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讜诪专 砖拽讬讬诐 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬转谞讗 讛砖转讗 讬砖 诇讜诪专 讛驻专 讝讛 讘诇讗 讝讛 讜诇讗 讻诇讜诐 拽讬讬诐 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 爪专讬讻讗 诇诪讬转谞讬

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?

讻讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讬讛 讻讙讜谉 讚讛驻专 讗讞讚 诪讛谉 讜拽讬讬诐 讗讞讚 讜讞讝专 讛诪拽讬讬诐 讜谞砖讗诇 注诇 讛拽诪转讜 诪讛讜 讚转讬诪讗 诪讗讬 讚讗讜拽讬 讛讗 注拽专讬讛 拽讗 诪砖诪注 诇谉 讚诪驻讬专讬谉 砖谞讬讛诐 讘讘转 讗讞转

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 woman鈥檚 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.

讜谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讗讘讬讛 讜讘注诇讛 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬讛 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讗诪专 拽专讗 讜讗诐 讛讬讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗讬砖 讜谞讚专讬讛 注诇讬讛 诪讻讗谉 诇谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 砖讗讘讬讛 讜讘注诇讛 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬讛 讗讬诪讗 讛讗讬 拽专讗 讘谞砖讜讗讛 讻转讬讘

搂 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 father鈥檚 house, he should be authorized to nullify her vows by himself. Rabba said: The verse states: 鈥淎nd if she be to a husband, and her vows are upon her鈥But if her husband disallows her on the day that he hears it鈥 (Numbers 30:7鈥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?

讗讬 诪砖讜诐 谞砖讜讗讛 拽专讗 讗讞专讬谞讗 讻转讬讘 讜讗诐 讘讬转 讗讬砖讛 谞讚专讛 讗讬诪讗 转专讜讬讬讛讜 讘谞砖讜讗讛 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 转专讬 拽专讗讬 讘谞砖讜讗讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 砖讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 诪讬驻专 讘拽讜讚诪讬谉

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: 鈥淎nd if a woman vowed in her husband鈥檚 house鈥 (Numbers 30:11). The earlier verses therefore refer to a betrothed young woman, who is not yet in her husband鈥檚 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 鈥渋n her husband鈥檚 house.鈥

讜诇讗讜 诪诪讬诇讗 砖诪注转 诪讬谞讛

The Gemara rejects this, stating: And do you not learn it by itself, from the words 鈥淎nd if she vowed in her husband鈥檚 house鈥 (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.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讚讛讜讬讛 拽讚讜砖讬谉 诪砖诪注

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 鈥渁nd if she be to a husband鈥 (Numbers 30:7) must be referring to a betrothed woman, since the usage of the term 鈥渟he be鈥 indicates betrothal rather than marriage.

讗讬诪讗 讗讘 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诪讬驻专 讗诐 讻谉 讜讗住专讛 讗住专 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 讬谞讬讗 讗讜转讛 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛砖转讗 讬砖 诇讜诪专 讘诪拽讜诐 讗专讜住 诪讬驻专 讗讘 诇讞讜讚讬讛 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讗专讜住 诪讬讘注讬讗

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 father鈥檚 house, her father can disallow her, i.e., nullify her vow (see Numbers 30:4鈥6). Now when it can be said that in the presence of a betrothed, i.e., when she is betrothed, the father nullifies his daughter鈥檚 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.

讗讬诪讗 讗讘 诇讬讘注讬 讗专讜住 讜讗专讜住 诇讞讜讚讬讛 诪讬驻专 讜讻讬 转讬诪讗 讗讘 讚讻转讘 专讞诪谞讗 诇诪讛 诇讬 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讚讗讬 讛拽讬诐 讛拽讬诐

The Gemara suggests: Say that the father requires the betrothed鈥檚 participation in order to nullify his daughter鈥檚 vows but that the betrothed can nullify them on his own. And if you would say: If the woman鈥檚 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.

讗诐 讻谉 讘讬转 讗讬砖讛 谞讚专讛 诇诪讗讬 讻转讘 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜诪讛 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘 讗专讜住 诪讬驻专 诇讞讜讚讬讛 砖诇讗 讘诪拽讜诐 讗讘 诪讬讘注讬讗

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If so, for what purpose did the Torah write 鈥淎nd if she vowed in her husband鈥檚 house鈥 (Numbers 30:11), which indicates that a married woman鈥檚 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?

讗讬诪讗 讗诐 讘讬转 讗讬砖讛 谞讚专讛 诇讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 诪讬驻专 讘拽讜讚诪讬谉

The Gemara suggests: Say that the betrothed can nullify her vows by himself, and the words 鈥淎nd if she vowed in her husband鈥檚 house鈥 (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.

讜诪讬谞讬讛 讗专讜住 诪讬驻专 讘拽讜讚诪讬谉

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.

讗诇讗 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 砖讜转驻讜转讬讛 讚讗讘

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