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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 1, 2023 | 讞壮 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讙

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

  • 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.

Nedarim 68

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Michelle Hagler on behalf of her daughters, Alyssa and Reagan Adelstein 鈥 鈥渨hose love of Gemara was the impetus for my own learning!鈥

A braita is brought from the school of Rabbi Yishmael to bring an alternative source for the halacha in the Mishna, that the father and the fiance both (together) annul the vows of a betrothed woman. How does he explain the verse that Raba used for his proof? How does Raba explain the verse that Rabbi Yishmael used for his proof? When a fiance annuls part of the vow, is it that he annuls half the vow and the father will come and annul the second part or is it that he weakens the vow and the father then annuls what is left of the weakened vow? Before answering the question, the Gemara explains a case in which the question was asked, i.e. what would be the ramification. A braita that explains the upcoming Mishna is brought to answer the question. The subject of the braita is cases in which the father or the fiance died – in which cases can the one who is still alive annul a vow that happened before the death of the other on his own and in which cases is this not permitted?

讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 讘讬谉 讗讬砖 诇讗砖转讜 讘讬谉 讗讘 诇讘转讜 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 讜诇转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诐 讛讬讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗讬砖 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛


The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a different source for the halakha in the mishna: The Torah states with regard to vows: 鈥淭hese are the statutes, which the Lord commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter, being in her youth, in her father鈥檚 house鈥 (Numbers 30:17). From here it is derived with regard to a betrothed young woman that her father and her husband nullify her vows. The Gemara asks: And according to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, what does he do with the words 鈥渁nd if she be to a husband鈥 (Numbers 30:7)?


诪讜拽讬诐 诇讗讬讚讱 讚专讘讗 讜专讘讗 讛讗讬 讚转谞讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讜诪专 砖讛讘注诇 诪讬驻专 谞讚专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛


The Gemara answers: According to him, he establishes it to teach the other statement of Rava: If her betrothed died without ratifying the vow, her father can nullify it on his own. The Gemara then asks: And Rava, who derives the halakha that the father and the betrothed of the young woman together nullify her vows from the phrase 鈥渁nd if she be to a husband鈥 (Numbers 30:7), what does he do with this verse that the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught as the source for the father and the betrothed nullifying the young woman鈥檚 vows? The Gemara answers: He requires that phrase: 鈥淏etween a man and his wife鈥 (Numbers 30:17), in order to say that the husband can nullify only vows that are between him and her, i.e., vows that negatively impact their marital relationship, but he cannot nullify any other type of vow.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘注诇 诪讬讙讝 讙讬讬讝 讗讜 诪拽诇讬砖 拽诇讬砖 讛讬讻讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讻讙讜谉 讚谞讚专讛 诪转专讬谉 讝讬转讬谉 讜砖诪注 讗专讜住 讜讛讬驻专 诇讛 讜讗讻诇转谞讜谉


A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a husband nullifies his betrothed鈥檚 vow, does he sever his share of the vow or does he weaken the force of the entire vow? The Gemara clarifies: Under which circumstances do we raise the dilemma, i.e., what is the practical difference between these two possibilities? In a case where she vowed not to derive benefit from two olives, and her betrothed heard and nullified the vow for her, and she ate those two olives before her father nullified the vow, there is a practical difference.


讗讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讬讙讝 讙讬讬讝 诇拽讬讬讗 讗讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪拽诇讬砖 拽诇讬砖 讗讬住讜专讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 诪讗讬


If we say that he severs his share of the vow, nullifying half of the prohibition, then one of the olives remains completely forbidden, and she is flogged for violating her vow. If we say that he weakens its force, she is not liable to be flogged, as eating the olives is now merely a prohibition that she has violated. If so, what is the ruling with regard to this question?


转讗 砖诪注 讗讬诪转讬 讗诪专讜 诪转 讛讘注诇 谞转专讜拽谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讗讘 讘讝诪谉 砖诇讗 砖诪注 讛讘注诇 拽讜讚诐 砖讬诪讜转 讗讜 砖砖诪注 讜砖转拽 讗讜 砖砖诪注 讜讛驻专 讜诪转 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖砖谞讬谞讜 诪转 讛讘注诇 谞转专讜拽谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讗讘


The Gemara now cites a lengthy baraita, ultimately stating a proof to answer the previous question. Come and hear a baraita that will resolve the dilemma: When did they say that if the husband of a betrothed young woman dies, the authority to nullify her vows reverts to the father, who can then nullify her vows on his own? This occurs in a case when the husband had not heard her vow before he died; or in a case where he heard and was silent; or where he heard and nullified it and died on the same day. This is what we learned in the mishna, concerning a case of this kind (70a): If the husband dies, the authority to nullify vows reverts to the father.


讗讘诇 讗诐 砖诪注 讜拽讬讬诐 讗讜 砖砖诪注 讜砖转拽 讜诪转 讘讬讜诐 砖诇讗讞专讬讜 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专


But if it is a case where the husband of a betrothed young woman heard and ratified the vow, or where he heard, and was silent, and died on the following day, in which case his silence is considered ratification of the vow, then the father cannot nullify the vow.


砖诪注 讗讘讬讛 讜讛驻专 诇讛 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 讘注诇 诇砖诪讜注 注讚 砖诪转 讛讗讘 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖砖谞讬谞讜 诪转 讛讗讘 诇讗 谞转专讜拽谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讘注诇 砖诪注 讘注诇讛 讜讛驻专 诇讛 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 讛讗讘 诇砖诪讜注 注讚 砖诪转 讛讘注诇 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖砖谞讬谞讜 诪转 讛讘注诇 谞转专讜拽谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讗讘


If her father heard or was made aware of the vow and nullified it for her but the husband did not manage to hear of the vow before the father died, this is what we learned in the same mishna (70a): If the father dies, the authority over her vows does not revert to the husband, i.e., a young woman鈥檚 betrothed cannot nullify her vows alone, without the father. If her husband heard the vow and nullified it for her, and the father did not manage to hear of the vow before the husband died, this is what we learned in the mishna: If the husband dies, the authority reverts to the father.


砖诪注 讘注诇讛 讜讛驻专 诇讛 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 讛讗讘 诇砖诪讜注 注讚 砖诪转 讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 砖讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 诪讬驻专 讗诇讗 讘砖讜转驻讜转


If her husband heard and nullified the vow for her, and the father did not manage to hear of the vow before he died, the husband cannot nullify it, although she no longer has a father, as the husband can nullify vows only in partnership with the father.

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

  • 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.

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 68: A Father and a Husband

When a man revokes his betrothed's vow, is he removing the vow or weakening it? How does the father's revoking...

Nedarim 68

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 68

讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 转谞讗 讘讬谉 讗讬砖 诇讗砖转讜 讘讬谉 讗讘 诇讘转讜 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 讜诇转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讗诐 讛讬讜 转讛讬讛 诇讗讬砖 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛


The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a different source for the halakha in the mishna: The Torah states with regard to vows: 鈥淭hese are the statutes, which the Lord commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter, being in her youth, in her father鈥檚 house鈥 (Numbers 30:17). From here it is derived with regard to a betrothed young woman that her father and her husband nullify her vows. The Gemara asks: And according to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, what does he do with the words 鈥渁nd if she be to a husband鈥 (Numbers 30:7)?


诪讜拽讬诐 诇讗讬讚讱 讚专讘讗 讜专讘讗 讛讗讬 讚转谞讬 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 诪讗讬 注讘讬讚 诇讬讛 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讜诪专 砖讛讘注诇 诪讬驻专 谞讚专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛


The Gemara answers: According to him, he establishes it to teach the other statement of Rava: If her betrothed died without ratifying the vow, her father can nullify it on his own. The Gemara then asks: And Rava, who derives the halakha that the father and the betrothed of the young woman together nullify her vows from the phrase 鈥渁nd if she be to a husband鈥 (Numbers 30:7), what does he do with this verse that the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught as the source for the father and the betrothed nullifying the young woman鈥檚 vows? The Gemara answers: He requires that phrase: 鈥淏etween a man and his wife鈥 (Numbers 30:17), in order to say that the husband can nullify only vows that are between him and her, i.e., vows that negatively impact their marital relationship, but he cannot nullify any other type of vow.


讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讘注诇 诪讬讙讝 讙讬讬讝 讗讜 诪拽诇讬砖 拽诇讬砖 讛讬讻讗 拽讗 诪讬讘注讬讗 诇谉 讻讙讜谉 讚谞讚专讛 诪转专讬谉 讝讬转讬谉 讜砖诪注 讗专讜住 讜讛讬驻专 诇讛 讜讗讻诇转谞讜谉


A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a husband nullifies his betrothed鈥檚 vow, does he sever his share of the vow or does he weaken the force of the entire vow? The Gemara clarifies: Under which circumstances do we raise the dilemma, i.e., what is the practical difference between these two possibilities? In a case where she vowed not to derive benefit from two olives, and her betrothed heard and nullified the vow for her, and she ate those two olives before her father nullified the vow, there is a practical difference.


讗讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪讬讙讝 讙讬讬讝 诇拽讬讬讗 讗讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诪拽诇讬砖 拽诇讬砖 讗讬住讜专讗 讘注诇诪讗 讛讜讗 诪讗讬


If we say that he severs his share of the vow, nullifying half of the prohibition, then one of the olives remains completely forbidden, and she is flogged for violating her vow. If we say that he weakens its force, she is not liable to be flogged, as eating the olives is now merely a prohibition that she has violated. If so, what is the ruling with regard to this question?


转讗 砖诪注 讗讬诪转讬 讗诪专讜 诪转 讛讘注诇 谞转专讜拽谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讗讘 讘讝诪谉 砖诇讗 砖诪注 讛讘注诇 拽讜讚诐 砖讬诪讜转 讗讜 砖砖诪注 讜砖转拽 讗讜 砖砖诪注 讜讛驻专 讜诪转 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖砖谞讬谞讜 诪转 讛讘注诇 谞转专讜拽谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讗讘


The Gemara now cites a lengthy baraita, ultimately stating a proof to answer the previous question. Come and hear a baraita that will resolve the dilemma: When did they say that if the husband of a betrothed young woman dies, the authority to nullify her vows reverts to the father, who can then nullify her vows on his own? This occurs in a case when the husband had not heard her vow before he died; or in a case where he heard and was silent; or where he heard and nullified it and died on the same day. This is what we learned in the mishna, concerning a case of this kind (70a): If the husband dies, the authority to nullify vows reverts to the father.


讗讘诇 讗诐 砖诪注 讜拽讬讬诐 讗讜 砖砖诪注 讜砖转拽 讜诪转 讘讬讜诐 砖诇讗讞专讬讜 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专


But if it is a case where the husband of a betrothed young woman heard and ratified the vow, or where he heard, and was silent, and died on the following day, in which case his silence is considered ratification of the vow, then the father cannot nullify the vow.


砖诪注 讗讘讬讛 讜讛驻专 诇讛 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 讘注诇 诇砖诪讜注 注讚 砖诪转 讛讗讘 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖砖谞讬谞讜 诪转 讛讗讘 诇讗 谞转专讜拽谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讘注诇 砖诪注 讘注诇讛 讜讛驻专 诇讛 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 讛讗讘 诇砖诪讜注 注讚 砖诪转 讛讘注诇 讝讜 讛讬讗 砖砖谞讬谞讜 诪转 讛讘注诇 谞转专讜拽谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讗讘


If her father heard or was made aware of the vow and nullified it for her but the husband did not manage to hear of the vow before the father died, this is what we learned in the same mishna (70a): If the father dies, the authority over her vows does not revert to the husband, i.e., a young woman鈥檚 betrothed cannot nullify her vows alone, without the father. If her husband heard the vow and nullified it for her, and the father did not manage to hear of the vow before the husband died, this is what we learned in the mishna: If the husband dies, the authority reverts to the father.


砖诪注 讘注诇讛 讜讛驻专 诇讛 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 讛讗讘 诇砖诪讜注 注讚 砖诪转 讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 砖讗讬谉 讛讘注诇 诪讬驻专 讗诇讗 讘砖讜转驻讜转


If her husband heard and nullified the vow for her, and the father did not manage to hear of the vow before he died, the husband cannot nullify it, although she no longer has a father, as the husband can nullify vows only in partnership with the father.

Scroll To Top