Today's Daf Yomi
January 1, 2023 | ח׳ בטבת תשפ״ג
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat 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
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?
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Podcast (דף-יומי-לנשים): Play in new window | Download
דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא בין איש לאשתו בין אב לבתו מכאן לנערה המאורסה שאביה ובעלה מפירין נדריה ולתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל אם היו תהיה לאיש מאי עביד ליה
The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a different source for the halakha in the mishna: The Torah states with regard to vows: “These 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’s house” (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 “and if she be to a husband” (Numbers 30:7)?
מוקים לאידך דרבא ורבא האי דתני דבי רבי ישמעאל מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לומר שהבעל מיפר נדרים שבינו לבינה
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 “and if she be to a husband” (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’s vows? The Gemara answers: He requires that phrase: “Between a man and his wife” (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.
איבעיא להו בעל מיגז גייז או מקליש קליש היכא קא מיבעיא לן כגון דנדרה מתרין זיתין ושמע ארוס והיפר לה ואכלתנון
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a husband nullifies his betrothed’s 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.
אי אמרינן מיגז גייז לקייא אי אמרינן מקליש קליש איסורא בעלמא הוא מאי
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?
תא שמע אימתי אמרו מת הבעל נתרוקנה רשות לאב בזמן שלא שמע הבעל קודם שימות או ששמע ושתק או ששמע והפר ומת בו ביום זו היא ששנינו מת הבעל נתרוקנה רשות לאב
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.
אבל אם שמע וקיים או ששמע ושתק ומת ביום שלאחריו אין יכול להפר
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.
שמע אביה והפר לה ולא הספיק בעל לשמוע עד שמת האב זו היא ששנינו מת האב לא נתרוקנה רשות לבעל שמע בעלה והפר לה ולא הספיק האב לשמוע עד שמת הבעל זו היא ששנינו מת הבעל נתרוקנה רשות לאב
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’s 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.
שמע בעלה והפר לה ולא הספיק האב לשמוע עד שמת אין הבעל יכול להפר שאין הבעל מיפר אלא בשותפות
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 is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat 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.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
The Father, the Husband and a Woman’s Vows – On Second Thought 3
Nedarim 68
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא בין איש לאשתו בין אב לבתו מכאן לנערה המאורסה שאביה ובעלה מפירין נדריה ולתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל אם היו תהיה לאיש מאי עביד ליה
The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a different source for the halakha in the mishna: The Torah states with regard to vows: “These 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’s house” (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 “and if she be to a husband” (Numbers 30:7)?
מוקים לאידך דרבא ורבא האי דתני דבי רבי ישמעאל מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לומר שהבעל מיפר נדרים שבינו לבינה
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 “and if she be to a husband” (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’s vows? The Gemara answers: He requires that phrase: “Between a man and his wife” (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.
איבעיא להו בעל מיגז גייז או מקליש קליש היכא קא מיבעיא לן כגון דנדרה מתרין זיתין ושמע ארוס והיפר לה ואכלתנון
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a husband nullifies his betrothed’s 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.
אי אמרינן מיגז גייז לקייא אי אמרינן מקליש קליש איסורא בעלמא הוא מאי
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?
תא שמע אימתי אמרו מת הבעל נתרוקנה רשות לאב בזמן שלא שמע הבעל קודם שימות או ששמע ושתק או ששמע והפר ומת בו ביום זו היא ששנינו מת הבעל נתרוקנה רשות לאב
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.
אבל אם שמע וקיים או ששמע ושתק ומת ביום שלאחריו אין יכול להפר
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.
שמע אביה והפר לה ולא הספיק בעל לשמוע עד שמת האב זו היא ששנינו מת האב לא נתרוקנה רשות לבעל שמע בעלה והפר לה ולא הספיק האב לשמוע עד שמת הבעל זו היא ששנינו מת הבעל נתרוקנה רשות לאב
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’s 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.
שמע בעלה והפר לה ולא הספיק האב לשמוע עד שמת אין הבעל יכול להפר שאין הבעל מיפר אלא בשותפות
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.
