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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 2, 2023 | 讟壮 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 69

This week鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Rivkah Isseroff in memory of her mother’s first yahrzeit, Gitu Isseroff, Gittel bat R鈥 Volf V鈥 Sara Friedman. 鈥淭he sole survivor of her family from Auschwitz, with her
emunah, created 3 generations of Torah observant Jews.”
Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Mark Baker in honor his wife Shoshana on their 29th wedding anniversary. 鈥淢arriage is enhanced with daf yomi in the mix. Love Mark.鈥
Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Shifra Atik in memory of her beloved mother Sarah Goldwasser, Sarah Nechama bat HaRav Azriel Nechemia and Faiga Rissel, on her 16th yahrzeit.

From the last case in the Tosefta, the Gemara arrives at the answer to its question: When a fiance annuls part of the vow, is it that he annuls half the vow entirely (meigaz gayiz) and the father will come and annul the second part or is it that he weakens the vow (miklash kalish) and the father then annuls what is left of the weakened vow? The answer is that it is a debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel. The Gemara brings five questions of Rava (or Raba) regarding the ratifying and nullifying of a vow by the father/husband. One, is it possible to go to a chacham to dissolve a ratification and if so, is it possible to dissolve a nullification? If he said the ratification twice and dissolved one ratification, does the other still stand? If he said ratification and nullification together but first said ratification, however, he said that the ratification will not apply unless there is a nullification, do we understand this to mean that he wants to nullify the vow or the ratification will apply first and then there is no possibility of the nullification to apply? If they said both languages should be applied at once, what is the law? If he said that the vow is ratified today, is the vow nullified tomorrow – was that his intent? The Gemara provides answers to all questions from the statements of Amoraim or from Tanaim.

砖诪注 讗讘讬讛 讜讛驻专 诇讛 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 讛讘注诇 诇砖诪讜注 注讚 砖诪转 讞讜讝专 讛讗讘 讜诪驻专 讞诇拽讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞转谉 讛谉 讛谉 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专


If her father heard and nullified the vow for her, and the husband did not manage to hear of the vow before he died, the father may go back and nullify the husband鈥檚 portion, and that will complete the nullification of her vow. Rabbi Natan said: This last ruling is the statement of Beit Shammai, but Beit Hillel say that he cannot nullify only the husband鈥檚 share of the vow but must also nullify his own share again.


砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讬讙讝 讙讬讬讝 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪拽诇砖 拽诇讬砖 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Having completed its citation of the baraita, the Gemara now states its proof: Conclude from this that, according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, whoever nullifies the vow first completely severs his half of the vow, and therefore the father needed only to nullify the part left by the husband. However, according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, his nullification weakens the general force of the vow, so the father鈥檚 subsequent nullification must address the whole vow. The Gemara rules: Conclude from this baraita that the husband鈥檚 nullification weakens the general force of the vow, as the halakha is in accordance with Beit Hillel.


讘注讬 专讘讗 讬砖 砖讗诇讛 讘讛拽诐 讗讜 讗讬谉 砖讗诇讛 讘讛拽诐 讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讬砖 砖讗诇讛 讘讛拽诐 讬砖 砖讗诇讛 讘讛驻专 讗讜 讗讬谉 砖讗诇讛 讘讛驻专


Rava raises a dilemma: Is there the possibility of a request to a halakhic authority about dissolving the ratification of one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 vow, or is there no possibility of a request to a halakhic authority about dissolving his ratification of one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 vow? One might seek to dissolve one鈥檚 ratification if he now desires to nullify the vow. Furthermore, if you say that there is the possibility of a request to dissolve his ratification, is there the possibility of a request to a halakhic authority about dissolving nullification of his wife鈥檚 vow, to allow him to ratify the vow in place of nullifying it? Or is there no possibility of a request to dissolve the nullification of his wife鈥檚 vow?


转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞砖讗诇讬谉 注诇 讛讛拽诐 讜讗讬谉 谞砖讗诇讬谉 注诇 讛讛驻专


The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which Rabbi Yo岣nan says: A halakhic authority may be requested to dissolve ratification of one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 vow but may not be requested to dissolve nullification.


讘注讬 专讘讛 拽讬讬诐 诇讬讻讬 拽讬讬诐 诇讬讻讬 讜谞砖讗诇 注诇 讛拽诪讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讛讜


Rabba asks: If, after hearing one鈥檚 wife or one鈥檚 daughter鈥檚 vow, one said: It is ratified for you, it is ratified for you, and then a halakhic authority was requested about the first ratification and dissolved it, but one did not request dissolution of the second ratification, what is the halakha? Is the second ratification in force, or is it irrelevant, as it was performed on an vow that was already ratified and consequently never took effect?


转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 谞砖讗诇 注诇 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 砖谞讬讛 讞诇讛 注诇讬讜 讘注讬 专讘讛 拽讬讬诐 诇讬讻讬 讜诪讜驻专 诇讬讻讬 讜诇讗 转讬讞讜诇 讛拽诪讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讞诇讛 讛驻专讛 诪讛讜


The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which Rava said with regard to one who said: I take an oath that I will not eat, I take an oath that I will not eat: If a halakhic authority was requested to dissolve the first oath and dissolved it, the second oath goes into effect for him. Similarly, the second ratification goes into effect. Rabba further asks: If he said to her: The vow is ratified for you and nullified for you, and the ratification will not take effect unless the nullification takes effect, what is the halakha?


转讗 砖诪注 诪驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚转谞谉 讛专讬 讝讜 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 转诪讜专转 砖诇诪讬诐 讛专讬 讝讜 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讻讱 谞转讻讜讬谉 诪转讞诇讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇拽专讜转 砖谞讬 砖诪讜转 讻讗讞讚 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉


The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma from the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in a mishna (Temura 25b): If one said about an animal: This is hereby a substitute for a burnt-offering, a substitute for a peace-offering, the halakha is that it becomes a substitute only for a burnt-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who holds that one鈥檚 initial statement is determinant. And Rabbi Yosei says: If this is what he intended from the outset, that it should be a substitute for both a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, then since it is impossible to give it two names at once and he could not have said burnt-offering and peace-offering simultaneously, his statement is effective, and the animal is a substitute for both of them at once. Similarly, it is possible for him to intend to both ratify and nullify the vow and the vow is nullified, despite the fact that his first statement was to ratify it.


讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 拽讗诪专 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讗 转讬讞讜诇 讝讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讞诇讛 讝讜 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 转讬讞讜诇 讛拽诪讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讞诇讛 讛驻专讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 谞诪讬 诪讜讚讛 讚讛驻专讛 讞诇讛


The Gemara adds: And even Rabbi Meir says that the first part of one鈥檚 statement is determinant only where he did not state: This will not take effect unless this also takes effect. Here, however, where he expressly said: The ratification of the vow will not take effect unless the nullification takes effect, even Rabbi Meir concedes that the nullification takes effect.


讘注讬 专讘讛 拽讬讬诐 讜诪讜驻专 诇讬讻讬 讘讘转 讗讞转 诪讛讜 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜


Rabba further asks: If he said: It is ratified and nullified for you simultaneously, what is the halakha? The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which Rabba himself said: Any two halakhic statuses that one is not able to implement sequentially are not realized even when one attempts to bring them about simultaneously. Since one cannot ratify a vow and subsequently nullify it, one can also not ratify and nullify a vow simultaneously.


讘注讬 专讘讛 拽讬讬诐 诇讬讻讬 讛讬讜诐 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛 诪讜驻专 诇讬讻讬 诇诪讞专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛


Rabba raises another dilemma: If one says to his wife or daughter: Your vow is ratified for you today, what is the halakha? Do we say that he is like one who said to her: It is nullified for you tomorrow? Or perhaps, since he did not explicitly say to her that the vow is nullified, it remains in force.

  • 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

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 69: An Infinity Loop

The right to revoke a woman's vow, as it transfers between husband and father (or not), in the event of...

Nedarim 69

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 69

砖诪注 讗讘讬讛 讜讛驻专 诇讛 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 讛讘注诇 诇砖诪讜注 注讚 砖诪转 讞讜讝专 讛讗讘 讜诪驻专 讞诇拽讜 砖诇 讘注诇 讗诪专 专讘讬 谞转谉 讛谉 讛谉 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专


If her father heard and nullified the vow for her, and the husband did not manage to hear of the vow before he died, the father may go back and nullify the husband鈥檚 portion, and that will complete the nullification of her vow. Rabbi Natan said: This last ruling is the statement of Beit Shammai, but Beit Hillel say that he cannot nullify only the husband鈥檚 share of the vow but must also nullify his own share again.


砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诪讬讙讝 讙讬讬讝 诇讘讬转 讛诇诇 诪拽诇砖 拽诇讬砖 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛


Having completed its citation of the baraita, the Gemara now states its proof: Conclude from this that, according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, whoever nullifies the vow first completely severs his half of the vow, and therefore the father needed only to nullify the part left by the husband. However, according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, his nullification weakens the general force of the vow, so the father鈥檚 subsequent nullification must address the whole vow. The Gemara rules: Conclude from this baraita that the husband鈥檚 nullification weakens the general force of the vow, as the halakha is in accordance with Beit Hillel.


讘注讬 专讘讗 讬砖 砖讗诇讛 讘讛拽诐 讗讜 讗讬谉 砖讗诇讛 讘讛拽诐 讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讬砖 砖讗诇讛 讘讛拽诐 讬砖 砖讗诇讛 讘讛驻专 讗讜 讗讬谉 砖讗诇讛 讘讛驻专


Rava raises a dilemma: Is there the possibility of a request to a halakhic authority about dissolving the ratification of one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 vow, or is there no possibility of a request to a halakhic authority about dissolving his ratification of one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 vow? One might seek to dissolve one鈥檚 ratification if he now desires to nullify the vow. Furthermore, if you say that there is the possibility of a request to dissolve his ratification, is there the possibility of a request to a halakhic authority about dissolving nullification of his wife鈥檚 vow, to allow him to ratify the vow in place of nullifying it? Or is there no possibility of a request to dissolve the nullification of his wife鈥檚 vow?


转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞砖讗诇讬谉 注诇 讛讛拽诐 讜讗讬谉 谞砖讗诇讬谉 注诇 讛讛驻专


The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which Rabbi Yo岣nan says: A halakhic authority may be requested to dissolve ratification of one鈥檚 wife鈥檚 vow but may not be requested to dissolve nullification.


讘注讬 专讘讛 拽讬讬诐 诇讬讻讬 拽讬讬诐 诇讬讻讬 讜谞砖讗诇 注诇 讛拽诪讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讛讜


Rabba asks: If, after hearing one鈥檚 wife or one鈥檚 daughter鈥檚 vow, one said: It is ratified for you, it is ratified for you, and then a halakhic authority was requested about the first ratification and dissolved it, but one did not request dissolution of the second ratification, what is the halakha? Is the second ratification in force, or is it irrelevant, as it was performed on an vow that was already ratified and consequently never took effect?


转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诐 谞砖讗诇 注诇 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 砖谞讬讛 讞诇讛 注诇讬讜 讘注讬 专讘讛 拽讬讬诐 诇讬讻讬 讜诪讜驻专 诇讬讻讬 讜诇讗 转讬讞讜诇 讛拽诪讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讞诇讛 讛驻专讛 诪讛讜


The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which Rava said with regard to one who said: I take an oath that I will not eat, I take an oath that I will not eat: If a halakhic authority was requested to dissolve the first oath and dissolved it, the second oath goes into effect for him. Similarly, the second ratification goes into effect. Rabba further asks: If he said to her: The vow is ratified for you and nullified for you, and the ratification will not take effect unless the nullification takes effect, what is the halakha?


转讗 砖诪注 诪驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚转谞谉 讛专讬 讝讜 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 转诪讜专转 砖诇诪讬诐 讛专讬 讝讜 转诪讜专转 注讜诇讛 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讜专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讗诐 诇讻讱 谞转讻讜讬谉 诪转讞诇讛 讛讜讗讬诇 讜讗讬 讗驻砖专 诇拽专讜转 砖谞讬 砖诪讜转 讻讗讞讚 讚讘专讬讜 拽讬讬诪讬谉


The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma from the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in a mishna (Temura 25b): If one said about an animal: This is hereby a substitute for a burnt-offering, a substitute for a peace-offering, the halakha is that it becomes a substitute only for a burnt-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who holds that one鈥檚 initial statement is determinant. And Rabbi Yosei says: If this is what he intended from the outset, that it should be a substitute for both a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, then since it is impossible to give it two names at once and he could not have said burnt-offering and peace-offering simultaneously, his statement is effective, and the animal is a substitute for both of them at once. Similarly, it is possible for him to intend to both ratify and nullify the vow and the vow is nullified, despite the fact that his first statement was to ratify it.


讜讗驻讬诇讜 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 诇讗 拽讗诪专 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讗 转讬讞讜诇 讝讜 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讞诇讛 讝讜 讗讘诇 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 诇讗 转讬讞讜诇 讛拽诪讛 讗诇讗 讗诐 讻谉 讞诇讛 讛驻专讛 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 谞诪讬 诪讜讚讛 讚讛驻专讛 讞诇讛


The Gemara adds: And even Rabbi Meir says that the first part of one鈥檚 statement is determinant only where he did not state: This will not take effect unless this also takes effect. Here, however, where he expressly said: The ratification of the vow will not take effect unless the nullification takes effect, even Rabbi Meir concedes that the nullification takes effect.


讘注讬 专讘讛 拽讬讬诐 讜诪讜驻专 诇讬讻讬 讘讘转 讗讞转 诪讛讜 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘讛 讻诇 讚讘专 砖讗讬谞讜 讘讝讛 讗讞专 讝讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讘转 讗讞转 讗讬谞讜


Rabba further asks: If he said: It is ratified and nullified for you simultaneously, what is the halakha? The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which Rabba himself said: Any two halakhic statuses that one is not able to implement sequentially are not realized even when one attempts to bring them about simultaneously. Since one cannot ratify a vow and subsequently nullify it, one can also not ratify and nullify a vow simultaneously.


讘注讬 专讘讛 拽讬讬诐 诇讬讻讬 讛讬讜诐 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诇讛 诪讜驻专 诇讬讻讬 诇诪讞专 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛


Rabba raises another dilemma: If one says to his wife or daughter: Your vow is ratified for you today, what is the halakha? Do we say that he is like one who said to her: It is nullified for you tomorrow? Or perhaps, since he did not explicitly say to her that the vow is nullified, it remains in force.

Scroll To Top