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.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Today’s daily daf tools:
Nedarim 69
שָׁמַע אָבִיהָ וְהֵפֵר לָהּ, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק הַבַּעַל לִשְׁמוֹעַ עַד שֶׁמֵּת — חוֹזֵר הָאָב וּמֵפֵר חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל. אָמַר רַבִּי נָתָן: הֵן הֵן דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵין יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר.
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’s 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’s share of the vow but must also nullify his own share again.
שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי מִיגָּז גָּיֵיז, לְבֵית הִלֵּל מִקְלָשׁ קָלֵישׁ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
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’s subsequent nullification must address the whole vow. The Gemara rules: Conclude from this baraita that the husband’s nullification weakens the general force of the vow, as the halakha is in accordance with Beit Hillel.
בָּעֵי רָבָא: יֵשׁ שְׁאֵלָה בְּהָקֵם, אוֹ אֵין שְׁאֵלָה בְּהָקֵם? אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר יֵשׁ שְׁאֵלָה בְּהָקֵם: יֵשׁ שְׁאֵלָה בְּהָפֵר, אוֹ אֵין שְׁאֵלָה בְּהָפֵר?
§ Rava raises a dilemma: Is there the possibility of a request to a halakhic authority about dissolving the ratification of one’s wife’s vow, or is there no possibility of a request to a halakhic authority about dissolving his ratification of one’s wife’s vow? One might seek to dissolve one’s 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’s 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’s vow?
תָּא שְׁמַע דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נִשְׁאָלִין עַל הֶהָקֵם, וְאֵין נִשְׁאָלִין עַל הֶהָפֵר.
The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A halakhic authority may be requested to dissolve ratification of one’s wife’s vow but may not be requested to dissolve nullification.
בָּעֵי רַבָּה: ״קַיָּים לִיכִי, קַיָּים לִיכִי״, וְנִשְׁאַל עַל הֲקָמָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, מַהוּ?
Rabba asks: If, after hearing one’s wife or one’s daughter’s 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?
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: אִם נִשְׁאַל עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה — שְׁנִיָּה חָלָה עָלָיו. בָּעֵי רַבָּה: ״קַיָּים לִיכִי, וּמוּפָר לִיכִי, וְלָא תֵּיחוּל הֲקָמָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חָלָה הֲפָרָה״, מַהוּ?
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?
תָּא שְׁמַע מִפְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. דִּתְנַן: ״הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״ — הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אִם לְכָךְ נִתְכַּוֵּין מִתְּחִלָּה, הוֹאִיל וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִקְרוֹת שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת כְּאֶחָד — דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין.
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’s 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.
וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא קָאָמַר, דְּלָא אָמַר ״לָא תֵּיחוּל זוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חָלָה זוֹ״, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּאָמַר ״לֹא תֵּיחוּל הֲקָמָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חָלָה הֲפָרָה״ — רַבִּי מֵאִיר נָמֵי מוֹדֶה דַּהֲפָרָה חָלָה.
The Gemara adds: And even Rabbi Meir says that the first part of one’s 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.
בָּעֵי רַבָּה: ״קַיָּים וּמוּפָר לִיכִי״ בְּבַת אַחַת, מַהוּ? תָּא שְׁמַע דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה, אֲפִילּוּ בְּבַת אַחַת אֵינוֹ.
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.
בָּעֵי רַבָּה: ״קַיָּים לִיכִי הַיּוֹם״, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כְּמַאן דַּאֲמַר לַהּ ״מוּפָר לִיכִי לְמָחָר״, אוֹ דִלְמָא הָא לָא אֲמַר לַהּ?
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.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
Michelle has been an inspiration for years, but I only really started this cycle after the moving and uplifting siyum in Jerusalem. It’s been an wonderful to learn and relearn the tenets of our religion and to understand how the extraordinary efforts of a band of people to preserve Judaism after the fall of the beit hamikdash is still bearing fruits today. I’m proud to be part of the chain!
Raanana, Israel
Oceanside NY, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Philadelphia, United States
Phoenix, AZ, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
Nedarim 69
שָׁמַע אָבִיהָ וְהֵפֵר לָהּ, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק הַבַּעַל לִשְׁמוֹעַ עַד שֶׁמֵּת — חוֹזֵר הָאָב וּמֵפֵר חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל. אָמַר רַבִּי נָתָן: הֵן הֵן דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵין יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר.
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’s 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’s share of the vow but must also nullify his own share again.
שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי מִיגָּז גָּיֵיז, לְבֵית הִלֵּל מִקְלָשׁ קָלֵישׁ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
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’s subsequent nullification must address the whole vow. The Gemara rules: Conclude from this baraita that the husband’s nullification weakens the general force of the vow, as the halakha is in accordance with Beit Hillel.
בָּעֵי רָבָא: יֵשׁ שְׁאֵלָה בְּהָקֵם, אוֹ אֵין שְׁאֵלָה בְּהָקֵם? אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר יֵשׁ שְׁאֵלָה בְּהָקֵם: יֵשׁ שְׁאֵלָה בְּהָפֵר, אוֹ אֵין שְׁאֵלָה בְּהָפֵר?
§ Rava raises a dilemma: Is there the possibility of a request to a halakhic authority about dissolving the ratification of one’s wife’s vow, or is there no possibility of a request to a halakhic authority about dissolving his ratification of one’s wife’s vow? One might seek to dissolve one’s 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’s 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’s vow?
תָּא שְׁמַע דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נִשְׁאָלִין עַל הֶהָקֵם, וְאֵין נִשְׁאָלִין עַל הֶהָפֵר.
The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A halakhic authority may be requested to dissolve ratification of one’s wife’s vow but may not be requested to dissolve nullification.
בָּעֵי רַבָּה: ״קַיָּים לִיכִי, קַיָּים לִיכִי״, וְנִשְׁאַל עַל הֲקָמָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, מַהוּ?
Rabba asks: If, after hearing one’s wife or one’s daughter’s 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?
תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: אִם נִשְׁאַל עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה — שְׁנִיָּה חָלָה עָלָיו. בָּעֵי רַבָּה: ״קַיָּים לִיכִי, וּמוּפָר לִיכִי, וְלָא תֵּיחוּל הֲקָמָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חָלָה הֲפָרָה״, מַהוּ?
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?
תָּא שְׁמַע מִפְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. דִּתְנַן: ״הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״ — הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אִם לְכָךְ נִתְכַּוֵּין מִתְּחִלָּה, הוֹאִיל וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִקְרוֹת שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת כְּאֶחָד — דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין.
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’s 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.
וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא קָאָמַר, דְּלָא אָמַר ״לָא תֵּיחוּל זוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חָלָה זוֹ״, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּאָמַר ״לֹא תֵּיחוּל הֲקָמָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חָלָה הֲפָרָה״ — רַבִּי מֵאִיר נָמֵי מוֹדֶה דַּהֲפָרָה חָלָה.
The Gemara adds: And even Rabbi Meir says that the first part of one’s 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.
בָּעֵי רַבָּה: ״קַיָּים וּמוּפָר לִיכִי״ בְּבַת אַחַת, מַהוּ? תָּא שְׁמַע דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה, אֲפִילּוּ בְּבַת אַחַת אֵינוֹ.
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.
בָּעֵי רַבָּה: ״קַיָּים לִיכִי הַיּוֹם״, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כְּמַאן דַּאֲמַר לַהּ ״מוּפָר לִיכִי לְמָחָר״, אוֹ דִלְמָא הָא לָא אֲמַר לַהּ?
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.
