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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 2, 2015 | 讬状讝 讘讗讘 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Nedarim 70

讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讛 诪讜驻专 诇讬讻讬 诇诪讞专 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇诪讞专 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讬驻专 讚讛讗 拽讬讬诪讬讛 诇谞讚专讬讛 讛讬讜诐 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 拽讬讬诐 诇讬讻讬 讛讬讜诐 讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛 诪讜驻专 诇讬讻讬 诇诪讞专 诪讛讬讜诐 拽讗诪专

If you say that since he did not explicitly say to her that the vow is nullified, this means that it remains in force, then if he said to her: It is nullified for you tomorrow, what is the halakha? Do we say that on the following day he cannot nullify it, as he has already ratified the vow today, in that he did not nullify it 鈥渙n the day that he hears it鈥 (Numbers 30:8)? Or perhaps, since he did not explicitly say to her: It is ratified for you today, then when he says to her: It is nullified for you tomorrow, he is actually saying that the nullification begins from today, so that the vow is nullified.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讬讬诪讜 讛讬讜诐 诇诪讞专 讻诪讗谉 讚讗讬转讬讛 讚诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛 拽讬讬诐 诇讬讻讬 砖注讛 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 诇讗讞专 砖注讛 讚诪讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛

And if you say: Nevertheless, since he ratified it today, as he said that it is nullified only tomorrow, on the following day it is considered already in force and he cannot nullify it, then if he said to her: It is ratified for you for an hour, what is the halakha? Do we say that it is like one who said to her: It is nullified for you after an hour has passed? Or perhaps, since he did not say this to her explicitly, it is not nullified?

讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 诪讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛 诪讗讬 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讬讬诪讜 拽讬讬诪讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讜诇讬讛 讬讜诪讗 讘专 讛拽诪讛 讜讘专 讛驻专讛 讛讜讗 讻讬 讗诪专 诪讜驻专 诇讬讻讬 诇讗讞专 砖注讛 诪讛谞讬

If you say that since he did not say so to her explicitly, therefore the vow is not nullified after an hour, still, if he explicitly said to her that it is nullified after an hour, what is the halakha? Do we say that since he has ratified this vow, in that he explicitly withheld nullification for an hour, he has ratified it and can no longer nullify it? Or, perhaps since the entire day is valid for ratification and valid for nullification, when he says: It is nullified for you after an hour, it is effective.

转讗 砖诪注 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专讛 讜砖诪注 讘注诇讛 讜讗诪专 讜讗谞讬 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讜讗谞讬 讚讗诪专 讛讜讗 注诇 谞驻砖讬讛 讚讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讗讘诇 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专讛 讚讬诇讛 讚砖注讛 讗讞转 拽讬讬诪讗 诇讗讞专 砖注讛 讗讬 讘注讬 诇讬驻专 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讻讬讜谉 砖拽讬讬诪讜 拽讬讬诪讜 诇讗 拽住讘专 讻诇 讜讗谞讬 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讬讬诐 诇讬讻讬 诇注讜诇诐 讚诪讬

The Gemara cites a mishna (Nazir 20b) to resolve this last question: Come and hear: If a woman said: I am hereby a nazirite, and her husband heard her vow and said: And I, meaning that he intends to become a nazirite as well, he can no longer nullify his wife鈥檚 vow. And why not? Let us say that the words: And I, that he said referred to himself, that he should be a nazirite. But her vow of: I am hereby a nazirite, exists for one hour, i.e., the time until the husband took his own vow based on hers. After an hour, if he wants to nullify it, why can he not nullify it? Is it not because once he has ratified it by basing his vow on hers, even for one hour, he has ratified it permanently and can no longer nullify it? The Gemara rejects this suggestion. No, that is not the explanation. The tanna of that mishna holds that anyone who says the words: And I, in response to his wife鈥檚 vow, is like one who says: It is ratified for you forever. All the aforementioned questions are therefore left unresolved.

诪转谞讬壮 诪转 讛讗讘 诇讗 谞转专讜拽谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讘注诇 诪转 讛讘注诇 谞转专讜拽谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讗讘 讘讝讛 讬驻讛 讻讞 讛讗讘 诪讻讞 讛讘注诇

MISHNA: If the father of a betrothed young woman dies, his authority does not revert to the husband, and the husband cannot nullify the young woman鈥檚 vows by himself. However, if the husband dies, his authority reverts to the father, who can now nullify her vows on his own. In this matter, the power of the father is enhanced relative to the power of the husband.

讘讚讘专 讗讞专 讬驻讛 讻讞 讛讘注诇 诪讻讞 讛讗讘 砖讛讘注诇 诪驻专 讘讘讙专 讜讛讗讘 讗讬谞讜 诪驻专 讘讘讙专

In another matter, the power of the husband is enhanced relative to the power of the father, as the husband nullifies vows during the woman鈥檚 adulthood, once they are fully married, whereas the father does not nullify her vows during her adulthood.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讘谞注专讬讛 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛

GEMARA: What is the reason, i.e., what is the source for the fact that the authority over the young woman鈥檚 vows does not revert to the husband if her father dies? The source is that the verse states: 鈥淏eing in her youth, in her father鈥檚 house鈥 (Numbers 30:17). As long as she is a young woman 鈥渋n her youth,鈥 she is considered to be 鈥渋n her father鈥檚 house鈥 and under his jurisdiction, even if she is betrothed. Even if her father passes away, she is still considered to be in his house, and her betrothed does not assume authority over her vows.

诪转 讛讘注诇 谞转专讜拽谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讗讘 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讚讗诪专 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

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that if the husband died his authority reverts to the father? Rabba said: We derive it from the fact that the verse states: 鈥淎nd if she be [hayo tihyeh] to a husband, and her vows are upon her鈥 (Numbers 30:7). The phrase hayo tihyeh is a doubled usage of the verb to be. The Gemara understands this as referring to two different instances of being betrothed to a man, e.g., the woman鈥檚 first betrothed dies and then she is betrothed to another man.

诪拽讬砖 拽讜讚诪讬 讛讜讬讛 砖谞讬讛 诇拽讜讚诪讬 讛讜讬讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讛 拽讜讚诪讬 讛讜讬讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讘 诪讬驻专 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讗祝 拽讜讚诪讬 讛讜讬讛 砖谞讬讛 讗讘 诪讬驻专 诇讞讜讚讬讛

This verse juxtaposes the vows preceding her second instance of being betrothed, i.e., those that she took after her first husband鈥檚 death but before her second betrothal, to those vows preceding her first instance of being betrothed. Just as with regard to the vows preceding her first instance of being betrothed, her father nullifies them on his own, so too, with regard to those vows preceding her second instance of being betrothed, her father nullifies them on his own.

讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘谞讚专讬诐 砖诇讗 谞专讗讜 诇讗专讜住 讗讘诇 讘谞讚专讬诐 砖谞专讗讜 诇讗专讜住 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讬驻专 讗讘

The Gemara asks: Say that this halakha that the father nullifies vows on his own after the death of the betrothed applies only to vows that were not disclosed to the betrothed, i.e., those that he did not have the opportunity to either ratify or nullify, but with regard to vows that were disclosed to the betrothed, the father cannot nullify them on his own.

讗讬 讘谞讚专讬诐 砖诇讗 谞专讗讜 诇讗专讜住 诪讘谞注专讬讛 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara answers: If the verse is referring only to vows that were not disclosed to the betrothed, it would be unnecessary to teach that halakha, as that is derived from the words 鈥渂eing in her youth, in her father鈥檚 house鈥 (Numbers 30:17). As long as the young woman is in her father鈥檚 house, even after the death of her betrothed, her father has the authority to nullify her vows.

讘讝讛 讬驻讛 讻讞 讛讗讘 诪讻讞 讛讘注诇 讻讜壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬

搂 The mishna states: In this matter, the power of the father is enhanced relative to the power of the husband. In another matter, the power of the husband is enhanced relative to the power of the father, as the husband nullifies vows during the woman鈥檚 adulthood, whereas the father does not nullify vows during her adulthood. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances under which a husband can nullify his adult wife鈥檚 vows?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖拽讬讚砖讛 讻砖讛讬讗 谞注专讛 讜讘讙专讛 诪讻讚讬 诪讬转讛 诪讜爪讬讗讛 讜讘讙专讜转 诪讜爪讬讗讛 诪专砖讜转 讗讘 诪讛 诪讬转讛 诇讗 谞转专讜拽谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讘注诇 讗祝 讘讙专讜转 诇讗 谞转专讜拽谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讘注诇

If we say that the mishna is referring to a cases where he betrothed her when she was a young woman, and she took a vow, and then she reached majority, that cannot be the halakha: After all, both the death of her father removes her from the father鈥檚 authority and attaining her majority removes her from the father鈥檚 authority, so the halakha in the two cases should be the same. Just as with the death of the father, his authority does not revert to the husband and the woman鈥檚 betrothed cannot nullify her vows on his own, so too, upon attaining majority the authority the father possessed when she was a young woman does not revert to the husband.

讗诇讗 砖拽讬讚砖讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讘讜讙专转 讛讗 转谞讬谞讗 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讛讘讜讙专转 砖砖讛转讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖

Rather, it is referring to a case in which he betrothed her when she was a grown woman, and then she took a vow. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we already learn that on another occasion, in a later mishna that states (73b): With regard to a grown woman who waited twelve months after her betrothal and then requested that her betrothed marry her, Rabbi Eliezer says: Since her husband is already obligated to provide for her sustenance, as he is obligated to have married her by then, he can nullify her vows by himself, as if he were fully married to her.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讛讘讜讙专转 砖砖讛转讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讘讘讜讙专转 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讘讜讙专转 讘砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 住讙讬 诇讛 转谞讬 讘讜讙专转 讜砖砖讛转讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖

The Gemara explains the cited mishna: This cited mishna is itself difficult: You said that a grown woman who waited twelve months is entitled to support. With regard to a grown woman, why do I need a twelve-month waiting period before her betrothed is obligated to marry her? For a grown woman, thirty days suffice for her to prepare what she needs for her marriage after she is betrothed. The Gemara answers: The mishna should be revised. Teach the mishna: A grown woman who waited thirty days and a young woman who waited twelve months.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讗 讚讜拽讗 讜讘讜讙专转 拽转谞讬 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬 讗讬驻诇讜讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘谞谉

The Gemara returns to the question: In any case, the fact that the mishna here teaches a halakha that is addressed in a different mishna is difficult. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the mishna here is actually the primary source of this halakha, and the reference to a grown woman is taught there because it wants to present how Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讜讙专转 讚讜拽讗 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚谞住讬讘 专讬砖讗 讘讝讛 谞住讬讘 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讘讝讛

Alternatively, if you wish, say that the mishna that begins: A grown woman, is actually the source for this halakha. The mishna here repeats the halakha incidentally, since it needs to cite the first clause: In this matter the power of the father is enhanced relative to the power of the husband, therefore the mishna cites the latter clause as well, by writing: In this other matter, the power of the husband is enhanced relative to the power of the father.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Joanna Rom and Steven Goldberg in loving memory of Steve's mother Shirley "Nana" Goldberg (Sura Tema bat Chaim v'Hanka)

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nedarim 70

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 70

讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 讗诪专 诇讛 诪讜驻专 诇讬讻讬 诇诪讞专 诪讛讜 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 诇诪讞专 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讬驻专 讚讛讗 拽讬讬诪讬讛 诇谞讚专讬讛 讛讬讜诐 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 拽讬讬诐 诇讬讻讬 讛讬讜诐 讻讬 拽讗诪专 诇讛 诪讜驻专 诇讬讻讬 诇诪讞专 诪讛讬讜诐 拽讗诪专

If you say that since he did not explicitly say to her that the vow is nullified, this means that it remains in force, then if he said to her: It is nullified for you tomorrow, what is the halakha? Do we say that on the following day he cannot nullify it, as he has already ratified the vow today, in that he did not nullify it 鈥渙n the day that he hears it鈥 (Numbers 30:8)? Or perhaps, since he did not explicitly say to her: It is ratified for you today, then when he says to her: It is nullified for you tomorrow, he is actually saying that the nullification begins from today, so that the vow is nullified.

讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讗驻讬诇讜 讛讻讬 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讬讬诪讜 讛讬讜诐 诇诪讞专 讻诪讗谉 讚讗讬转讬讛 讚诪讬 讗诪专 诇讛 拽讬讬诐 诇讬讻讬 砖注讛 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 诇讗讞专 砖注讛 讚诪讬 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛

And if you say: Nevertheless, since he ratified it today, as he said that it is nullified only tomorrow, on the following day it is considered already in force and he cannot nullify it, then if he said to her: It is ratified for you for an hour, what is the halakha? Do we say that it is like one who said to her: It is nullified for you after an hour has passed? Or perhaps, since he did not say this to her explicitly, it is not nullified?

讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 讛讗 诇讗 讗诪专 诇讛 诪讬讛讜 讗诪专 诇讛 诪讗讬 诪讬 讗诪专讬谞谉 讻讬讜谉 讚拽讬讬诪讜 拽讬讬诪讜 讗讜 讚诇诪讗 讻讬讜谉 讚讻讜诇讬讛 讬讜诪讗 讘专 讛拽诪讛 讜讘专 讛驻专讛 讛讜讗 讻讬 讗诪专 诪讜驻专 诇讬讻讬 诇讗讞专 砖注讛 诪讛谞讬

If you say that since he did not say so to her explicitly, therefore the vow is not nullified after an hour, still, if he explicitly said to her that it is nullified after an hour, what is the halakha? Do we say that since he has ratified this vow, in that he explicitly withheld nullification for an hour, he has ratified it and can no longer nullify it? Or, perhaps since the entire day is valid for ratification and valid for nullification, when he says: It is nullified for you after an hour, it is effective.

转讗 砖诪注 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专讛 讜砖诪注 讘注诇讛 讜讗诪专 讜讗谞讬 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 讜讗诪讗讬 谞讬诪讗 讜讗谞讬 讚讗诪专 讛讜讗 注诇 谞驻砖讬讛 讚讛讜讬 谞讝讬专 讗讘诇 讛专讬谞讬 谞讝讬专讛 讚讬诇讛 讚砖注讛 讗讞转 拽讬讬诪讗 诇讗讞专 砖注讛 讗讬 讘注讬 诇讬驻专 讗诪讗讬 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 诇讗讜 诪砖讜诐 讚讻讬讜谉 砖拽讬讬诪讜 拽讬讬诪讜 诇讗 拽住讘专 讻诇 讜讗谞讬 讻诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 拽讬讬诐 诇讬讻讬 诇注讜诇诐 讚诪讬

The Gemara cites a mishna (Nazir 20b) to resolve this last question: Come and hear: If a woman said: I am hereby a nazirite, and her husband heard her vow and said: And I, meaning that he intends to become a nazirite as well, he can no longer nullify his wife鈥檚 vow. And why not? Let us say that the words: And I, that he said referred to himself, that he should be a nazirite. But her vow of: I am hereby a nazirite, exists for one hour, i.e., the time until the husband took his own vow based on hers. After an hour, if he wants to nullify it, why can he not nullify it? Is it not because once he has ratified it by basing his vow on hers, even for one hour, he has ratified it permanently and can no longer nullify it? The Gemara rejects this suggestion. No, that is not the explanation. The tanna of that mishna holds that anyone who says the words: And I, in response to his wife鈥檚 vow, is like one who says: It is ratified for you forever. All the aforementioned questions are therefore left unresolved.

诪转谞讬壮 诪转 讛讗讘 诇讗 谞转专讜拽谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讘注诇 诪转 讛讘注诇 谞转专讜拽谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讗讘 讘讝讛 讬驻讛 讻讞 讛讗讘 诪讻讞 讛讘注诇

MISHNA: If the father of a betrothed young woman dies, his authority does not revert to the husband, and the husband cannot nullify the young woman鈥檚 vows by himself. However, if the husband dies, his authority reverts to the father, who can now nullify her vows on his own. In this matter, the power of the father is enhanced relative to the power of the husband.

讘讚讘专 讗讞专 讬驻讛 讻讞 讛讘注诇 诪讻讞 讛讗讘 砖讛讘注诇 诪驻专 讘讘讙专 讜讛讗讘 讗讬谞讜 诪驻专 讘讘讙专

In another matter, the power of the husband is enhanced relative to the power of the father, as the husband nullifies vows during the woman鈥檚 adulthood, once they are fully married, whereas the father does not nullify her vows during her adulthood.

讙诪壮 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讘谞注专讬讛 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛

GEMARA: What is the reason, i.e., what is the source for the fact that the authority over the young woman鈥檚 vows does not revert to the husband if her father dies? The source is that the verse states: 鈥淏eing in her youth, in her father鈥檚 house鈥 (Numbers 30:17). As long as she is a young woman 鈥渋n her youth,鈥 she is considered to be 鈥渋n her father鈥檚 house鈥 and under his jurisdiction, even if she is betrothed. Even if her father passes away, she is still considered to be in his house, and her betrothed does not assume authority over her vows.

诪转 讛讘注诇 谞转专讜拽谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讗讘 诪谞诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讛 讚讗诪专 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

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that if the husband died his authority reverts to the father? Rabba said: We derive it from the fact that the verse states: 鈥淎nd if she be [hayo tihyeh] to a husband, and her vows are upon her鈥 (Numbers 30:7). The phrase hayo tihyeh is a doubled usage of the verb to be. The Gemara understands this as referring to two different instances of being betrothed to a man, e.g., the woman鈥檚 first betrothed dies and then she is betrothed to another man.

诪拽讬砖 拽讜讚诪讬 讛讜讬讛 砖谞讬讛 诇拽讜讚诪讬 讛讜讬讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 诪讛 拽讜讚诪讬 讛讜讬讛 专讗砖讜谞讛 讗讘 诪讬驻专 诇讞讜讚讬讛 讗祝 拽讜讚诪讬 讛讜讬讛 砖谞讬讛 讗讘 诪讬驻专 诇讞讜讚讬讛

This verse juxtaposes the vows preceding her second instance of being betrothed, i.e., those that she took after her first husband鈥檚 death but before her second betrothal, to those vows preceding her first instance of being betrothed. Just as with regard to the vows preceding her first instance of being betrothed, her father nullifies them on his own, so too, with regard to those vows preceding her second instance of being betrothed, her father nullifies them on his own.

讗讬诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 讘谞讚专讬诐 砖诇讗 谞专讗讜 诇讗专讜住 讗讘诇 讘谞讚专讬诐 砖谞专讗讜 诇讗专讜住 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讬驻专 讗讘

The Gemara asks: Say that this halakha that the father nullifies vows on his own after the death of the betrothed applies only to vows that were not disclosed to the betrothed, i.e., those that he did not have the opportunity to either ratify or nullify, but with regard to vows that were disclosed to the betrothed, the father cannot nullify them on his own.

讗讬 讘谞讚专讬诐 砖诇讗 谞专讗讜 诇讗专讜住 诪讘谞注专讬讛 讘讬转 讗讘讬讛 谞驻拽讗

The Gemara answers: If the verse is referring only to vows that were not disclosed to the betrothed, it would be unnecessary to teach that halakha, as that is derived from the words 鈥渂eing in her youth, in her father鈥檚 house鈥 (Numbers 30:17). As long as the young woman is in her father鈥檚 house, even after the death of her betrothed, her father has the authority to nullify her vows.

讘讝讛 讬驻讛 讻讞 讛讗讘 诪讻讞 讛讘注诇 讻讜壮 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬

搂 The mishna states: In this matter, the power of the father is enhanced relative to the power of the husband. In another matter, the power of the husband is enhanced relative to the power of the father, as the husband nullifies vows during the woman鈥檚 adulthood, whereas the father does not nullify vows during her adulthood. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances under which a husband can nullify his adult wife鈥檚 vows?

讗讬诇讬诪讗 砖拽讬讚砖讛 讻砖讛讬讗 谞注专讛 讜讘讙专讛 诪讻讚讬 诪讬转讛 诪讜爪讬讗讛 讜讘讙专讜转 诪讜爪讬讗讛 诪专砖讜转 讗讘 诪讛 诪讬转讛 诇讗 谞转专讜拽谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讘注诇 讗祝 讘讙专讜转 诇讗 谞转专讜拽谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讘注诇

If we say that the mishna is referring to a cases where he betrothed her when she was a young woman, and she took a vow, and then she reached majority, that cannot be the halakha: After all, both the death of her father removes her from the father鈥檚 authority and attaining her majority removes her from the father鈥檚 authority, so the halakha in the two cases should be the same. Just as with the death of the father, his authority does not revert to the husband and the woman鈥檚 betrothed cannot nullify her vows on his own, so too, upon attaining majority the authority the father possessed when she was a young woman does not revert to the husband.

讗诇讗 砖拽讬讚砖讛 讻砖讛讬讗 讘讜讙专转 讛讗 转谞讬谞讗 讞讚讗 讝讬诪谞讗 讛讘讜讙专转 砖砖讛转讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖

Rather, it is referring to a case in which he betrothed her when she was a grown woman, and then she took a vow. The Gemara asks: Didn鈥檛 we already learn that on another occasion, in a later mishna that states (73b): With regard to a grown woman who waited twelve months after her betrothal and then requested that her betrothed marry her, Rabbi Eliezer says: Since her husband is already obligated to provide for her sustenance, as he is obligated to have married her by then, he can nullify her vows by himself, as if he were fully married to her.

讛讗 讙讜驻讗 拽砖讬讗 讗诪专转 讛讘讜讙专转 砖砖讛转讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讘讘讜讙专转 诇诪讛 诇讬 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖 讘讜讙专转 讘砖诇砖讬诐 讬讜诐 住讙讬 诇讛 转谞讬 讘讜讙专转 讜砖砖讛转讛 砖谞讬诐 注砖专 讞讚砖

The Gemara explains the cited mishna: This cited mishna is itself difficult: You said that a grown woman who waited twelve months is entitled to support. With regard to a grown woman, why do I need a twelve-month waiting period before her betrothed is obligated to marry her? For a grown woman, thirty days suffice for her to prepare what she needs for her marriage after she is betrothed. The Gemara answers: The mishna should be revised. Teach the mishna: A grown woman who waited thirty days and a young woman who waited twelve months.

诪讻诇 诪拽讜诐 拽砖讬讗 讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讛讻讗 讚讜拽讗 讜讘讜讙专转 拽转谞讬 讛转诐 诪砖讜诐 讚讘注讬 讗讬驻诇讜讙讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜专讘谞谉

The Gemara returns to the question: In any case, the fact that the mishna here teaches a halakha that is addressed in a different mishna is difficult. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the mishna here is actually the primary source of this halakha, and the reference to a grown woman is taught there because it wants to present how Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree.

讗讬讘注讬转 讗讬诪讗 讘讜讙专转 讚讜拽讗 讜讗讬讬讚讬 讚谞住讬讘 专讬砖讗 讘讝讛 谞住讬讘 住讬驻讗 谞诪讬 讘讝讛

Alternatively, if you wish, say that the mishna that begins: A grown woman, is actually the source for this halakha. The mishna here repeats the halakha incidentally, since it needs to cite the first clause: In this matter the power of the father is enhanced relative to the power of the husband, therefore the mishna cites the latter clause as well, by writing: In this other matter, the power of the husband is enhanced relative to the power of the father.

Scroll To Top