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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 3, 2015 | ื™ืดื— ื‘ืื‘ ืชืฉืขืดื”

  • 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.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Nedarim 71

Study Guide Nedarim 71


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื ื“ืจื” ื•ื”ื™ื ืืจื•ืกื” ื ืชื’ืจืฉื” ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ื ืชืืจืกื” ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืื” ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื‘ืขืœื” ื”ืื—ืจื•ืŸ ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื” ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ืฉืœื ื™ืฆืื” ืœืจืฉื•ืช ืขืฆืžื” ืฉืขื” ืื—ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื‘ืขืœื” ื”ืื—ืจื•ืŸ ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื”

MISHNA: If she took a vow as a betrothed woman and then was divorced on the same day, and she was again betrothed on the same day to another man, or even to one hundred men, one after the other, on a single day, her father and her last husband nullify her vows. This is the principle: With regard to any young woman who has not left her fatherโ€™s jurisdiction and entered into her own jurisdiction for at least one moment, through full marriage or reaching majority, her father and her final husband nullify her vows.

ื’ืžืณ ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืืจื•ืก ืื—ืจื•ืŸ ืžื™ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื ืจืื• ืœืืจื•ืก ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืื ื”ื™ื• ืชื”ื™ื” ืœืื™ืฉ ื•ื ื“ืจื™ื” ืขืœื™ื” ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื• ืขืœื™ื” ื›ื‘ืจ ื“ืœืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืฉืœื ื ืจืื• ืœืืจื•ืก ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื ืจืื• ืœืืจื•ืก ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœื ืžืฆื™ ืžื™ืคืจ ืืจื•ืก ืื—ืจื•ืŸ

GEMARA: From where do we derive that her final betrothed can nullify her vows that were disclosed to the first betrothed? Shmuel said that the verse states: โ€œAnd if she be to a husband and her vows are upon herโ€ฆand he nullifies her vowโ€ (Numbers 30:7โ€“9), indicating that he can nullify vows that were upon her already. The Gemara asks: Perhaps this statement applies only to vows that were not discerned by the first betrothed, but vows that were discerned by the first betrothed, the final betrothed cannot nullify.

ืขืœื™ื” ืงืจื ื™ืชื™ืจื ื”ื•ื

The Gemara answers: The phrase โ€œupon herโ€ is a superfluous part of the verse. One can derive from it that all her vows, including those of which an earlier betrothed had been aware, can be nullified by the final betrothed.

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื ืขืจื” ื”ืžืื•ืจืกื” ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื‘ืขืœื” ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื” ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืฉืžืข ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ืคืจ ืœื” ื•ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืง ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืœืฉืžื•ืข ืขื“ ืฉืžืช ื•ื ืชืืจืกื” ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืื” ืคืขืžื™ื ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื‘ืขืœื” ื”ืื—ืจื•ืŸ ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื” ืฉืžืข ื‘ืขืœื” ื•ื”ืคืจ ืœื” ื•ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืง ื”ืื‘ ืœืฉืžื•ืข ืขื“ ืฉืžืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื”ืื‘ ื•ืžืคืจ ื—ืœืงื• ืฉืœ ื‘ืขืœ

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: With regard to a betrothed young woman, her father and her husband together nullify her vows. How so? If her father heard and nullified the vow for her, and the husband did not manage to hear it before he died, and she was betrothed on the same day to another man, or even one hundred times on the same day, her father and her final husband nullify her vows. If her husband heard and nullified the vow for her, and the father did not manage to hear it before the husband died, the father may go back and nullify the husbandโ€™s portion.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ื”ืŸ ื”ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืคืจ ื‘ืžืื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™

Rabbi Natan said: This is the statement of Beit Shammai, that each of them nullifies half of the betrothed young womanโ€™s vow. However, Beit Hillel say that the father cannot nullify the vow on his own. The Gemara asks: About what do Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree?

ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืกื‘ืจื™ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื ืžื™ ืฉืจืื•ื™ ืœืืจื•ืก ื ืชืจื•ืงื ื” ืจืฉื•ืช ืœืื‘ ื•ืžื™ื’ื– ื’ื™ื™ื– ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืกื‘ืจื™ ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื‘ืขืœื” ืื—ืจื•ืŸ ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื” ื•ืœื ืžื™ื’ื– ื’ื™ื™ื–

The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai hold: Even with regard to vows that were disclosed to the betrothed, in the event of his death, his authority reverts to the father. In addition, when the father or husband of a young woman nullifies her vow, he severs his portion of it, enabling the father to nullify her vow on his own after the death of the betrothed. Beit Hillel hold that her father and her final husband together nullify her vows, and he who nullifies her vow does not sever it, but rather weakens its force. Even if the first betrothed was aware of the vow before his death, the father can nullify it in conjunction with another betrothed. This ruling is in accordance with the ruling of Shmuel that her final betrothed can nullify even those vows that she took while betrothed to the first man.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื’ื™ืจื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื“ืžื™ื ืื• ื›ื”ืงืžื” ื“ืžื™ื

ยง A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is a husbandโ€™s divorce of his wife after she took a vow considered like silence, or is it considered like ratification of the vow?

ืœืžืื™ ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื ื“ืจื” ื•ืฉืžืข ื‘ืขืœื” ื•ื’ืจืฉื” ื•ืื”ื“ืจื” ื‘ื™ื•ืžื™ื” ืื™ ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื›ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื“ืžื™ ืžืฆื™ ืžื™ืคืจ ืœื” ื•ืื™ ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื›ื”ืงืžื” ื“ืžื™ ืœื ืžืฆื™ ืžื™ืคืจ ืœื”

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the two possibilities? In any case, he did not nullify her vow before the divorce, and once he has divorced her he can no longer do so. The Gemara answers: There is a difference in a case where she took a vow, and her husband heard the vow, and divorced her, and he remarried her on the same day. If the Master says that divorce is like silence, the husband can now nullify the vow for her, since it is the same day. But if the Master says that divorce is like ratification, he cannot nullify the vow for her, as he has ratified it by divorcing her.

  • 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.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

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: 70-77 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will continue learning about the ability of the father and the husband-to-be to revoke the womanโ€™s vows....
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 71: 100 Betrothals

A woman who takes a vow while betrothed, divorces that same day, gets betrothed to another that same day -...

Nedarim 71

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 71

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื ื“ืจื” ื•ื”ื™ื ืืจื•ืกื” ื ืชื’ืจืฉื” ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ื ืชืืจืกื” ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืื” ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื‘ืขืœื” ื”ืื—ืจื•ืŸ ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื” ื–ื” ื”ื›ืœืœ ื›ืœ ืฉืœื ื™ืฆืื” ืœืจืฉื•ืช ืขืฆืžื” ืฉืขื” ืื—ืช ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื‘ืขืœื” ื”ืื—ืจื•ืŸ ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื”

MISHNA: If she took a vow as a betrothed woman and then was divorced on the same day, and she was again betrothed on the same day to another man, or even to one hundred men, one after the other, on a single day, her father and her last husband nullify her vows. This is the principle: With regard to any young woman who has not left her fatherโ€™s jurisdiction and entered into her own jurisdiction for at least one moment, through full marriage or reaching majority, her father and her final husband nullify her vows.

ื’ืžืณ ืžื ืœืŸ ื“ืืจื•ืก ืื—ืจื•ืŸ ืžื™ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื ืจืื• ืœืืจื•ืก ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื•ืื ื”ื™ื• ืชื”ื™ื” ืœืื™ืฉ ื•ื ื“ืจื™ื” ืขืœื™ื” ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื”ื™ื• ืขืœื™ื” ื›ื‘ืจ ื“ืœืžื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืฉืœื ื ืจืื• ืœืืจื•ืก ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื ืจืื• ืœืืจื•ืก ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืœื ืžืฆื™ ืžื™ืคืจ ืืจื•ืก ืื—ืจื•ืŸ

GEMARA: From where do we derive that her final betrothed can nullify her vows that were disclosed to the first betrothed? Shmuel said that the verse states: โ€œAnd if she be to a husband and her vows are upon herโ€ฆand he nullifies her vowโ€ (Numbers 30:7โ€“9), indicating that he can nullify vows that were upon her already. The Gemara asks: Perhaps this statement applies only to vows that were not discerned by the first betrothed, but vows that were discerned by the first betrothed, the final betrothed cannot nullify.

ืขืœื™ื” ืงืจื ื™ืชื™ืจื ื”ื•ื

The Gemara answers: The phrase โ€œupon herโ€ is a superfluous part of the verse. One can derive from it that all her vows, including those of which an earlier betrothed had been aware, can be nullified by the final betrothed.

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื ืขืจื” ื”ืžืื•ืจืกื” ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื‘ืขืœื” ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื” ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืฉืžืข ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื”ืคืจ ืœื” ื•ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืง ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืœืฉืžื•ืข ืขื“ ืฉืžืช ื•ื ืชืืจืกื” ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืžืื” ืคืขืžื™ื ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื‘ืขืœื” ื”ืื—ืจื•ืŸ ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื” ืฉืžืข ื‘ืขืœื” ื•ื”ืคืจ ืœื” ื•ืœื ื”ืกืคื™ืง ื”ืื‘ ืœืฉืžื•ืข ืขื“ ืฉืžืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื–ืจ ื”ืื‘ ื•ืžืคืจ ื—ืœืงื• ืฉืœ ื‘ืขืœ

It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel: With regard to a betrothed young woman, her father and her husband together nullify her vows. How so? If her father heard and nullified the vow for her, and the husband did not manage to hear it before he died, and she was betrothed on the same day to another man, or even one hundred times on the same day, her father and her final husband nullify her vows. If her husband heard and nullified the vow for her, and the father did not manage to hear it before the husband died, the father may go back and nullify the husbandโ€™s portion.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื ืชืŸ ื”ืŸ ื”ืŸ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืคืจ ื‘ืžืื™ ืคืœื™ื’ื™

Rabbi Natan said: This is the statement of Beit Shammai, that each of them nullifies half of the betrothed young womanโ€™s vow. However, Beit Hillel say that the father cannot nullify the vow on his own. The Gemara asks: About what do Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree?

ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืกื‘ืจื™ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื ืžื™ ืฉืจืื•ื™ ืœืืจื•ืก ื ืชืจื•ืงื ื” ืจืฉื•ืช ืœืื‘ ื•ืžื™ื’ื– ื’ื™ื™ื– ื‘ื™ืช ื”ืœืœ ืกื‘ืจื™ ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื‘ืขืœื” ืื—ืจื•ืŸ ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื” ื•ืœื ืžื™ื’ื– ื’ื™ื™ื–

The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai hold: Even with regard to vows that were disclosed to the betrothed, in the event of his death, his authority reverts to the father. In addition, when the father or husband of a young woman nullifies her vow, he severs his portion of it, enabling the father to nullify her vow on his own after the death of the betrothed. Beit Hillel hold that her father and her final husband together nullify her vows, and he who nullifies her vow does not sever it, but rather weakens its force. Even if the first betrothed was aware of the vow before his death, the father can nullify it in conjunction with another betrothed. This ruling is in accordance with the ruling of Shmuel that her final betrothed can nullify even those vows that she took while betrothed to the first man.

ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ื’ื™ืจื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื“ืžื™ื ืื• ื›ื”ืงืžื” ื“ืžื™ื

ยง A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is a husbandโ€™s divorce of his wife after she took a vow considered like silence, or is it considered like ratification of the vow?

ืœืžืื™ ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื” ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉื ื“ืจื” ื•ืฉืžืข ื‘ืขืœื” ื•ื’ืจืฉื” ื•ืื”ื“ืจื” ื‘ื™ื•ืžื™ื” ืื™ ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื›ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื“ืžื™ ืžืฆื™ ืžื™ืคืจ ืœื” ื•ืื™ ืืžืจ ืžืจ ื›ื”ืงืžื” ื“ืžื™ ืœื ืžืฆื™ ืžื™ืคืจ ืœื”

The Gemara asks: What is the difference between the two possibilities? In any case, he did not nullify her vow before the divorce, and once he has divorced her he can no longer do so. The Gemara answers: There is a difference in a case where she took a vow, and her husband heard the vow, and divorced her, and he remarried her on the same day. If the Master says that divorce is like silence, the husband can now nullify the vow for her, since it is the same day. But if the Master says that divorce is like ratification, he cannot nullify the vow for her, as he has ratified it by divorcing her.

Scroll To Top