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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 3, 2015 | 讬状讞 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 71

诪转谞讬壮 谞讚专讛 讜讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 谞转讙专砖讛 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 谞转讗专住讛 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗讛 讗讘讬讛 讜讘注诇讛 讛讗讞专讜谉 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖诇讗 讬爪讗讛 诇专砖讜转 注爪诪讛 砖注讛 讗讞转 讗讘讬讛 讜讘注诇讛 讛讗讞专讜谉 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬讛

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 father鈥檚 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.

讙诪壮 诪谞诇谉 讚讗专讜住 讗讞专讜谉 诪讬驻专 谞讚专讬诐 砖谞专讗讜 诇讗专讜住 专讗砖讜谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 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 谞讚专讬诐 砖讛讬讜 注诇讬讛 讻讘专 讚诇诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 砖诇讗 谞专讗讜 诇讗专讜住 专讗砖讜谉 讗讘诇 谞讚专讬诐 砖谞专讗讜 诇讗专讜住 专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讬驻专 讗专讜住 讗讞专讜谉

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: 鈥淎nd if she be to a husband and her vows are upon her鈥nd he nullifies her vow鈥 (Numbers 30:7鈥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.

注诇讬讛 拽专讗 讬转讬专讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: The phrase 鈥渦pon her鈥 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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讗讘讬讛 讜讘注诇讛 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬讛 讻讬爪讚 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 讜谞转讗专住讛 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 驻注诪讬诐 讗讘讬讛 讜讘注诇讛 讛讗讞专讜谉 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬讛 砖诪注 讘注诇讛 讜讛驻专 诇讛 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 讛讗讘 诇砖诪讜注 注讚 砖诪转 讛讘注诇 讞讜讝专 讛讗讘 讜诪驻专 讞诇拽讜 砖诇 讘注诇

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 husband鈥檚 portion.

讗诪专 专讘讬 谞转谉 讛谉 讛谉 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讘诇 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬

Rabbi Natan said: This is the statement of Beit Shammai, that each of them nullifies half of the betrothed young woman鈥檚 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?

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 谞讚专讬诐 谞诪讬 砖专讗讜讬 诇讗专讜住 谞转专讜拽谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讗讘 讜诪讬讙讝 讙讬讬讝 讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讗讘讬讛 讜讘注诇讛 讗讞专讜谉 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讙讝 讙讬讬讝

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讻砖转讬拽讛 讚诪讬讗 讗讜 讻讛拽诪讛 讚诪讬讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is a husband鈥檚 divorce of his wife after she took a vow considered like silence, or is it considered like ratification of the vow?

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讚专讛 讜砖诪注 讘注诇讛 讜讙专砖讛 讜讗讛讚专讛 讘讬讜诪讬讛 讗讬 讗诪专 诪专 讻砖转讬拽讛 讚诪讬 诪爪讬 诪讬驻专 诇讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专 诪专 讻讛拽诪讛 讚诪讬 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讬驻专 诇讛

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.

  • 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 71

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 71

诪转谞讬壮 谞讚专讛 讜讛讬讗 讗专讜住讛 谞转讙专砖讛 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 谞转讗专住讛 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讗驻讬诇讜 诇诪讗讛 讗讘讬讛 讜讘注诇讛 讛讗讞专讜谉 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬讛 讝讛 讛讻诇诇 讻诇 砖诇讗 讬爪讗讛 诇专砖讜转 注爪诪讛 砖注讛 讗讞转 讗讘讬讛 讜讘注诇讛 讛讗讞专讜谉 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬讛

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 father鈥檚 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.

讙诪壮 诪谞诇谉 讚讗专讜住 讗讞专讜谉 诪讬驻专 谞讚专讬诐 砖谞专讗讜 诇讗专讜住 专讗砖讜谉 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 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 谞讚专讬诐 砖讛讬讜 注诇讬讛 讻讘专 讚诇诪讗 讛谞讬 诪讬诇讬 砖诇讗 谞专讗讜 诇讗专讜住 专讗砖讜谉 讗讘诇 谞讚专讬诐 砖谞专讗讜 诇讗专讜住 专讗砖讜谉 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讬驻专 讗专讜住 讗讞专讜谉

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: 鈥淎nd if she be to a husband and her vows are upon her鈥nd he nullifies her vow鈥 (Numbers 30:7鈥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.

注诇讬讛 拽专讗 讬转讬专讗 讛讜讗

The Gemara answers: The phrase 鈥渦pon her鈥 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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚砖诪讜讗诇 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛 讗讘讬讛 讜讘注诇讛 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬讛 讻讬爪讚 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 讜谞转讗专住讛 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讜讗驻讬诇讜 诪讗讛 驻注诪讬诐 讗讘讬讛 讜讘注诇讛 讛讗讞专讜谉 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬讛 砖诪注 讘注诇讛 讜讛驻专 诇讛 讜诇讗 讛住驻讬拽 讛讗讘 诇砖诪讜注 注讚 砖诪转 讛讘注诇 讞讜讝专 讛讗讘 讜诪驻专 讞诇拽讜 砖诇 讘注诇

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 husband鈥檚 portion.

讗诪专 专讘讬 谞转谉 讛谉 讛谉 讚讘专讬 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讘诇 讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 讘诪讗讬 驻诇讬讙讬

Rabbi Natan said: This is the statement of Beit Shammai, that each of them nullifies half of the betrothed young woman鈥檚 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?

讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 住讘专讬 谞讚专讬诐 谞诪讬 砖专讗讜讬 诇讗专讜住 谞转专讜拽谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讗讘 讜诪讬讙讝 讙讬讬讝 讘讬转 讛诇诇 住讘专讬 讗讘讬讛 讜讘注诇讛 讗讞专讜谉 诪驻讬专讬谉 谞讚专讬讛 讜诇讗 诪讬讙讝 讙讬讬讝

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.

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 讙讬专讜砖讬谉 讻砖转讬拽讛 讚诪讬讗 讗讜 讻讛拽诪讛 讚诪讬讗

A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is a husband鈥檚 divorce of his wife after she took a vow considered like silence, or is it considered like ratification of the vow?

诇诪讗讬 谞驻拽讗 诪讬谞讛 讻讙讜谉 砖谞讚专讛 讜砖诪注 讘注诇讛 讜讙专砖讛 讜讗讛讚专讛 讘讬讜诪讬讛 讗讬 讗诪专 诪专 讻砖转讬拽讛 讚诪讬 诪爪讬 诪讬驻专 诇讛 讜讗讬 讗诪专 诪专 讻讛拽诪讛 讚诪讬 诇讗 诪爪讬 诪讬驻专 诇讛

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