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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 4, 2015 | ื™ืดื˜ ื‘ืื‘ ืชืฉืขืดื”

  • 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 72

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืื™ืžืชื™ ืืžืจื• ืžืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ื ืชืจื•ืงื ื” ืจืฉื•ืช ืœืื‘ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืœื ืฉืžืข ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืื• ืฉืžืข ื•ื”ืคืจ ืื• ืฉืžืข ื•ืฉืชืง ื•ืžืช ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื’ื™ืจื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื“ืžื• ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื ืžื™ ืื• ืฉืžืข ื•ื’ื™ืจืฉ ืžื“ืœื ืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื’ื™ืจื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื›ื”ืงืžื” ื“ืžื•

Come and hear a resolution of the dilemma from the following baraita: When did they say that if the husband died the authority to nullify a young womanโ€™s vows reverts to the father? When the husband did not hear the vow; or he heard the vow and nullified it; or heard it, and was silent, and died on that day. And if you say that divorce is like silence, let the tanna of the baraita also teach with regard to the husband: Or he heard the vow and divorced her. From the fact that he did not teach this case, learn from the baraita that divorce is like ratification.

ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืื‘ืœ ืื ืฉืžืข ื•ืงื™ื™ื ืื• ืฉืžืข ื•ืฉืชืง ื•ืžืช ื‘ื™ื•ื ืฉืœ ืื—ืจื™ื• ืื™ืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืคืจ ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื’ื™ืจื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื›ื”ืงืžื” ื“ืžื• ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื•ืื ืฉืžืข ื•ื’ื™ืจืฉ ืืœื ืžื“ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื’ื™ืจื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื“ืžื•

The Gemara rejects the proof from the baraita: State the latter clause of the baraita: But if he heard it and ratified it; or he heard it, and was silent, and died on the following day, then the father cannot nullify the vow. But according to this clause, if you say that divorce is like ratification, let the tanna of the baraita also teach: And if he heard the vow and divorced her. Rather, from the fact that the baraita does not teach this, learn from the baraita that divorce is like silence.

ืืœื ืžื”ื ืœื™ื›ื ืœืžืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืื™ ืจื™ืฉื ื“ื•ืงื ื ืกื™ื‘ ืกื™ืคื ืžืฉื•ื ืจื™ืฉื ืื™ ืกื™ืคื ื“ื•ืงื ื ืกื™ื‘ ืจื™ืฉื ืžืฉื•ื ืกื™ืคื

Rather, one cannot learn anything from this baraita about the effect of divorce on her vows. The Gemara explains that the discrepancy between the two clauses is stylistic and can be explained either way: If the cases in the first clause are chosen precisely, allowing for the inference that divorce is like ratification, then one must say that the tanna formulates the last clause of the baraita as he does because of the first clause, i.e., in the same style, although it does not add anything. If the cases in the last clause are chosen precisely, allowing for the inference that divorce is like silence, then one must say that the tanna formulates the first clause of the baraita as he does because of the last clause, i.e., in the same style, although it does not add anything.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื ื“ืจื” ื•ื”ื™ื ืืจื•ืกื” ื•ื ืชื’ืจืฉื” ื•ื ืชืืจืกื” ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืื” ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื‘ืขืœื” ื”ืื—ืจื•ืŸ ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื” ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื’ื™ืจื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื“ืžื• ื“ืื™ ื›ื”ืงืžื” ื“ืžื• ืžื™ ืžืฆื™ ืžื™ืคืจ ืืจื•ืก ืื—ืจื•ืŸ ื ื™ื“ืจื™ ื“ืื•ืงื™ื ืืจื•ืก ืจืืฉื•ืŸ

Come and hear a mishna (71a): If she took a vow while she was betrothed, and was divorced, and was betrothed again on the same day, even to one hundred men, her father and her final husband nullify her vows. Learn from this mishna that divorce is like silence, because if it were like ratification, could the final betrothed nullify vows that the first betrothed had already ratified?

ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœื ืฉืžืข ืืจื•ืก ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืื—ืจ ืžืื” ื™ืžื™ื ื ืžื™

The Gemara rejects this proof: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case in which the first betrothed man did not hear the vow, and for that reason his divorcing her does not constitute ratification. The Gemara then asks: If so, why mention specifically that the divorce occurred on that day? The same would hold true even after one hundred days as well. Since the first husband never heard the vow, the final husband can nullify it on whichever day he hears it.

ื›ืฉืœื ืฉืžืข ืืจื•ืก ื•ืฉืžืข ื”ืื‘ ื“ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืžืฆื™ ืžื™ืคืจ ืื‘ืœ ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืื™ืœืš ืœื ืžืฆื™ ืžื™ืคืจ

The Gemara answers: It is referring to a situation in which the betrothed man did not hear the vow but the father heard it. As in that case, it is only on the same day that he can nullify the vow, but he cannot nullify it from this point forward. Once her father has already heard the vow, her betrothed cannot nullify it on a different day. Therefore, one cannot infer from the mishna that divorce is like silence.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื ื“ืจื” ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ื’ื™ืจืฉื” ื•ื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื” ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ืื™ืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืคืจ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื’ื™ืจื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื›ื”ืงืžื” ื“ืžื•

Come and hear a resolution of the dilemma from a mishna (89a): If she took a vow on that day, and he divorced her and remarried her on the same day, he cannot nullify her vow. Learn from the mishna that divorce is like ratification.

ืืžืจื™ ื”ื›ื ื‘ื ืฉื•ืื” ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืื™ืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืคืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืžื™ืคืจ ื‘ืงื•ื“ืžื™ืŸ

The Gemara rejects this proof: Say that here, i.e., in the mishna cited, we are dealing with a married woman, and that is the reason that he cannot nullify the vow. It is not because it has been ratified by divorce but because the husband cannot nullify his wifeโ€™s vows that precede their marriage. The dilemma remains unresolved.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื“ืจืš ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื”ื™ืชื” ื‘ืชื• ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืžืืฆืœื• ืื•ืžืจ ืœื” ื›ืœ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื ื“ืจืช ื‘ืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื™ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืžื•ืคืจื™ืŸ ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืขื“ ืฉืœื ืชื›ื ืก ืœืจืฉื•ืชื• ืื•ืžืจ ืœื” ื›ืœ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื ื“ืจืช ืขื“ ืฉืœื ืชื›ื ืกื™ ืœืจืฉื•ืชื™ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืžื•ืคืจื™ืŸ ืฉืžืฉืชื›ื ืก ืœืจืฉื•ืชื• ืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืคืจ

MISHNA: The practice of Torah scholars is to ensure that a woman about to be married should not be encumbered by any vows. A father, before his daughter would leave him through marriage, would say to her: All vows that you vowed in my house are hereby nullified. And similarly, the husband, before she would enter his jurisdiction, i.e., while they were still betrothed, would say to her: All vows that you vowed before you entered my jurisdiction are hereby nullified. This was necessary because once she enters his jurisdiction he cannot nullify the vows she made before that.

ื’ืžืณ ื‘ืขื™ ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ื‘ืขืœ ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืคืจ ื‘ืœื ืฉืžื™ืขื” ื•ืฉืžืข ืื™ืฉื” ื“ื•ืงื ื”ื•ื ืื• ืœืื• ื“ื•ืงื ื”ื•ื

gemara Rami bar แธคama asks: Concerning a husband, what is the halakha with regard to his nullifying a vow without hearing it? In other words, can a husband state a general nullification of his wifeโ€™s vows without being aware of any particular vow? When the verse states: โ€œAnd her husband hears it, on the day that he hears it, and holds his peace at her, then her vows shall be ratifiedโ€ (Numbers 30:8), is that referring specifically to a situation where he actually heard of a vow, and only then he can nullify it? Or is it not specifically referring to such a situation, and the mention of hearing is merely because the ordinary situation is that the husband nullifies a vow once he hears it?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืจืš ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื™ืฆืืช ื‘ืชื• ืžืืฆืœื• ืื•ืžืจ ืœื” ื›ืœ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื ื“ืจืช ื‘ืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื™ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืžื•ืคืจื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื ืœื ืฉืžืข

Rava said: Come and hear the mishna: The practice of Torah scholars is that a father, before his daughter would leave him through marriage, would say to her: All vows that you vowed in my house are hereby nullified. Rava points out: But the father did not hear her vows, so it must be that one can nullify vows without knowledge that they were actually made.

ืœื›ื™ ืฉืžืข ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื™ืคืจ ืื ื›ืŸ ื›ื™ ืœื ืฉืžืข ืœืžื” ืœื™ื” ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื”ื ืงืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืื•ืจื—ื™ื” ื“ืฆื•ืจื‘ื ืžืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื”ื“ื•ืจื™

The Gemara rejects this conclusion: The mishna means that the father states a preemptive nullification that when he will hear a particular vow is when he nullifies it. The vow is not actually nullified until he hears it. The Gemara asks: If so, when he has not actually heard those vows yet, why is it necessary for him to state preemptively that the vows will be nullified; why not wait until he actually hears the vow? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that it is the practice of a Torah scholar to pursue such matters, in order to prompt his daughter or his betrothed to inform him of vows she took, which will then be nullified when he hears of them.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืžืกื™ืคื ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืขื“ ืฉืœื ืชื›ื ืก ืœืจืฉื•ืชื• ืื•ืžืจ ืœื” ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื” ืœื›ื™ ืฉืžืขื ื

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear from the latter clause of the mishna: And similarly, the husband, before she would enter his jurisdiction, i.e., while they were still betrothed, would say to her: All vows that you vowed before you entered my jurisdiction are hereby nullified. This implies that he can nullify vows without hearing them. The Gemara responds: Here too, it means that he says to her: When I hear the particular vow, then it will be nullified.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœืืฉืชื• ื›ืœ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉืชื“ื•ืจื™ ืขื“ ืฉืื‘ื ืžืžืงื•ื ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืงื™ื™ืžื™ืŸ ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืžื•ืคืจื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื•ืคืจ ื•ื”ื ืœื ืฉืžืข

Come and hear another mishna to answer the question (Nedarim 75a): One who says to his wife: All vows that you vow until I arrive from such and such a place are hereby ratified, has not said anything, i.e., the vows are not ratified. If he says: All vows that you vow until then are hereby nullified, Rabbi Eliezer says: They are nullified. The Gemara comments: But he did not actually hear the particular vows, so one can infer from this that he need not hear her vows in order to nullify them.

ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื›ื™ ืฉืžืขื ื ื•ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืชื ืœื›ื™ ืฉืžืข ืœื™ืคืจ ืœื” ืงืกื‘ืจ ื“ืœืžื ืžื˜ืจื™ื“ื ื ื”ื”ื™ื ืฉืขืชื

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Here too, one can understand the situation to be that he says: When I hear the particular vow, it will be nullified. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need, i.e., why must the husband state his nullification, from now; let him nullify them for her when he actually hears them. The Gemara answers: He reasons: Perhaps I will be preoccupied at that moment and will forget to nullify them. He therefore nullifies the vows beforehand, so that the nullification will take effect automatically when he hears them.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ื›ืœ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื ื•ื“ืจืช ืืฉืชื™ ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืขื“ ืฉืื‘ื ืžืžืงื•ื ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื”ืคืจ ื•ื”ืคืจ ืœื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื• ืžื•ืคืจื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื™ืฉื” ื™ืงื™ืžื ื• ื•ืื™ืฉื” ื™ืคืจื ื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืืฉื™ื”

Come and hear a baraita: In the case of one who says to a steward [apotropos] appointed to manage his affairs in his absence: All vows that my wife vows from now until I arrive from such and such a place you should nullify, and the steward nullified the vows for her, one might have thought that they would be nullified. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œHer husband may ratify it, or her husband may nullify itโ€ (Numbers 30:14). The repetition of โ€œher husbandโ€ teaches that it is the husband alone who may nullify his wifeโ€™s vows; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ืชืŸ ืžืฆื™ื ื• ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื›ื•ืœื” ืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืฉืœ ืื“ื ื›ืžื•ืชื•

Rabbi Yonatan said to him: We have found everywhere in the Torah that the legal status of a personโ€™s agent is like that of himself. Therefore, a steward can nullify the vows on the husbandโ€™s behalf.

ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืืฉื™ื” ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื’ื–ื™ืจืช ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื”ื•ื ืื™ืฉื” ื™ืงื™ืžื ื• ื•ืื™ืฉื” ื™ืคืจื ื• ืื‘ืœ ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืฉืœ ืื“ื ื›ืžื•ืชื• ื•ื”ื ืœื ืฉืžื™ืข ืœื™ื”

The Gemara points out: And even Rabbi Yoshiya says that a steward cannot nullify the wifeโ€™s vows only because it is a Torah edict, based upon the words โ€œher husband may ratify it, or her husband may nullify itโ€ (Numbers 30:14). But according to everyone, the principle that the legal status of a personโ€™s agent is like that of himself is generally valid. The only objection to the steward nullifying the vows is the Torah edict. The Gemara asks: But these vows were not heard by the steward? This indicates that not having heard the vows is not an obstacle to nullification.

  • 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 72

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 72

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืื™ืžืชื™ ืืžืจื• ืžืช ื”ื‘ืขืœ ื ืชืจื•ืงื ื” ืจืฉื•ืช ืœืื‘ ื‘ื–ืžืŸ ืฉืœื ืฉืžืข ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืื• ืฉืžืข ื•ื”ืคืจ ืื• ืฉืžืข ื•ืฉืชืง ื•ืžืช ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื’ื™ืจื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื“ืžื• ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื ืžื™ ืื• ืฉืžืข ื•ื’ื™ืจืฉ ืžื“ืœื ืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื’ื™ืจื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื›ื”ืงืžื” ื“ืžื•

Come and hear a resolution of the dilemma from the following baraita: When did they say that if the husband died the authority to nullify a young womanโ€™s vows reverts to the father? When the husband did not hear the vow; or he heard the vow and nullified it; or heard it, and was silent, and died on that day. And if you say that divorce is like silence, let the tanna of the baraita also teach with regard to the husband: Or he heard the vow and divorced her. From the fact that he did not teach this case, learn from the baraita that divorce is like ratification.

ืื™ืžื ืกื™ืคื ืื‘ืœ ืื ืฉืžืข ื•ืงื™ื™ื ืื• ืฉืžืข ื•ืฉืชืง ื•ืžืช ื‘ื™ื•ื ืฉืœ ืื—ืจื™ื• ืื™ืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืคืจ ื•ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื’ื™ืจื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื›ื”ืงืžื” ื“ืžื• ืœื™ืชื ื™ ื•ืื ืฉืžืข ื•ื’ื™ืจืฉ ืืœื ืžื“ืœื ืงืชื ื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื’ื™ืจื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื“ืžื•

The Gemara rejects the proof from the baraita: State the latter clause of the baraita: But if he heard it and ratified it; or he heard it, and was silent, and died on the following day, then the father cannot nullify the vow. But according to this clause, if you say that divorce is like ratification, let the tanna of the baraita also teach: And if he heard the vow and divorced her. Rather, from the fact that the baraita does not teach this, learn from the baraita that divorce is like silence.

ืืœื ืžื”ื ืœื™ื›ื ืœืžืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื™ื” ืื™ ืจื™ืฉื ื“ื•ืงื ื ืกื™ื‘ ืกื™ืคื ืžืฉื•ื ืจื™ืฉื ืื™ ืกื™ืคื ื“ื•ืงื ื ืกื™ื‘ ืจื™ืฉื ืžืฉื•ื ืกื™ืคื

Rather, one cannot learn anything from this baraita about the effect of divorce on her vows. The Gemara explains that the discrepancy between the two clauses is stylistic and can be explained either way: If the cases in the first clause are chosen precisely, allowing for the inference that divorce is like ratification, then one must say that the tanna formulates the last clause of the baraita as he does because of the first clause, i.e., in the same style, although it does not add anything. If the cases in the last clause are chosen precisely, allowing for the inference that divorce is like silence, then one must say that the tanna formulates the first clause of the baraita as he does because of the last clause, i.e., in the same style, although it does not add anything.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื ื“ืจื” ื•ื”ื™ื ืืจื•ืกื” ื•ื ืชื’ืจืฉื” ื•ื ืชืืจืกื” ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืžืื” ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื‘ืขืœื” ื”ืื—ืจื•ืŸ ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื” ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื’ื™ืจื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื›ืฉืชื™ืงื” ื“ืžื• ื“ืื™ ื›ื”ืงืžื” ื“ืžื• ืžื™ ืžืฆื™ ืžื™ืคืจ ืืจื•ืก ืื—ืจื•ืŸ ื ื™ื“ืจื™ ื“ืื•ืงื™ื ืืจื•ืก ืจืืฉื•ืŸ

Come and hear a mishna (71a): If she took a vow while she was betrothed, and was divorced, and was betrothed again on the same day, even to one hundred men, her father and her final husband nullify her vows. Learn from this mishna that divorce is like silence, because if it were like ratification, could the final betrothed nullify vows that the first betrothed had already ratified?

ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืฉืœื ืฉืžืข ืืจื•ืก ืจืืฉื•ืŸ ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืžืื™ ืื™ืจื™ื ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืื—ืจ ืžืื” ื™ืžื™ื ื ืžื™

The Gemara rejects this proof: With what are we dealing here? We are dealing with a case in which the first betrothed man did not hear the vow, and for that reason his divorcing her does not constitute ratification. The Gemara then asks: If so, why mention specifically that the divorce occurred on that day? The same would hold true even after one hundred days as well. Since the first husband never heard the vow, the final husband can nullify it on whichever day he hears it.

ื›ืฉืœื ืฉืžืข ืืจื•ืก ื•ืฉืžืข ื”ืื‘ ื“ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื•ื ื“ืžืฆื™ ืžื™ืคืจ ืื‘ืœ ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืื™ืœืš ืœื ืžืฆื™ ืžื™ืคืจ

The Gemara answers: It is referring to a situation in which the betrothed man did not hear the vow but the father heard it. As in that case, it is only on the same day that he can nullify the vow, but he cannot nullify it from this point forward. Once her father has already heard the vow, her betrothed cannot nullify it on a different day. Therefore, one cannot infer from the mishna that divorce is like silence.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื ื“ืจื” ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ื’ื™ืจืฉื” ื•ื”ื—ื–ื™ืจื” ื‘ื• ื‘ื™ื•ื ืื™ืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืคืจ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื’ื™ืจื•ืฉื™ืŸ ื›ื”ืงืžื” ื“ืžื•

Come and hear a resolution of the dilemma from a mishna (89a): If she took a vow on that day, and he divorced her and remarried her on the same day, he cannot nullify her vow. Learn from the mishna that divorce is like ratification.

ืืžืจื™ ื”ื›ื ื‘ื ืฉื•ืื” ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื•ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืื™ืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืคืจ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืื™ืŸ ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืžื™ืคืจ ื‘ืงื•ื“ืžื™ืŸ

The Gemara rejects this proof: Say that here, i.e., in the mishna cited, we are dealing with a married woman, and that is the reason that he cannot nullify the vow. It is not because it has been ratified by divorce but because the husband cannot nullify his wifeโ€™s vows that precede their marriage. The dilemma remains unresolved.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื“ืจืš ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื”ื™ืชื” ื‘ืชื• ื™ื•ืฆืื” ืžืืฆืœื• ืื•ืžืจ ืœื” ื›ืœ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื ื“ืจืช ื‘ืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื™ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืžื•ืคืจื™ืŸ ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืขื“ ืฉืœื ืชื›ื ืก ืœืจืฉื•ืชื• ืื•ืžืจ ืœื” ื›ืœ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื ื“ืจืช ืขื“ ืฉืœื ืชื›ื ืกื™ ืœืจืฉื•ืชื™ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืžื•ืคืจื™ืŸ ืฉืžืฉืชื›ื ืก ืœืจืฉื•ืชื• ืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืคืจ

MISHNA: The practice of Torah scholars is to ensure that a woman about to be married should not be encumbered by any vows. A father, before his daughter would leave him through marriage, would say to her: All vows that you vowed in my house are hereby nullified. And similarly, the husband, before she would enter his jurisdiction, i.e., while they were still betrothed, would say to her: All vows that you vowed before you entered my jurisdiction are hereby nullified. This was necessary because once she enters his jurisdiction he cannot nullify the vows she made before that.

ื’ืžืณ ื‘ืขื™ ืจืžื™ ื‘ืจ ื—ืžื ื‘ืขืœ ืžื”ื• ืฉื™ืคืจ ื‘ืœื ืฉืžื™ืขื” ื•ืฉืžืข ืื™ืฉื” ื“ื•ืงื ื”ื•ื ืื• ืœืื• ื“ื•ืงื ื”ื•ื

gemara Rami bar แธคama asks: Concerning a husband, what is the halakha with regard to his nullifying a vow without hearing it? In other words, can a husband state a general nullification of his wifeโ€™s vows without being aware of any particular vow? When the verse states: โ€œAnd her husband hears it, on the day that he hears it, and holds his peace at her, then her vows shall be ratifiedโ€ (Numbers 30:8), is that referring specifically to a situation where he actually heard of a vow, and only then he can nullify it? Or is it not specifically referring to such a situation, and the mention of hearing is merely because the ordinary situation is that the husband nullifies a vow once he hears it?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืจืš ืชืœืžื™ื“ื™ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื™ืฆืืช ื‘ืชื• ืžืืฆืœื• ืื•ืžืจ ืœื” ื›ืœ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื ื“ืจืช ื‘ืชื•ืš ื‘ื™ืชื™ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืžื•ืคืจื™ืŸ ื•ื”ื ืœื ืฉืžืข

Rava said: Come and hear the mishna: The practice of Torah scholars is that a father, before his daughter would leave him through marriage, would say to her: All vows that you vowed in my house are hereby nullified. Rava points out: But the father did not hear her vows, so it must be that one can nullify vows without knowledge that they were actually made.

ืœื›ื™ ืฉืžืข ื”ื•ื ื“ืžื™ืคืจ ืื ื›ืŸ ื›ื™ ืœื ืฉืžืข ืœืžื” ืœื™ื” ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื”ื ืงืžืฉืžืข ืœืŸ ืื•ืจื—ื™ื” ื“ืฆื•ืจื‘ื ืžืจื‘ื ืŸ ืœื”ื“ื•ืจื™

The Gemara rejects this conclusion: The mishna means that the father states a preemptive nullification that when he will hear a particular vow is when he nullifies it. The vow is not actually nullified until he hears it. The Gemara asks: If so, when he has not actually heard those vows yet, why is it necessary for him to state preemptively that the vows will be nullified; why not wait until he actually hears the vow? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that it is the practice of a Torah scholar to pursue such matters, in order to prompt his daughter or his betrothed to inform him of vows she took, which will then be nullified when he hears of them.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืžืกื™ืคื ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ื‘ืขืœ ืขื“ ืฉืœื ืชื›ื ืก ืœืจืฉื•ืชื• ืื•ืžืจ ืœื” ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื” ืœื›ื™ ืฉืžืขื ื

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear from the latter clause of the mishna: And similarly, the husband, before she would enter his jurisdiction, i.e., while they were still betrothed, would say to her: All vows that you vowed before you entered my jurisdiction are hereby nullified. This implies that he can nullify vows without hearing them. The Gemara responds: Here too, it means that he says to her: When I hear the particular vow, then it will be nullified.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœืืฉืชื• ื›ืœ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉืชื“ื•ืจื™ ืขื“ ืฉืื‘ื ืžืžืงื•ื ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืงื™ื™ืžื™ืŸ ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืžื•ืคืจื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืžื•ืคืจ ื•ื”ื ืœื ืฉืžืข

Come and hear another mishna to answer the question (Nedarim 75a): One who says to his wife: All vows that you vow until I arrive from such and such a place are hereby ratified, has not said anything, i.e., the vows are not ratified. If he says: All vows that you vow until then are hereby nullified, Rabbi Eliezer says: They are nullified. The Gemara comments: But he did not actually hear the particular vows, so one can infer from this that he need not hear her vows in order to nullify them.

ื”ื›ื ื ืžื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื›ื™ ืฉืžืขื ื ื•ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืชื ืœื›ื™ ืฉืžืข ืœื™ืคืจ ืœื” ืงืกื‘ืจ ื“ืœืžื ืžื˜ืจื™ื“ื ื ื”ื”ื™ื ืฉืขืชื

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Here too, one can understand the situation to be that he says: When I hear the particular vow, it will be nullified. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need, i.e., why must the husband state his nullification, from now; let him nullify them for her when he actually hears them. The Gemara answers: He reasons: Perhaps I will be preoccupied at that moment and will forget to nullify them. He therefore nullifies the vows beforehand, so that the nullification will take effect automatically when he hears them.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœืืคื•ื˜ืจื•ืคื•ืก ื›ืœ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื ื•ื“ืจืช ืืฉืชื™ ืžื›ืืŸ ื•ืขื“ ืฉืื‘ื ืžืžืงื•ื ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื”ืคืจ ื•ื”ืคืจ ืœื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ื™ื”ื• ืžื•ืคืจื™ืŸ ืชืœืžื•ื“ ืœื•ืžืจ ืื™ืฉื” ื™ืงื™ืžื ื• ื•ืื™ืฉื” ื™ืคืจื ื• ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืืฉื™ื”

Come and hear a baraita: In the case of one who says to a steward [apotropos] appointed to manage his affairs in his absence: All vows that my wife vows from now until I arrive from such and such a place you should nullify, and the steward nullified the vows for her, one might have thought that they would be nullified. Therefore, the verse states: โ€œHer husband may ratify it, or her husband may nullify itโ€ (Numbers 30:14). The repetition of โ€œher husbandโ€ teaches that it is the husband alone who may nullify his wifeโ€™s vows; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื ืชืŸ ืžืฆื™ื ื• ื‘ื›ืœ ื”ืชื•ืจื” ื›ื•ืœื” ืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืฉืœ ืื“ื ื›ืžื•ืชื•

Rabbi Yonatan said to him: We have found everywhere in the Torah that the legal status of a personโ€™s agent is like that of himself. Therefore, a steward can nullify the vows on the husbandโ€™s behalf.

ื•ืืคื™ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืืฉื™ื” ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืืœื ืžืฉื•ื ื“ื’ื–ื™ืจืช ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื”ื•ื ืื™ืฉื” ื™ืงื™ืžื ื• ื•ืื™ืฉื” ื™ืคืจื ื• ืื‘ืœ ื“ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืฉืœื•ื—ื• ืฉืœ ืื“ื ื›ืžื•ืชื• ื•ื”ื ืœื ืฉืžื™ืข ืœื™ื”

The Gemara points out: And even Rabbi Yoshiya says that a steward cannot nullify the wifeโ€™s vows only because it is a Torah edict, based upon the words โ€œher husband may ratify it, or her husband may nullify itโ€ (Numbers 30:14). But according to everyone, the principle that the legal status of a personโ€™s agent is like that of himself is generally valid. The only objection to the steward nullifying the vows is the Torah edict. The Gemara asks: But these vows were not heard by the steward? This indicates that not having heard the vows is not an obstacle to nullification.

Scroll To Top