If a woman is supposed to do levirate marriage with the brother of her deceased husband, does the yabam, the brother, allowed to nullify her vows? There are three opinions in the Mishna. The Mishna records a conversation between the three of them, each trying to prove his opinion. The Gemara explains each side, particularly as they relate to a debate in Yevamot about whether or not there is zika, a strong connection between the couple before levirate marriage is actually performed. However, Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion is questioned as he permits the yabam to nullify even if there is only one brother. Rabbi Ami explains that Rabbi Eliezer holds this only if the yabam performed maamar (something similar to betrothal for a yibum situation). And that he holds by Beit Shamai who holds that maamar is a really act of acquiring. Two (or possibly three) difficulties are raised against Rabbi Ami but are resolved. The Tosefta is then quoted to support Rabbi Ami’s understanding.
Nedarim 74
Share this shiur:
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
Nedarim 74
מַתְנִי׳ שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם, בֵּין לְיָבָם אֶחָד, בֵּין לִשְׁנֵי יְבָמִין. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יָפֵר. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לְאֶחָד, אֲבָל לֹא לִשְׁנַיִם. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לֹא לְאֶחָד וְלֹא לִשְׁנַיִם.
MISHNA: With regard to a widow waiting for her yavam to perform levirate marriage, whether she is waiting for one yavam, if her late husband had only one brother, or whether she is waiting for two or more yevamin, if he had several brothers, Rabbi Eliezer says: A yavam can nullify her vows. Rabbi Yehoshua says: If she is waiting for one yavam, he can nullify her vows, but not if she is waiting for two. Rabbi Akiva says: A yavam cannot nullify her vows, regardless of whether she is waiting for one yavam or for two or more.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: מָה אִם אִשָּׁה שֶׁקָּנָה הוּא לְעַצְמוֹ — הֲרֵי הוּא מֵיפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ, אִשָּׁה שֶׁהִקְנוּ לוֹ מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיָּפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ?
The mishna then elaborates: Rabbi Eliezer said: Just as with regard to a woman he acquired for himself through betrothal, he nullifies her vows, so too with regard to a woman acquired for him from Heaven, i.e., the yevama, isn’t it logical that he should be able to nullify her vows?
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁקָּנָה הוּא לְעַצְמוֹ — שֶׁאֵין לַאֲחֵרִים בָּהּ רְשׁוּת, תֹּאמַר בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִקְנוּ לוֹ מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם, שֶׁיֵּשׁ לַאֲחֵרִים בָּהּ רְשׁוּת?!
Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, if you say that a husband can nullify the vows of a woman he acquired for himself, over whom others have no authority, shall you also say that this is the case with regard to a woman acquired for him from Heaven, over whom others have authority? If there are two yevamin, each yavam has equal authority with regard to her vows.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: עֲקִיבָא, דְּבָרֶיךָ בִּשְׁנֵי יְבָמִין, מָה אַתָּה מֵשִׁיב עַל יָבָם אֶחָד? אָמַר לוֹ: אֵין הַיְּבָמָה גְּמוּרָה לַיָּבָם כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהָאֲרוּסָה גְּמוּרָה לְאִישָׁהּ.
Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Akiva, your statement applies in a situation with two yevamin, but how do you reply to Rabbi Eliezer in the case of one yavam? Rabbi Akiva said to him: A yevama is not the full-fledged wife of the yavam in the way that a betrothed woman is her husband’s full-fledged wife, and the yavam is not empowered to nullify vows at all.
גְּמָ׳ בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר אֵין זִיקָה, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר יֵשׁ זִיקָה. אֶלָּא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ? אִי יֵשׁ זִיקָה, אֵין בְּרֵירָה.
GEMARA: The latter two opinions in the mishna make sense: Rabbi Akiva holds that the levirate bond is not substantial. Since the obligation of levirate marriage does not create a marriage-like bond between the yavam and the yevama, a yavam cannot nullify the vows of the yevama. And Rabbi Yehoshua holds that the levirate bond is substantial, so that if there is only one yavam, the yevama is considered his wife, allowing him to nullify her vows. However, with regard to Rabbi Eliezer, what is his reason? Even if he holds that the levirate bond is substantial, there is, nevertheless, no retroactive designation. Since it has not yet been established which of them will be her husband, how can either of them nullify her vows?
אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: כְּגוֹן שֶׁעָשָׂה בָּהּ מַאֲמָר. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר לַהּ כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, דְּאָמְרִי: מַאֲמָר קוֹנֶה קִנְיָן גָּמוּר.
Rav Ami said: It is a case where one yavam has already performed levirate betrothal with her. According to Beit Hillel, levirate betrothal does not have the full force of a regular betrothal, but Rabbi Eliezer holds like Beit Shammai, who say: Levirate betrothal effects a full-fledged acquisition just like a regular betrothal.
וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר לְךָ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּחַד יָבָם, אֲבָל בִּשְׁנֵי יְבָמִין — לָא. מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּכִי אָתֵי אֲחוּהִי אָסַר עֲלֵיהּ בְּבִיאָה, אוֹ בְּגִיטָּא וּמֵפֵר? וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: אֵין זִיקָה.
But Rabbi Yehoshua would say to you, Rabbi Eliezer, in response: That statement, that levirate betrothal effects a full-fledged acquisition, applies only to a case with one yavam, but with two yevamin it is not so. The Gemara explains why it cannot be a full-fledged acquisition where there is more than one yavam: Is there anything like this sort of betrothal that when his brother comes, he can render the betrothed woman forbidden to the one who performed levirate betrothal by engaging in sexual intercourse with the yevama, thereby performing levirate marriage, or by giving her a bill of divorce, thereby disqualifying her from levirate marriage, and nevertheless the betrothed can still nullify her vows? Since this betrothal can in essence be nullified, it cannot be viewed as betrothal with regard to nullification of vows. Rabbi Ami completes his analysis: And Rabbi Akiva holds that the levirate bond is not substantial at all, and there is no marital bond between a yevama and her yavam until the levirate marriage is consummated.
וּלְרַבִּי (אֱלִיעֶזֶר) [אֶלְעָזָר], דְּאָמַר: מַאֲמָר לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי אֵין קוֹנֶה אֶלָּא לִדְחוֹת בַּצָּרָה. מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
The Gemara challenges Rabbi Ami’s interpretation of the dispute: And according to the amora Rabbi Elazar, who said that levirate betrothal, according to Beit Shammai, does not effect a full-fledged acquisition except in that it removes a rival wife from being considered substantially bound to the yavam while she is a yevama, what can be said? Only the relatives of the betrothed yevama are then forbidden to the yavam.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן שֶׁעָמַד בַּדִּין, וְאִיתְחַיֵּיב לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת, וְכִדְרַב פִּנְחָס מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: דְּאָמַר כׇּל הַנּוֹדֶרֶת — עַל דַּעַת בַּעְלָהּ הִיא נוֹדֶרֶת.
The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the yavam stood in court in judgment after the woman demanded that he marry her and he was obligated by the court to provide her sustenance. And this is in accordance with that which Rav Pineḥas stated in the name of Rava, who said: Any woman who vows, that which she vows is contingent upon her husband’s consent. Since under these circumstances the yavam must provide for the yevama he betrothed, he is authorized to nullify her vows.
תְּנַן אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: וּמָה אִם אִשָּׁה שֶׁקָּנָה לְעַצְמוֹ — הֲרֵי הוּא מֵיפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ, אִשָּׁה שֶׁהִקְנוּ לוֹ מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם — אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁמֵּיפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ? וְאִי בְּשֶׁעָשָׂה בָּהּ מַאֲמָר, קָנָה לְעַצְמוֹ הוּא! שֶׁקָּנָה לְעַצְמוֹ עַל יְדֵי שָׁמַיִם.
The Gemara raises a difficulty with Rabbi Ami’s explanation of Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion: We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer said: Just as with regard to a woman he acquired for himself through betrothal, he nullifies her vows, so too with regard to a woman acquired for him from Heaven, i.e., the yevama, isn’t it logical that he should be able to nullify her vows? Now if Rabbi Ami’s interpretation is correct, and the mishna is referring to a case where a yavam performed levirate betrothal, then it is actually a case where he acquired a woman for himself by performing levirate betrothal. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, it is a case where he acquired for himself a woman who was imposed upon him by means of Heaven.
תִּפְשׁוֹט דְּבָעֵי רַבָּה: מַאֲמָר לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי, אֵירוּסִין עוֹשֶׂה אוֹ נִשּׂוּאִין עוֹשֶׂה? תִּפְשׁוֹט דְּנִשּׂוּאִין עוֹשֶׂה. דְּאִי אֵירוּסִין עוֹשֶׂה — הָא תְּנַן: נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה, אָבִיהָ וּבַעְלָהּ מְפִירִין נְדָרֶיהָ.
The Gemara raises another difficulty with Rabbi Ami’s interpretation, in that if it is correct, you can resolve the dilemma that Rabba raised: Does levirate betrothal, according to Beit Shammai, merely effect betrothal, or does it effect full-fledged marriage? According to Rabbi Eliezer, you can resolve the dilemma by proving that it effects marriage. The proof is as follows: Because if levirate betrothal effects only betrothal, why does the mishna mention only the yavam with regard to nullification of vows? Didn’t we learn in a mishna (Nedarim 66b) that with regard to a betrothed young woman, her father and her husband together nullify her vows? If levirate betrothal renders her betrothed to the yavam, the father should also be mentioned as a partner in the nullification.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מַאי ״יָפֵר״ — יָפֵר בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: This does not resolve the dilemma, as what could be the meaning of nullify in the mishna? It could mean that he nullifies vows in partnership with the father.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי כְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי: שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם, בֵּין יָבָם אֶחָד בֵּין שְׁנֵי יְבָמִין, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יָפֵר, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לְאֶחָד וְלֹא לִשְׁנַיִם. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לֹא לְאֶחָד וְלֹא לִשְׁנַיִם.
The Gemara comments: It is also taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer is addressing a case where levirate betrothal has been performed, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami: With regard to a widow awaiting her yavam, whether she is waiting for one yavam, if her late husband had only one brother, or for two or more yevamin, Rabbi Eliezer says: The yavam can nullify her vows, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: He can nullify her vows only in a case where she is waiting for one yavam, but not if she is waiting for two. Rabbi Akiva says: Nullification is not possible at all, not if she is waiting for one, and not if she is waiting for two or more.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: וּמָה אִם אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בָּהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא תָּבֹא לִרְשׁוּתוֹ, מִשֶּׁבָּאת לִרְשׁוּתוֹ — נִגְמְרָה לוֹ. אִשָּׁה, שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק עַד שֶׁלֹּא תָּבֹא לִרְשׁוּתוֹ, מִשֶּׁבָּאת לִרְשׁוּתוֹ — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתִּגְמוֹר לוֹ?
The baraita continues: Rabbi Eliezer said to his disputants: And just as if one accepts that a man cannot nullify the vows of a woman in whom he has no share until she enters into his jurisdiction through betrothal, yet once she enters into his jurisdiction, she is fully under his authority for the nullification of her vows, so too with regard to a woman in whom he has a share before she enters his jurisdiction, i.e., his yevama, once she enters his jurisdiction, is it not logical that she be fully under his authority for the nullification of her vows?
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁקָּנָה הוּא לְעַצְמוֹ, שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בָּהּ, כָּךְ אֵין לַאֲחֵרִים חֵלֶק בָּהּ. תֹּאמַר בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִקְנוּ לוֹ מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם, שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עִמָּהּ חֵלֶק — כָּךְ יֵשׁ לַאֲחֵרִים חֵלֶק בָּהּ!
The baraita continues: Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, your a fortiori inference is refutable. If you spoke of a man having authority over the vows of a woman he acquired for himself through betrothal, that would be different: Just as he has no share in her before betrothal, so too others have no share in her. Will you say the same with regard to a woman who is acquired for him from Heaven, i.e., his yevama, for whom, just as he has a share in her, so do others, i.e., his brothers, also have a share in her, as they also are yevamin?
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: עֲקִיבָא, דְּבָרֶיךָ — בִּשְׁנֵי יְבָמִין, מָה אַתָּה מֵשִׁיב עַל יָבָם אֶחָד? אָמַר לוֹ: כְּלוּם חִלַּקְנוּ עַל יָבָם אֶחָד וְעַל שְׁנֵי יְבָמִין בֵּין שֶׁעָשָׂה בָּהּ מַאֲמָר בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה בָּהּ מַאֲמָר? וְכִשְׁאָר דְּבָרִים כֵּן נְדָרִים.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Akiva, your statement fits a situation with two yevamin, but what do you answer for the case of one yavam? Rabbi Akiva replied to him: Did we distinguish between one yavam and two yevamin, regardless of whether he performed levirate betrothal or whether he did not perform levirate betrothal? And just as in other matters there is no such distinction, so too with regard to vows.
בַּלָּשׁוֹן הַזֶּה אָמַר בֶּן עַזַּאי: חֲבָל עָלֶיךָ בֶּן עַזַּאי שֶׁלֹּא שִׁימַּשְׁתָּ אֶת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
The baraita adds a comment: Ben Azzai stated his response to hearing this discussion in this language: Woe [ḥaval] to you, ben Azzai, that you did not serve Rabbi Akiva properly.
מַאי
Since this baraita was cited in support of Rabbi Ami’s interpretation, the Gemara asks: In what way
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.
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
Palo Alto, CA, United States
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
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
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
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 started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
Berlin, Germany
Minneapolis, MN, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
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
New York, United States
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Talmud with R’ Haramati in Yeshivah of Flatbush. But after a respite of 60 years, Rabbanit Michelle lit my fire – after attending the last three world siyumim in Miami Beach, Meadowlands and Boca Raton, and now that I’m retired, I decided – “I can do this!” It has been an incredible journey so far, and I look forward to learning Daf everyday – Mazal Tov to everyone!
Florida, United States
Philadelphia, United States
Nedarim 74
מַתְנִי׳ שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם, בֵּין לְיָבָם אֶחָד, בֵּין לִשְׁנֵי יְבָמִין. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יָפֵר. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לְאֶחָד, אֲבָל לֹא לִשְׁנַיִם. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לֹא לְאֶחָד וְלֹא לִשְׁנַיִם.
MISHNA: With regard to a widow waiting for her yavam to perform levirate marriage, whether she is waiting for one yavam, if her late husband had only one brother, or whether she is waiting for two or more yevamin, if he had several brothers, Rabbi Eliezer says: A yavam can nullify her vows. Rabbi Yehoshua says: If she is waiting for one yavam, he can nullify her vows, but not if she is waiting for two. Rabbi Akiva says: A yavam cannot nullify her vows, regardless of whether she is waiting for one yavam or for two or more.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: מָה אִם אִשָּׁה שֶׁקָּנָה הוּא לְעַצְמוֹ — הֲרֵי הוּא מֵיפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ, אִשָּׁה שֶׁהִקְנוּ לוֹ מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיָּפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ?
The mishna then elaborates: Rabbi Eliezer said: Just as with regard to a woman he acquired for himself through betrothal, he nullifies her vows, so too with regard to a woman acquired for him from Heaven, i.e., the yevama, isn’t it logical that he should be able to nullify her vows?
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁקָּנָה הוּא לְעַצְמוֹ — שֶׁאֵין לַאֲחֵרִים בָּהּ רְשׁוּת, תֹּאמַר בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִקְנוּ לוֹ מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם, שֶׁיֵּשׁ לַאֲחֵרִים בָּהּ רְשׁוּת?!
Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, if you say that a husband can nullify the vows of a woman he acquired for himself, over whom others have no authority, shall you also say that this is the case with regard to a woman acquired for him from Heaven, over whom others have authority? If there are two yevamin, each yavam has equal authority with regard to her vows.
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: עֲקִיבָא, דְּבָרֶיךָ בִּשְׁנֵי יְבָמִין, מָה אַתָּה מֵשִׁיב עַל יָבָם אֶחָד? אָמַר לוֹ: אֵין הַיְּבָמָה גְּמוּרָה לַיָּבָם כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהָאֲרוּסָה גְּמוּרָה לְאִישָׁהּ.
Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Akiva, your statement applies in a situation with two yevamin, but how do you reply to Rabbi Eliezer in the case of one yavam? Rabbi Akiva said to him: A yevama is not the full-fledged wife of the yavam in the way that a betrothed woman is her husband’s full-fledged wife, and the yavam is not empowered to nullify vows at all.
גְּמָ׳ בִּשְׁלָמָא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר אֵין זִיקָה, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ סָבַר יֵשׁ זִיקָה. אֶלָּא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ? אִי יֵשׁ זִיקָה, אֵין בְּרֵירָה.
GEMARA: The latter two opinions in the mishna make sense: Rabbi Akiva holds that the levirate bond is not substantial. Since the obligation of levirate marriage does not create a marriage-like bond between the yavam and the yevama, a yavam cannot nullify the vows of the yevama. And Rabbi Yehoshua holds that the levirate bond is substantial, so that if there is only one yavam, the yevama is considered his wife, allowing him to nullify her vows. However, with regard to Rabbi Eliezer, what is his reason? Even if he holds that the levirate bond is substantial, there is, nevertheless, no retroactive designation. Since it has not yet been established which of them will be her husband, how can either of them nullify her vows?
אָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: כְּגוֹן שֶׁעָשָׂה בָּהּ מַאֲמָר. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר סָבַר לַהּ כְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי, דְּאָמְרִי: מַאֲמָר קוֹנֶה קִנְיָן גָּמוּר.
Rav Ami said: It is a case where one yavam has already performed levirate betrothal with her. According to Beit Hillel, levirate betrothal does not have the full force of a regular betrothal, but Rabbi Eliezer holds like Beit Shammai, who say: Levirate betrothal effects a full-fledged acquisition just like a regular betrothal.
וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר לְךָ: הָנֵי מִילֵּי בְּחַד יָבָם, אֲבָל בִּשְׁנֵי יְבָמִין — לָא. מִי אִיכָּא מִידֵּי דְּכִי אָתֵי אֲחוּהִי אָסַר עֲלֵיהּ בְּבִיאָה, אוֹ בְּגִיטָּא וּמֵפֵר? וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא סָבַר: אֵין זִיקָה.
But Rabbi Yehoshua would say to you, Rabbi Eliezer, in response: That statement, that levirate betrothal effects a full-fledged acquisition, applies only to a case with one yavam, but with two yevamin it is not so. The Gemara explains why it cannot be a full-fledged acquisition where there is more than one yavam: Is there anything like this sort of betrothal that when his brother comes, he can render the betrothed woman forbidden to the one who performed levirate betrothal by engaging in sexual intercourse with the yevama, thereby performing levirate marriage, or by giving her a bill of divorce, thereby disqualifying her from levirate marriage, and nevertheless the betrothed can still nullify her vows? Since this betrothal can in essence be nullified, it cannot be viewed as betrothal with regard to nullification of vows. Rabbi Ami completes his analysis: And Rabbi Akiva holds that the levirate bond is not substantial at all, and there is no marital bond between a yevama and her yavam until the levirate marriage is consummated.
וּלְרַבִּי (אֱלִיעֶזֶר) [אֶלְעָזָר], דְּאָמַר: מַאֲמָר לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי אֵין קוֹנֶה אֶלָּא לִדְחוֹת בַּצָּרָה. מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?
The Gemara challenges Rabbi Ami’s interpretation of the dispute: And according to the amora Rabbi Elazar, who said that levirate betrothal, according to Beit Shammai, does not effect a full-fledged acquisition except in that it removes a rival wife from being considered substantially bound to the yavam while she is a yevama, what can be said? Only the relatives of the betrothed yevama are then forbidden to the yavam.
הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן שֶׁעָמַד בַּדִּין, וְאִיתְחַיֵּיב לָהּ מְזוֹנוֹת, וְכִדְרַב פִּנְחָס מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: דְּאָמַר כׇּל הַנּוֹדֶרֶת — עַל דַּעַת בַּעְלָהּ הִיא נוֹדֶרֶת.
The Gemara answers: Here we are dealing with a case where the yavam stood in court in judgment after the woman demanded that he marry her and he was obligated by the court to provide her sustenance. And this is in accordance with that which Rav Pineḥas stated in the name of Rava, who said: Any woman who vows, that which she vows is contingent upon her husband’s consent. Since under these circumstances the yavam must provide for the yevama he betrothed, he is authorized to nullify her vows.
תְּנַן אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: וּמָה אִם אִשָּׁה שֶׁקָּנָה לְעַצְמוֹ — הֲרֵי הוּא מֵיפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ, אִשָּׁה שֶׁהִקְנוּ לוֹ מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם — אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁמֵּיפֵר נְדָרֶיהָ? וְאִי בְּשֶׁעָשָׂה בָּהּ מַאֲמָר, קָנָה לְעַצְמוֹ הוּא! שֶׁקָּנָה לְעַצְמוֹ עַל יְדֵי שָׁמַיִם.
The Gemara raises a difficulty with Rabbi Ami’s explanation of Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion: We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer said: Just as with regard to a woman he acquired for himself through betrothal, he nullifies her vows, so too with regard to a woman acquired for him from Heaven, i.e., the yevama, isn’t it logical that he should be able to nullify her vows? Now if Rabbi Ami’s interpretation is correct, and the mishna is referring to a case where a yavam performed levirate betrothal, then it is actually a case where he acquired a woman for himself by performing levirate betrothal. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, it is a case where he acquired for himself a woman who was imposed upon him by means of Heaven.
תִּפְשׁוֹט דְּבָעֵי רַבָּה: מַאֲמָר לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי, אֵירוּסִין עוֹשֶׂה אוֹ נִשּׂוּאִין עוֹשֶׂה? תִּפְשׁוֹט דְּנִשּׂוּאִין עוֹשֶׂה. דְּאִי אֵירוּסִין עוֹשֶׂה — הָא תְּנַן: נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה, אָבִיהָ וּבַעְלָהּ מְפִירִין נְדָרֶיהָ.
The Gemara raises another difficulty with Rabbi Ami’s interpretation, in that if it is correct, you can resolve the dilemma that Rabba raised: Does levirate betrothal, according to Beit Shammai, merely effect betrothal, or does it effect full-fledged marriage? According to Rabbi Eliezer, you can resolve the dilemma by proving that it effects marriage. The proof is as follows: Because if levirate betrothal effects only betrothal, why does the mishna mention only the yavam with regard to nullification of vows? Didn’t we learn in a mishna (Nedarim 66b) that with regard to a betrothed young woman, her father and her husband together nullify her vows? If levirate betrothal renders her betrothed to the yavam, the father should also be mentioned as a partner in the nullification.
אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן בַּר יִצְחָק: מַאי ״יָפֵר״ — יָפֵר בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת.
Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: This does not resolve the dilemma, as what could be the meaning of nullify in the mishna? It could mean that he nullifies vows in partnership with the father.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי כְּרַבִּי אַמֵּי: שׁוֹמֶרֶת יָבָם, בֵּין יָבָם אֶחָד בֵּין שְׁנֵי יְבָמִין, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: יָפֵר, וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: לְאֶחָד וְלֹא לִשְׁנַיִם. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר: לֹא לְאֶחָד וְלֹא לִשְׁנַיִם.
The Gemara comments: It is also taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer is addressing a case where levirate betrothal has been performed, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami: With regard to a widow awaiting her yavam, whether she is waiting for one yavam, if her late husband had only one brother, or for two or more yevamin, Rabbi Eliezer says: The yavam can nullify her vows, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: He can nullify her vows only in a case where she is waiting for one yavam, but not if she is waiting for two. Rabbi Akiva says: Nullification is not possible at all, not if she is waiting for one, and not if she is waiting for two or more.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: וּמָה אִם אִשָּׁה שֶׁאֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בָּהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא תָּבֹא לִרְשׁוּתוֹ, מִשֶּׁבָּאת לִרְשׁוּתוֹ — נִגְמְרָה לוֹ. אִשָּׁה, שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ חֵלֶק עַד שֶׁלֹּא תָּבֹא לִרְשׁוּתוֹ, מִשֶּׁבָּאת לִרְשׁוּתוֹ — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁתִּגְמוֹר לוֹ?
The baraita continues: Rabbi Eliezer said to his disputants: And just as if one accepts that a man cannot nullify the vows of a woman in whom he has no share until she enters into his jurisdiction through betrothal, yet once she enters into his jurisdiction, she is fully under his authority for the nullification of her vows, so too with regard to a woman in whom he has a share before she enters his jurisdiction, i.e., his yevama, once she enters his jurisdiction, is it not logical that she be fully under his authority for the nullification of her vows?
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: לֹא, אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁקָּנָה הוּא לְעַצְמוֹ, שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁאֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק בָּהּ, כָּךְ אֵין לַאֲחֵרִים חֵלֶק בָּהּ. תֹּאמַר בְּאִשָּׁה שֶׁהִקְנוּ לוֹ מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם, שֶׁכְּשֵׁם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עִמָּהּ חֵלֶק — כָּךְ יֵשׁ לַאֲחֵרִים חֵלֶק בָּהּ!
The baraita continues: Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, your a fortiori inference is refutable. If you spoke of a man having authority over the vows of a woman he acquired for himself through betrothal, that would be different: Just as he has no share in her before betrothal, so too others have no share in her. Will you say the same with regard to a woman who is acquired for him from Heaven, i.e., his yevama, for whom, just as he has a share in her, so do others, i.e., his brothers, also have a share in her, as they also are yevamin?
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: עֲקִיבָא, דְּבָרֶיךָ — בִּשְׁנֵי יְבָמִין, מָה אַתָּה מֵשִׁיב עַל יָבָם אֶחָד? אָמַר לוֹ: כְּלוּם חִלַּקְנוּ עַל יָבָם אֶחָד וְעַל שְׁנֵי יְבָמִין בֵּין שֶׁעָשָׂה בָּהּ מַאֲמָר בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא עָשָׂה בָּהּ מַאֲמָר? וְכִשְׁאָר דְּבָרִים כֵּן נְדָרִים.
The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Akiva, your statement fits a situation with two yevamin, but what do you answer for the case of one yavam? Rabbi Akiva replied to him: Did we distinguish between one yavam and two yevamin, regardless of whether he performed levirate betrothal or whether he did not perform levirate betrothal? And just as in other matters there is no such distinction, so too with regard to vows.
בַּלָּשׁוֹן הַזֶּה אָמַר בֶּן עַזַּאי: חֲבָל עָלֶיךָ בֶּן עַזַּאי שֶׁלֹּא שִׁימַּשְׁתָּ אֶת רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא.
The baraita adds a comment: Ben Azzai stated his response to hearing this discussion in this language: Woe [ḥaval] to you, ben Azzai, that you did not serve Rabbi Akiva properly.
מַאי
Since this baraita was cited in support of Rabbi Ami’s interpretation, the Gemara asks: In what way
