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 sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
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.
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
My Daf journey began in August 2012 after participating in the Siyum Hashas where I was blessed as an “enabler” of others. Galvanized into my own learning I recited the Hadran on Shas in January 2020 with Rabbanit Michelle. That Siyum was a highlight in my life. Now, on round two, Daf has become my spiritual anchor to which I attribute manifold blessings.
Englewood NJ, United States
Mamaroneck, NY, United States
Ontario, Canada
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
Los Angeles, United States
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Yad Binyamin, Israel
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
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
