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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 6, 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 74

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉื•ืžืจืช ื™ื‘ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืคืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ืœืื—ื“ ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืœืฉื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ืœืื—ื“ ื•ืœื ืœืฉื ื™ื

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืžื” ืื ืืฉื” ืฉืงื ื” ื”ื•ื ืœืขืฆืžื• ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ืžื™ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื” ืืฉื” ืฉื”ืงื ื• ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื”

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, isnโ€™t it logical that he should be able to nullify her vows?

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืœื ืื ืืžืจืช ื‘ืืฉื” ืฉืงื ื” ื”ื•ื ืœืขืฆืžื• ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœืื—ืจื™ื ื‘ื” ืจืฉื•ืช ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืืฉื” ืฉื”ืงื ื• ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ืฉื™ืฉ ืœืื—ืจื™ื ื‘ื” ืจืฉื•ืช

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.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ืš ื‘ืฉื ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ืžื” ืืชื” ืžืฉื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื‘ืžื” ื’ืžื•ืจื” ืœื™ื‘ื ื›ืฉื ืฉื”ืืจื•ืกื” ื’ืžื•ืจื” ืœืื™ืฉื”

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 in the way that a betrothed woman is her husbandโ€™s full-fledged wife, and the yavam is not empowered to nullify vows at all.

ื’ืžืณ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื–ื™ืงื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืกื‘ืจ ื™ืฉ ื–ื™ืงื” ืืœื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื™ื” ืื™ ื™ืฉ ื–ื™ืงื” ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ืจื”

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?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื“ืืžืจื™ ืžืืžืจ ืงื•ื ื” ืงื ื™ืŸ ื’ืžื•ืจ

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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ืœืš ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื‘ื—ื“ ื™ื‘ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืฉื ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ืœื ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื›ื™ ืืชื™ ืื—ื•ื”ื™ ืืกืจ ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืื” ืื• ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื ื•ืžืคืจ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื–ื™ืงื”

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.

ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ (ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ) [ืืœืขื–ืจ] ื“ืืžืจ ืžืืžืจ ืœื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื™ืŸ ืงื•ื ื” ืืœื ืœื“ื—ื•ืช ื‘ืฆืจื” ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

The Gemara challenges Rabbi Amiโ€™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.

ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืขืžื“ ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ื•ื›ื“ืจื‘ ืคื ื—ืก ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจืช ืขืœ ื“ืขืช ื‘ืขืœื” ื”ื™ื ื ื•ื“ืจืช

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 Pineแธฅas stated in the name of Rava, who said: Any woman who vows, that which she vows is contingent upon her husbandโ€™s consent. Since under these circumstances the yavam must provide for the yevama he betrothed, he is authorized to nullify her vows.

ืชื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ืžื” ืื ืืฉื” ืฉืงื ื” ืœืขืฆืžื• ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ืžื™ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื” ืืฉื” ืฉื”ืงื ื• ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืžื™ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื” ื•ืื™ ื‘ืฉืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ืงื ื” ืœืขืฆืžื• ื”ื•ื ืฉืงื ื” ืœืขืฆืžื• ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืฉืžื™ื

The Gemara raises a difficulty with Rabbi Amiโ€™s explanation of Rabbi Eliezerโ€™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, isnโ€™t it logical that he should be able to nullify her vows? Now if Rabbi Amiโ€™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.

ืชืคืฉื•ื˜ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ืœื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื™ืจื•ืกื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื” ืื• ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืคืฉื•ื˜ ื“ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื” ื“ืื™ ืื™ืจื•ืกื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื” ื”ื ืชื ืŸ ื ืขืจื” ื”ืžืื•ืจืกื” ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื‘ืขืœื” ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื”

The Gemara raises another difficulty with Rabbi Amiโ€™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? Didnโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืžืื™ ื™ืคืจ ื™ืคืจ ื‘ืฉื•ืชืคื•ืช

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak 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.

ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ืฉื•ืžืจืช ื™ื‘ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืคืจ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ืœืื—ื“ ื•ืœื ืœืฉื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ืœืื—ื“ ื•ืœื ืœืฉื ื™ื

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ืžื” ืื ืืฉื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ื—ืœืง ื‘ื” ืขื“ ืฉืœื ืชื‘ื ืœืจืฉื•ืชื• ืžืฉื‘ืืช ืœืจืฉื•ืชื• ื ื’ืžืจื” ืœื• ืืฉื” ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ื—ืœืง ืขื“ ืฉืœื ืชื‘ื ืœืจืฉื•ืชื• ืžืฉื‘ืืช ืœืจืฉื•ืชื• ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืชื’ืžื•ืจ ืœื•

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?

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืœื ืื ืืžืจืช ื‘ืืฉื” ืฉืงื ื” ื”ื•ื ืœืขืฆืžื• ืฉื›ืฉื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ื—ืœืง ื‘ื” ื›ืš ืื™ืŸ ืœืื—ืจื™ื ื—ืœืง ื‘ื” ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืืฉื” ืฉื”ืงื ื• ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ืฉื›ืฉื ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืขืžื” ื—ืœืง ื›ืš ื™ืฉ ืœืื—ืจื™ื ื—ืœืง ื‘ื”

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?

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ืš ื‘ืฉื ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ืžื” ืืชื” ืžืฉื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืœื• ื›ืœื•ื ื—ืœืงื ื• ืขืœ ื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ื•ืขืœ ืฉื ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ื•ื›ืฉืืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื›ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื

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.

ื‘ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ื–ื” ืืžืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืื™ ื—ื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ืš ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืื™ ืฉืœื ืฉื™ืžืฉืช ืืช ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื

The baraita adds a comment: Ben Azzai stated his response to hearing this discussion in this language: Woe [แธฅaval] to you, ben Azzai, that you did not serve Rabbi Akiva properly.

ืžืื™

Since this baraita was cited in support of Rabbi Amiโ€™s inter-pretation, the Gemara asks: In what way

  • 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 74

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 74

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืฉื•ืžืจืช ื™ื‘ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืฉื ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืคืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ืœืื—ื“ ืื‘ืœ ืœื ืœืฉื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ืœืื—ื“ ื•ืœื ืœืฉื ื™ื

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืžื” ืื ืืฉื” ืฉืงื ื” ื”ื•ื ืœืขืฆืžื• ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ืžื™ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื” ืืฉื” ืฉื”ืงื ื• ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื”

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, isnโ€™t it logical that he should be able to nullify her vows?

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืœื ืื ืืžืจืช ื‘ืืฉื” ืฉืงื ื” ื”ื•ื ืœืขืฆืžื• ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœืื—ืจื™ื ื‘ื” ืจืฉื•ืช ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืืฉื” ืฉื”ืงื ื• ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ืฉื™ืฉ ืœืื—ืจื™ื ื‘ื” ืจืฉื•ืช

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.

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ืš ื‘ืฉื ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ืžื” ืืชื” ืžืฉื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืœื• ืื™ืŸ ื”ื™ื‘ืžื” ื’ืžื•ืจื” ืœื™ื‘ื ื›ืฉื ืฉื”ืืจื•ืกื” ื’ืžื•ืจื” ืœืื™ืฉื”

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 in the way that a betrothed woman is her husbandโ€™s full-fledged wife, and the yavam is not empowered to nullify vows at all.

ื’ืžืณ ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื–ื™ืงื” ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืกื‘ืจ ื™ืฉ ื–ื™ืงื” ืืœื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื™ื” ืื™ ื™ืฉ ื–ื™ืงื” ืื™ืŸ ื‘ืจื™ืจื”

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?

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืกื‘ืจ ืœื” ื›ื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ื“ืืžืจื™ ืžืืžืจ ืงื•ื ื” ืงื ื™ืŸ ื’ืžื•ืจ

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.

ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ืœืš ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ื‘ื—ื“ ื™ื‘ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืฉื ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ืœื ืžื™ ืื™ื›ื ืžื™ื“ื™ ื“ื›ื™ ืืชื™ ืื—ื•ื”ื™ ืืกืจ ืขืœื™ื” ื‘ื‘ื™ืื” ืื• ื‘ื’ื™ื˜ื ื•ืžืคืจ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืกื‘ืจ ืื™ืŸ ื–ื™ืงื”

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.

ื•ืœืจื‘ื™ (ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ) [ืืœืขื–ืจ] ื“ืืžืจ ืžืืžืจ ืœื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื™ืŸ ืงื•ื ื” ืืœื ืœื“ื—ื•ืช ื‘ืฆืจื” ืžืื™ ืื™ื›ื ืœืžื™ืžืจ

The Gemara challenges Rabbi Amiโ€™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.

ื”ื›ื ื‘ืžืื™ ืขืกืงื™ื ืŸ ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืขืžื“ ื‘ื“ื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ืชื—ื™ื™ื‘ ืœื” ืžื–ื•ื ื•ืช ื•ื›ื“ืจื‘ ืคื ื—ืก ืžืฉืžื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื ื•ื“ืจืช ืขืœ ื“ืขืช ื‘ืขืœื” ื”ื™ื ื ื•ื“ืจืช

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 Pineแธฅas stated in the name of Rava, who said: Any woman who vows, that which she vows is contingent upon her husbandโ€™s consent. Since under these circumstances the yavam must provide for the yevama he betrothed, he is authorized to nullify her vows.

ืชื ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ืžื” ืื ืืฉื” ืฉืงื ื” ืœืขืฆืžื• ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ืžื™ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื” ืืฉื” ืฉื”ืงื ื• ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืžื™ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื” ื•ืื™ ื‘ืฉืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ืงื ื” ืœืขืฆืžื• ื”ื•ื ืฉืงื ื” ืœืขืฆืžื• ืขืœ ื™ื“ื™ ืฉืžื™ื

The Gemara raises a difficulty with Rabbi Amiโ€™s explanation of Rabbi Eliezerโ€™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, isnโ€™t it logical that he should be able to nullify her vows? Now if Rabbi Amiโ€™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.

ืชืคืฉื•ื˜ ื“ื‘ืขื™ ืจื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ืœื‘ื™ืช ืฉืžืื™ ืื™ืจื•ืกื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื” ืื• ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื” ืชืคืฉื•ื˜ ื“ื ืฉื•ืื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื” ื“ืื™ ืื™ืจื•ืกื™ืŸ ืขื•ืฉื” ื”ื ืชื ืŸ ื ืขืจื” ื”ืžืื•ืจืกื” ืื‘ื™ื” ื•ื‘ืขืœื” ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื”

The Gemara raises another difficulty with Rabbi Amiโ€™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? Didnโ€™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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืžืื™ ื™ืคืจ ื™ืคืจ ื‘ืฉื•ืชืคื•ืช

Rav Naแธฅman bar Yitzแธฅak 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.

ืชื ื™ื ื ืžื™ ื”ื›ื™ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ืฉื•ืžืจืช ื™ื‘ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉื ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืคืจ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืื•ืžืจ ืœืื—ื“ ื•ืœื ืœืฉื ื™ื ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ืœืื—ื“ ื•ืœื ืœืฉื ื™ื

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.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ืžื” ืื ืืฉื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ื—ืœืง ื‘ื” ืขื“ ืฉืœื ืชื‘ื ืœืจืฉื•ืชื• ืžืฉื‘ืืช ืœืจืฉื•ืชื• ื ื’ืžืจื” ืœื• ืืฉื” ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ื—ืœืง ืขื“ ืฉืœื ืชื‘ื ืœืจืฉื•ืชื• ืžืฉื‘ืืช ืœืจืฉื•ืชื• ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉืชื’ืžื•ืจ ืœื•

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?

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืœื ืื ืืžืจืช ื‘ืืฉื” ืฉืงื ื” ื”ื•ื ืœืขืฆืžื• ืฉื›ืฉื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืœื• ื—ืœืง ื‘ื” ื›ืš ืื™ืŸ ืœืื—ืจื™ื ื—ืœืง ื‘ื” ืชืืžืจ ื‘ืืฉื” ืฉื”ืงื ื• ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ืฉื›ืฉื ืฉื™ืฉ ืœื• ืขืžื” ื—ืœืง ื›ืš ื™ืฉ ืœืื—ืจื™ื ื—ืœืง ื‘ื”

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?

ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื“ื‘ืจื™ืš ื‘ืฉื ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ืžื” ืืชื” ืžืฉื™ื‘ ืขืœ ื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ืืžืจ ืœื• ื›ืœื•ื ื—ืœืงื ื• ืขืœ ื™ื‘ื ืื—ื“ ื•ืขืœ ืฉื ื™ ื™ื‘ืžื™ืŸ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ื•ื›ืฉืืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื›ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื

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.

ื‘ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ื–ื” ืืžืจ ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืื™ ื—ื‘ืœ ืขืœื™ืš ื‘ืŸ ืขื–ืื™ ืฉืœื ืฉื™ืžืฉืช ืืช ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื

The baraita adds a comment: Ben Azzai stated his response to hearing this discussion in this language: Woe [แธฅaval] to you, ben Azzai, that you did not serve Rabbi Akiva properly.

ืžืื™

Since this baraita was cited in support of Rabbi Amiโ€™s inter-pretation, the Gemara asks: In what way

Scroll To Top