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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 7, 2015 | ื›ืดื‘ ื‘ืื‘ ืชืฉืขืดื”

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Nedarim 75

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ

is it taught in the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami? The Gemara explains that support for Rabbi Amiโ€™s opinion is found in that which is taught in the baraita, as Rabbi Akiva mentions the following distinction: Whether he performed levirate betrothal or whether he did not perform levirate betrothal. This indicates that Rabbi Eliezerโ€™s statement is referring to a yevama with whom he performed levirate betrothal.

ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืจื™ืฉื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืžืฉื ื›ื ืกื” ืœืจืฉื•ืชื• ื ื’ืžืจื” ืœื• ื•ืื™ ื“ืœื ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืžืื™ ื ื’ืžืจื” ืœื• ืชืคืฉื•ื˜ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื›ืฉืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ

Alternatively, support can be derived from the first clause of the baraita, which teaches: Once she enters his jurisdiction, she is fully under his authority. If the baraita is referring to a situation where he did not betroth her in levirate betrothal, in what sense is she fully under his authority? Deduce from it that the situation is one in which he has performed levirate betrothal.

ืžืื™ ื•ื›ืฉืืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื›ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืื™ ืืชื” ืžื•ื“ื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืกืงื™ืœื” ื›ื ืขืจื” ื”ืžืื•ืจืกื”

The Gemara then asks with regard to the baraita itself. What is the meaning of the phrase: And just as in other matters there is no such distinction, so too with regard to vows, that Rabbi Akiva teaches in the baraita? Rava said: This is what Rabbi Akiva is teaching: Do you not concede that one is not liable to be punished with stoning for adulterous relations with a yevama as he would be if she were a betrothed young woman? The status of the relationship is inferior to proper marriage, as one who engages in sexual intercourse with a yevama does not incur the death penalty. Accordingly, the authority of the yavam with regard to vows is also inferior.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื“ื™ืงื ืื™ืŸ ื™ื‘ืžื” ื’ืžื•ืจื” ืœืื™ืฉื” ื›ืฉื ืฉืืจื•ืกื” ื’ืžื•ืจื” ืœืื™ืฉื”

Rav Ashi said: The mishna (74a) is also precisely formulated to indicate this, as it teaches: A yevama is not her husbandโ€™s full-fledged wife in the same manner that a betrothed woman is her husbandโ€™s full-fledged wife.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœืืฉืชื• ื›ืœ ื”ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉืชื“ื•ืจื™ ืžื›ืืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืื‘ื ืžืžืงื•ื ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืงื™ื™ืžื™ืŸ ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืžื•ืคืจื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืืžืจ ืžื•ืคืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืคืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื ื”ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื‘ืื• ืœื›ืœืœ ืื™ืกื•ืจ ืœื ื™ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉืœื ื‘ืื• ืœื›ืœืœ ืื™ืกื•ืจ

MISHNA: One who says to his wife: All vows that you will vow from now until I arrive from such and such a place are hereby ratified, has not said anything, i.e., the vows are not ratified. However, if he states that all vows that she will take until then are hereby nullified, Rabbi Eliezer said: They are nullified, while the Rabbis say: They are not nullified. Rabbi Eliezer said in explanation: If one can nullify vows that have reached the status of a prohibition, i.e., that have already taken effect, shall he not be able to nullify vows that have not reached the status of a prohibition?

ืืžืจื• ืœื• ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืฉื” ื™ืงื™ืžื ื• ื•ืื™ืฉื” ื™ืคืจื ื• ืืช ืฉื‘ื ืœื›ืœืœ ื”ืงื ื‘ื ืœื›ืœืœ ื”ืคืจ ืœื ื‘ื ืœื›ืœืœ ื”ืงื ืœื ื‘ื ืœื›ืœืœ ื”ืคืจ

The Rabbis said to him in response: The verse states: โ€œEvery vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may ratify it, or her husband may nullify itโ€ (Numbers 30:14). This teaches: That which has reached the status of eligibility for ratification, i.e., a vow that she has already taken, has reached the status of eligibility for nullification. However, a vow that has not reached the status of eligibility for ratification has not reached the status of eligibility for nullification either, and it cannot be nullified.

ื’ืžืณ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืžื™ื—ืœ ื—ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ื˜ืœื™ืŸ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืœื ื—ืœื™ืŸ ื›ืœืœ ืœืžืื™ ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื”

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to Rabbi Eliezer, do the vows that the husband nullifies in advance take effect momentarily and are then canceled immediately after? Or perhaps they do not take effect at all. The Gemara inquires: In what case is there a difference between these possibilities?

ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืืชืคื™ืก ืื—ืจื™ื ื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื—ืœื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื™ื ืชืคื™ืกื•ืชื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืœื ื—ืœื™ืŸ ืœื ืื™ื›ื ืžืฉืฉื

The Gemara answers: There is a difference in a case where another person associated his own vow with this vow. If someone else heard her vow and declared his vow to be like hers, the status of his vow depends on this question. If you say that such vows take effect, then the association of the other personโ€™s vow takes effect. If you say that such vows do not take effect at all, then the vow of the other person has no substance, as the vow with which he associated it never existed.

ืžืื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื ื”ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื‘ืื• ืœื›ืœืœ ืื™ืกื•ืจ ืœื ื™ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉืœื ื‘ืื• ืœื›ืœืœ ืื™ืกื•ืจ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœื ื—ืœื™ืŸ

What, then, is Rabbi Eliezerโ€™s opinion? Come and hear the mishna: Rabbi Eliezer said: If one can nullify vows that have reached the status of a prohibition, shall he not nullify vows that have not reached the status of a prohibition? Learn from it that such vows do not take effect at all, as they are described as not having reached the status of a prohibition.

ืžื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื‘ืื• ืงืชื ื™ ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื ื‘ืื•

The Gemara rejects this conclusion: Does the mishna teach using the words: That do not reach the status of a prohibition? It teaches: That have not reached the status of a prohibition, which could mean that they have not yet reached the status of a prohibition, but they may take effect, momentarily, when she actually takes the vow.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืืžืจ ืœื”ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ืžื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื™ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ ืขืฆืžื• ืžืฉื ื“ืจ ืžื™ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ ืขืฆืžื• ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื™ื“ื•ืจ ืžืงื•ื ืฉืžืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ ืืฉืชื• ืžืฉืชื“ื•ืจ ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ ืืฉืชื• ืขื“ ืฉืœื ืชื“ื•ืจ

Come and hear a baraita from the Tosefta (Nedarim 6:5): Rabbi Eliezer said to them: And just as in a situation where he cannot nullify his own vows once he has vowed, he can nullify his own vows before he vows by stipulating beforehand that the vows he takes should not take effect, all the more so in a situation where he can nullify his wifeโ€™s vows even after she vows, is it not logical that he should be able to nullify his wifeโ€™s vows before she vows?

ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื“ืืฉืชื• ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ื™ืœื™ื” ืžื” [ื”ื•ื] ื“ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืœื™ืŸ ืืฃ ืืฉืชื• ื ืžื™ ื“ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืœื™ืŸ ืœื ื”ื ื›ื“ืื™ืชื ื•ื”ื ื›ื“ืื™ืชื

The Gemara explains the proof: What, is it not referring to where his wifeโ€™s vows are similar to his own in that just as his vows, which were nullified in advance, do not take effect at all, so too the vows of his wife do not take effect at all when nullified in advance? The Gemara rejects this: No, this case of his nullifying his own vows prior to taking them is as it is, and that case of his nullifying her vows prior to her taking them is as it is; the similarity between the two cases is sufficient for an a fortiori inference, but they are not similar in all respects.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ืžื” ืžืงื•ื” ืฉืžืขืœื” ืืช ื”ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืžื˜ื•ืžืืชืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžืฆื™ืœ ืขืœ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ื ืžืœื™ื˜ืžื ืื“ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืขืœื” ืืช ื”ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืžื˜ื•ืžืืชืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืฉืœื ื™ืฆื™ืœ ืขืœ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืžืœื™ื˜ืžื

Come and hear a baraita: They said to Rabbi Eliezer: Your a fortiori inference is flawed, as can be seen from this example: And just as with regard to a ritual bath, which elevates the impure from their ritual impurity when they immerse in it but does not save the pure from becoming impure if they come into contact with impurity after immersion, so too, with regard to a person, who does not elevate the impure from their impurity, e.g., when a person swallows a ritually impure object and then immerses in a ritual bath, the object remains impure, is it not logical that he should not save pure items from becoming impure? When one who has swallowed a ritually pure object comes into contact with impurity, the object he has swallowed should also become impure. This is not the case, as a swallowed object does not become impure when the person who swallowed it does. Therefore the a fortiori argument is flawed, and one cannot derive from the ability to change a status, like the husbandโ€™s ability to nullify his wifeโ€™s vows or the ability of the ritual bath to render something ritually pure, that that the source of the change can also prevent a change of status or preserve that status.

ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืœื™ืŸ

However, learn from this baraita that, according to Rabbi Eliezer, vows nullified by the husband from the outset do not take effect at all, as the Rabbisโ€™ objection presumes that according to Rabbi Eliezer, the vows do not take effect at all. Their argument is based on the analogy between preemptive nullification and preemptive prevention of impurity. Preemptive prevention of impurity is understood to be saving an item from ever becoming impure and analogously, preemptive nullification is understood to be preventing a vow from ever taking effect.

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This monthโ€™s learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. โ€œAnd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.โ€

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nedarim: 70-77 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will continue learning about the ability of the father and the husband-to-be to revoke the womanโ€™s vows....
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 75: Preventative Measures

A new mishnah: Vows that haven't yet been made can't be ratified in advance. Revoking in advance is a machloket,...
mikveh qumran

Taking a Dip

Mikvaot (ritual baths) are mentioned frequently in the Mishnah and Gemara. They appear on our daf (Nedarim 75) in the...

Nedarim 75

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 75

ืชื ื™ื ื›ื•ื•ืชื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ื™ ืืžื™ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ

is it taught in the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami? The Gemara explains that support for Rabbi Amiโ€™s opinion is found in that which is taught in the baraita, as Rabbi Akiva mentions the following distinction: Whether he performed levirate betrothal or whether he did not perform levirate betrothal. This indicates that Rabbi Eliezerโ€™s statement is referring to a yevama with whom he performed levirate betrothal.

ืื™ ื ืžื™ ืžืจื™ืฉื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืžืฉื ื›ื ืกื” ืœืจืฉื•ืชื• ื ื’ืžืจื” ืœื• ื•ืื™ ื“ืœื ืงื“ื™ืฉ ืžืื™ ื ื’ืžืจื” ืœื• ืชืคืฉื•ื˜ ืžื™ื ื™ื” ื›ืฉืขืฉื” ื‘ื” ืžืืžืจ

Alternatively, support can be derived from the first clause of the baraita, which teaches: Once she enters his jurisdiction, she is fully under his authority. If the baraita is referring to a situation where he did not betroth her in levirate betrothal, in what sense is she fully under his authority? Deduce from it that the situation is one in which he has performed levirate betrothal.

ืžืื™ ื•ื›ืฉืืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื›ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ื ื“ืงืชื ื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืื™ ืืชื” ืžื•ื“ื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื™ืŸ ืกืงื™ืœื” ื›ื ืขืจื” ื”ืžืื•ืจืกื”

The Gemara then asks with regard to the baraita itself. What is the meaning of the phrase: And just as in other matters there is no such distinction, so too with regard to vows, that Rabbi Akiva teaches in the baraita? Rava said: This is what Rabbi Akiva is teaching: Do you not concede that one is not liable to be punished with stoning for adulterous relations with a yevama as he would be if she were a betrothed young woman? The status of the relationship is inferior to proper marriage, as one who engages in sexual intercourse with a yevama does not incur the death penalty. Accordingly, the authority of the yavam with regard to vows is also inferior.

ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื ืžื™ ื“ื™ืงื ืื™ืŸ ื™ื‘ืžื” ื’ืžื•ืจื” ืœืื™ืฉื” ื›ืฉื ืฉืืจื•ืกื” ื’ืžื•ืจื” ืœืื™ืฉื”

Rav Ashi said: The mishna (74a) is also precisely formulated to indicate this, as it teaches: A yevama is not her husbandโ€™s full-fledged wife in the same manner that a betrothed woman is her husbandโ€™s full-fledged wife.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœืืฉืชื• ื›ืœ ื”ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉืชื“ื•ืจื™ ืžื›ืืŸ ืขื“ ืฉืื‘ื ืžืžืงื•ื ืคืœื•ื ื™ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืงื™ื™ืžื™ืŸ ืœื ืืžืจ ื›ืœื•ื ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ืžื•ืคืจื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืืžืจ ืžื•ืคืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืคืจ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื ื”ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื‘ืื• ืœื›ืœืœ ืื™ืกื•ืจ ืœื ื™ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉืœื ื‘ืื• ืœื›ืœืœ ืื™ืกื•ืจ

MISHNA: One who says to his wife: All vows that you will vow from now until I arrive from such and such a place are hereby ratified, has not said anything, i.e., the vows are not ratified. However, if he states that all vows that she will take until then are hereby nullified, Rabbi Eliezer said: They are nullified, while the Rabbis say: They are not nullified. Rabbi Eliezer said in explanation: If one can nullify vows that have reached the status of a prohibition, i.e., that have already taken effect, shall he not be able to nullify vows that have not reached the status of a prohibition?

ืืžืจื• ืœื• ื”ืจื™ ื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ืื™ืฉื” ื™ืงื™ืžื ื• ื•ืื™ืฉื” ื™ืคืจื ื• ืืช ืฉื‘ื ืœื›ืœืœ ื”ืงื ื‘ื ืœื›ืœืœ ื”ืคืจ ืœื ื‘ื ืœื›ืœืœ ื”ืงื ืœื ื‘ื ืœื›ืœืœ ื”ืคืจ

The Rabbis said to him in response: The verse states: โ€œEvery vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may ratify it, or her husband may nullify itโ€ (Numbers 30:14). This teaches: That which has reached the status of eligibility for ratification, i.e., a vow that she has already taken, has reached the status of eligibility for nullification. However, a vow that has not reached the status of eligibility for ratification has not reached the status of eligibility for nullification either, and it cannot be nullified.

ื’ืžืณ ืื™ื‘ืขื™ื ืœื”ื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืžื™ื—ืœ ื—ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื‘ื˜ืœื™ืŸ ืื• ื“ืœืžื ืœื ื—ืœื™ืŸ ื›ืœืœ ืœืžืื™ ื ืคืงื ืžื™ื ื”

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to Rabbi Eliezer, do the vows that the husband nullifies in advance take effect momentarily and are then canceled immediately after? Or perhaps they do not take effect at all. The Gemara inquires: In what case is there a difference between these possibilities?

ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืืชืคื™ืก ืื—ืจื™ื ื ื‘ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ื—ืœื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื™ื ืชืคื™ืกื•ืชื ืื™ ืืžืจืช ืœื ื—ืœื™ืŸ ืœื ืื™ื›ื ืžืฉืฉื

The Gemara answers: There is a difference in a case where another person associated his own vow with this vow. If someone else heard her vow and declared his vow to be like hers, the status of his vow depends on this question. If you say that such vows take effect, then the association of the other personโ€™s vow takes effect. If you say that such vows do not take effect at all, then the vow of the other person has no substance, as the vow with which he associated it never existed.

ืžืื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ืื ื”ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื‘ืื• ืœื›ืœืœ ืื™ืกื•ืจ ืœื ื™ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉืœื ื‘ืื• ืœื›ืœืœ ืื™ืกื•ืจ ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœื ื—ืœื™ืŸ

What, then, is Rabbi Eliezerโ€™s opinion? Come and hear the mishna: Rabbi Eliezer said: If one can nullify vows that have reached the status of a prohibition, shall he not nullify vows that have not reached the status of a prohibition? Learn from it that such vows do not take effect at all, as they are described as not having reached the status of a prohibition.

ืžื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืฉืื™ื ืŸ ื‘ืื™ืŸ ืฉืœื ื‘ืื• ืงืชื ื™ ืขื“ื™ื™ืŸ ืœื ื‘ืื•

The Gemara rejects this conclusion: Does the mishna teach using the words: That do not reach the status of a prohibition? It teaches: That have not reached the status of a prohibition, which could mean that they have not yet reached the status of a prohibition, but they may take effect, momentarily, when she actually takes the vow.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืืžืจ ืœื”ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ืžื” ื‘ืžืงื•ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื™ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ ืขืฆืžื• ืžืฉื ื“ืจ ืžื™ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ ืขืฆืžื• ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื™ื“ื•ืจ ืžืงื•ื ืฉืžืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ ืืฉืชื• ืžืฉืชื“ื•ืจ ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ืฉื™ืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ ืืฉืชื• ืขื“ ืฉืœื ืชื“ื•ืจ

Come and hear a baraita from the Tosefta (Nedarim 6:5): Rabbi Eliezer said to them: And just as in a situation where he cannot nullify his own vows once he has vowed, he can nullify his own vows before he vows by stipulating beforehand that the vows he takes should not take effect, all the more so in a situation where he can nullify his wifeโ€™s vows even after she vows, is it not logical that he should be able to nullify his wifeโ€™s vows before she vows?

ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื“ืืฉืชื• ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ื™ืœื™ื” ืžื” [ื”ื•ื] ื“ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืœื™ืŸ ืืฃ ืืฉืชื• ื ืžื™ ื“ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืœื™ืŸ ืœื ื”ื ื›ื“ืื™ืชื ื•ื”ื ื›ื“ืื™ืชื

The Gemara explains the proof: What, is it not referring to where his wifeโ€™s vows are similar to his own in that just as his vows, which were nullified in advance, do not take effect at all, so too the vows of his wife do not take effect at all when nullified in advance? The Gemara rejects this: No, this case of his nullifying his own vows prior to taking them is as it is, and that case of his nullifying her vows prior to her taking them is as it is; the similarity between the two cases is sufficient for an a fortiori inference, but they are not similar in all respects.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื•ืžื” ืžืงื•ื” ืฉืžืขืœื” ืืช ื”ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืžื˜ื•ืžืืชืŸ ืื™ืŸ ืžืฆื™ืœ ืขืœ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ื ืžืœื™ื˜ืžื ืื“ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžืขืœื” ืืช ื”ื˜ืžืื™ืŸ ืžื˜ื•ืžืืชืŸ ืื™ื ื• ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืฉืœื ื™ืฆื™ืœ ืขืœ ื”ื˜ื”ื•ืจื™ืŸ ืžืœื™ื˜ืžื

Come and hear a baraita: They said to Rabbi Eliezer: Your a fortiori inference is flawed, as can be seen from this example: And just as with regard to a ritual bath, which elevates the impure from their ritual impurity when they immerse in it but does not save the pure from becoming impure if they come into contact with impurity after immersion, so too, with regard to a person, who does not elevate the impure from their impurity, e.g., when a person swallows a ritually impure object and then immerses in a ritual bath, the object remains impure, is it not logical that he should not save pure items from becoming impure? When one who has swallowed a ritually pure object comes into contact with impurity, the object he has swallowed should also become impure. This is not the case, as a swallowed object does not become impure when the person who swallowed it does. Therefore the a fortiori argument is flawed, and one cannot derive from the ability to change a status, like the husbandโ€™s ability to nullify his wifeโ€™s vows or the ability of the ritual bath to render something ritually pure, that that the source of the change can also prevent a change of status or preserve that status.

ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืœื™ืŸ

However, learn from this baraita that, according to Rabbi Eliezer, vows nullified by the husband from the outset do not take effect at all, as the Rabbisโ€™ objection presumes that according to Rabbi Eliezer, the vows do not take effect at all. Their argument is based on the analogy between preemptive nullification and preemptive prevention of impurity. Preemptive prevention of impurity is understood to be saving an item from ever becoming impure and analogously, preemptive nullification is understood to be preventing a vow from ever taking effect.

Scroll To Top