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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 9, 2023 | 讟状讝 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讙

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

  • 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.

Nedarim 76

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Hannah Hason for a refuah shleima of Rhonda Cohen, Rachel Devora bat Elka.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Aylit Schultz Scharf in honor of her daughter Elisheva Mazal Scharf for being her daf yomi partner for the last 3 years. 鈥淪heva, you inspired me to get started and continue to inspire me Abba and I are so proud of you!鈥澛

The Gemara rejects the third answer given to whether Rabbi Eliezer meant that a husband can nullify his wife’s vows in advance so that they don’t even take effect at all or take effect for a moment and are then nullified. A fourth attempt to answer the question is brought and is successful. A difficulty is raised against the rabbi’s position as the rabbi’s disagreed with Rabbi Eliezer’s kal vachomer, but they themselves make a similar type of kal vachomer in a case of a man being able to sell his daughter to be a maidservant. The issue is resolved as the logical argument is trumped by a derivation from the verse in the Torah comparing the ratification of vows to the nullification of vows. Nullification of vows by the husband or the father must be done on the day they hear. How is a day defined? Does it end at nightfall or is it twenty-four hours? This is a subject of debate. From which verses does each side derive their opinion? How does each understand the verse the other one uses to prove their position? According to which position do we rule? The Gemara tells of the behavior of two rabbis. However, there are different interpretations regarding what these actions were and what was their significance. Some hold that these rabbis thought regret was sufficient grounds for annuling vows. Others connect it to the opinion of a husband having 24 hours to nullify his wife’s vows.

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诐 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讻诇讬 讟诪讗 诇讬讟讛专 讬讟讘讬诇讜 讻诇讬 诇讻砖讬讟诪讗 诇讬讟讛专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞讬讬诇讬谉


The Gemara rejects this conclusion and refers back to the baraita. Say the latter clause of that baraita: They said to Rabbi Eliezer: If one immerses an impure vessel to purify it, shall one immerse a vessel in advance so that when it will become impure it will then be purified? Learn from this clause of the baraita that according to Rabbi Eliezer, vows nullified preemptively take effect momentarily and are then immediately nullified. The Rabbis鈥 objection is that according to Rabbi Eliezer, prior immersion should purify an item that momentarily became impure.


讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽讬讬诪讬 诇讛讜谉 讘讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讱 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讱 讚讞讬讬诇讬谉 讜讘讟诇讬谉 转讛讜讬 讻诇讬 转讬讜讘转讱 讗讬 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讱 讚讞讬讬诇讬谉 转讛讜讬 诪拽讜讛 转讬讜讘转讱


The Gemara rejects this conclusion: One could say that the Rabbis could not determine the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer, and this is what they said to him: What do you hold? If you hold that preemptively nullified vows take effect momentarily and are then nullified, then the example of a vessel will be your refutation, i.e., will serve to refute your opinion. If you do not hold that they take effect, but rather that they do not take effect at all, then the example of a ritual bath will be your refutation.


转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜诪讛 讝专注讬诐 讟诪讗讬诐 讻讬讜谉 砖讝专注谉 讘拽专拽注 讟讛讜专讬谉 讝专讜注讬谉 讜注讜诪讚讬诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 讞讬讬诇讬谉


Come and hear: Rabbi Eliezer said to them: And just as ritually impure seeds, once one has sown them in the ground, become pure, then with regard to those which are already sown and then come into contact with impurity, should they not all the more so be pure? Similarly, vows that have been preemptively nullified should be nullified, since a husband can nullify vows after they have been taken. Learn from this baraita that according to Rabbi Eliezer preemptively nullified vows do not take effect at all, just as seeds that were already sown do not become impure at all.


讜专讘谞谉 诇讗 讚专砖讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬诪讻讜专 讗讚诐 讗转 讘转讜 讻砖讛讬讗 谞注专讛 讗诪专转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讻讜专讛 讻讘专 讬讜爪讗讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讻讜专讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转讬诪讻专


The Gemara comments: And the Rabbis, do they not teach halakhot based upon an a fortiori inference of this sort? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Can a person sell his daughter as a maidservant when she is a young woman? You can say an a fortiori inference to show that he cannot: A maidservant who was already sold goes free upon becoming a young woman; with regard to one who has not been sold, is it not logical that she cannot be sold once she already is a young woman? This baraita shows that the Rabbis do utilize similar a fortiori inferences.


讗讬谉 讘注诇诪讗 讚专砖讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讬砖讛 讬拽讬诪谞讜 讜讗讬砖讛 讬驻专谞讜 讗转 砖讘讗 诇讻诇诇 讛拽诐 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 讛驻专 讗转 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 讛拽诐 诇讗 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 讛驻专


The Gemara answers: Yes, generally they do teach halakhot based upon an a fortiori inference of this type, but here it is different, as the verse states: 鈥淗er husband may ratify it, or her husband may nullify it鈥 (Numbers 30:14). The Rabbis interpret this to mean: That which has become eligible for ratification, i.e., a vow that she has already taken, has become eligible for nullification. However, that which has not become eligible for ratification, i.e., a vow she has not yet taken, has not become eligible for nullification.


诪转谞讬壮 讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讬砖 讘讚讘专 诇讛拽诇 讜诇讛讞诪讬专


MISHNA: The nullification of vows can be performed all day on the day on which the vow was heard. There is in this matter both a leniency, extending the nullification period, and a stricture, curtailing that period.


讻讬爪讚 谞讚专讛 讘诇讬诇讬 砖讘转 讬驻专 讘诇讬诇讬 砖讘转 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘转 注讚 砖转讞砖讱 谞讚专讛 注诐 讞砖讻讛 诪驻专 注讚 砖诇讗 转讞砖讱 砖讗诐 讞砖讻讛 讜诇讗 讛驻专 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专


How so? If a woman took a vow on Shabbat evening, her father or husband can nullify the vow on Shabbat evening, and on Shabbat day until dark. This is an example of extending the nullification period. However, if she took a vow with nightfall approaching, her father or husband can nullify the vow only until nightfall, since, if it became dark and he had not yet nullified her vow, he cannot nullify it anymore. This is an example of a curtailed nullification period.


讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专讜 诪注转 诇注转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讬讜诐 砖诪注讜


GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita: The nullification of vows can be performed all day on the day on which the vow was heard. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said: A vow can be nullified for a twenty-four-hour period from the time it was heard. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of the first tanna? The Gemara answers: Since the verse states: 鈥淏ut if her husband make them null and void on the day that he hears them鈥 (Numbers 30:13), he derives that the husband can nullify his wife鈥檚 vow only until the end of the day on which he hears the vow.


讜专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 诪讬讜诐 讗诇 讬讜诐


The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, what is their reason? The Gemara answers: It is written: 鈥淔rom day to day鈥 (Numbers 30:15), which indicates that a vow can be nullified from a particular hour on one day until the same hour on the following day.


讜诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛讗 讻转讬讘 诪讬讜诐 讗诇 讬讜诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讚讗讬 讘讬讜诐 砖诪注讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讬诪诪讗 讗讬谉 讘诇讬诇讬讗 诇讗 讻转讬讘 诪讬讜诐 讗诇 讬讜诐


The Gemara asks: And according to the first tanna, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淔rom day to day鈥? The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary, as if it had said only 鈥渙n the day that he hears them,鈥 I would say that during the day, yes, he can nullify vows, but at night he is not able to. Therefore, it is written: 鈥淔rom day to day,鈥 to teach that nullification can be performed even between one day and the next, i.e., night.


讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讬讜诐 讗诇 讬讜诐 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讜诐 砖诪注讜 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讚讗讬 讻转讬讘 诪讬讜诐 讗诇 讬讜诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讞讚 讘砖讘讗 诇讞讚 讘砖讘讗 诇讬驻专 诇讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讜诐 砖诪注讜


The Gemara asks: And according to the one who said that 鈥渇rom day to day鈥 indicates a twenty-four-hour period for nullification, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淥n the day that he hears them?鈥 The Gemara explains here, too: That verse was necessary, as if it had written only 鈥渇rom day to day,鈥 I would say that he can nullify a vow for her until the same day in the following week, i.e., he can nullify her vow during the entire period from one Sunday to the next Sunday. Therefore, it is written: 鈥淥n the day that he hears them鈥 to teach that nullification is limited to a period of a single day of twenty-four hours.


讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讜转讜 讛讝讜讙 诇讜讬 住讘专 诇诪讬注讘讚 讻讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讞讘讬讘讬 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讜转讜 讛讝讜讙


Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is not in accordance with that pair [zug], Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, who hold that one has an entire twenty-four-hour period to nullify vows. Rather, one can nullify only on that day, as stated in the mishna. The Gemara relates: Levi thought to act in accordance with the opinion of those two tanna鈥檌m. Rav said to him: So said my uncle [岣vivi], Rabbi 岣yya: The halakha is not in accordance with that pair.


讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 砖讚讬 讙讬专讗 讜讘讚讬拽 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讬转讬讘 讜拽讗讬诐


The Gemara relates that when a case of dissolving a vow was brought before 岣yya bar Rav, he would shoot an arrow [gira] and examine the vow at the same time. In other words, he would not examine the case in great depth, but would immediately dissolve it. Similarly, Rabba bar Rav Huna would sit to review the vow and stand immediately, without conducting a comprehensive examination.

  • This month's learning聽is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of聽her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat聽Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

  • 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.

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 woman鈥檚 vows....
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 76: Defining a Day

More on the question of whether one can nullify vows in advance. With a parallel to the impurity and purity...

Nedarim 76

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 76

讗讬诪讗 住讬驻讗 讗诪专讜 诇讜 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗诐 诪讟讘讬诇讬谉 讻诇讬 讟诪讗 诇讬讟讛专 讬讟讘讬诇讜 讻诇讬 诇讻砖讬讟诪讗 诇讬讟讛专 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讞讬讬诇讬谉


The Gemara rejects this conclusion and refers back to the baraita. Say the latter clause of that baraita: They said to Rabbi Eliezer: If one immerses an impure vessel to purify it, shall one immerse a vessel in advance so that when it will become impure it will then be purified? Learn from this clause of the baraita that according to Rabbi Eliezer, vows nullified preemptively take effect momentarily and are then immediately nullified. The Rabbis鈥 objection is that according to Rabbi Eliezer, prior immersion should purify an item that momentarily became impure.


讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 诇讗 拽讬讬诪讬 诇讛讜谉 讘讟注诪讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜讛讻讬 拽讗诪专讬 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讱 讗讬 住讘讬专讗 诇讱 讚讞讬讬诇讬谉 讜讘讟诇讬谉 转讛讜讬 讻诇讬 转讬讜讘转讱 讗讬 诇讗 住讘讬专讗 诇讱 讚讞讬讬诇讬谉 转讛讜讬 诪拽讜讛 转讬讜讘转讱


The Gemara rejects this conclusion: One could say that the Rabbis could not determine the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer, and this is what they said to him: What do you hold? If you hold that preemptively nullified vows take effect momentarily and are then nullified, then the example of a vessel will be your refutation, i.e., will serve to refute your opinion. If you do not hold that they take effect, but rather that they do not take effect at all, then the example of a ritual bath will be your refutation.


转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专 诇讛诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讜诪讛 讝专注讬诐 讟诪讗讬诐 讻讬讜谉 砖讝专注谉 讘拽专拽注 讟讛讜专讬谉 讝专讜注讬谉 讜注讜诪讚讬诐 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 诇讗 讞讬讬诇讬谉


Come and hear: Rabbi Eliezer said to them: And just as ritually impure seeds, once one has sown them in the ground, become pure, then with regard to those which are already sown and then come into contact with impurity, should they not all the more so be pure? Similarly, vows that have been preemptively nullified should be nullified, since a husband can nullify vows after they have been taken. Learn from this baraita that according to Rabbi Eliezer preemptively nullified vows do not take effect at all, just as seeds that were already sown do not become impure at all.


讜专讘谞谉 诇讗 讚专砖讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讬讻讜诇 讬诪讻讜专 讗讚诐 讗转 讘转讜 讻砖讛讬讗 谞注专讛 讗诪专转 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 诪讻讜专讛 讻讘专 讬讜爪讗讛 讗讬谞讛 诪讻讜专讛 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诇讗 转讬诪讻专


The Gemara comments: And the Rabbis, do they not teach halakhot based upon an a fortiori inference of this sort? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: Can a person sell his daughter as a maidservant when she is a young woman? You can say an a fortiori inference to show that he cannot: A maidservant who was already sold goes free upon becoming a young woman; with regard to one who has not been sold, is it not logical that she cannot be sold once she already is a young woman? This baraita shows that the Rabbis do utilize similar a fortiori inferences.


讗讬谉 讘注诇诪讗 讚专砖讬 拽诇 讜讞讜诪专 讜砖讗谞讬 讛讻讗 讚讗诪专 拽专讗 讗讬砖讛 讬拽讬诪谞讜 讜讗讬砖讛 讬驻专谞讜 讗转 砖讘讗 诇讻诇诇 讛拽诐 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 讛驻专 讗转 砖诇讗 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 讛拽诐 诇讗 讘讗 诇讻诇诇 讛驻专


The Gemara answers: Yes, generally they do teach halakhot based upon an a fortiori inference of this type, but here it is different, as the verse states: 鈥淗er husband may ratify it, or her husband may nullify it鈥 (Numbers 30:14). The Rabbis interpret this to mean: That which has become eligible for ratification, i.e., a vow that she has already taken, has become eligible for nullification. However, that which has not become eligible for ratification, i.e., a vow she has not yet taken, has not become eligible for nullification.


诪转谞讬壮 讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 讬砖 讘讚讘专 诇讛拽诇 讜诇讛讞诪讬专


MISHNA: The nullification of vows can be performed all day on the day on which the vow was heard. There is in this matter both a leniency, extending the nullification period, and a stricture, curtailing that period.


讻讬爪讚 谞讚专讛 讘诇讬诇讬 砖讘转 讬驻专 讘诇讬诇讬 砖讘转 讜讘讬讜诐 讛砖讘转 注讚 砖转讞砖讱 谞讚专讛 注诐 讞砖讻讛 诪驻专 注讚 砖诇讗 转讞砖讱 砖讗诐 讞砖讻讛 讜诇讗 讛驻专 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专


How so? If a woman took a vow on Shabbat evening, her father or husband can nullify the vow on Shabbat evening, and on Shabbat day until dark. This is an example of extending the nullification period. However, if she took a vow with nightfall approaching, her father or husband can nullify the vow only until nightfall, since, if it became dark and he had not yet nullified her vow, he cannot nullify it anymore. This is an example of a curtailed nullification period.


讙诪壮 转谞讬讗 讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讻诇 讛讬讜诐 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘讬 讗诇注讝专 讘专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讗诪专讜 诪注转 诇注转 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 讚转谞讗 拽诪讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讘讬讜诐 砖诪注讜


GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita: The nullification of vows can be performed all day on the day on which the vow was heard. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said: A vow can be nullified for a twenty-four-hour period from the time it was heard. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of the first tanna? The Gemara answers: Since the verse states: 鈥淏ut if her husband make them null and void on the day that he hears them鈥 (Numbers 30:13), he derives that the husband can nullify his wife鈥檚 vow only until the end of the day on which he hears the vow.


讜专讘谞谉 诪讗讬 讟注诪讬讬讛讜 讚讻转讬讘 诪讬讜诐 讗诇 讬讜诐


The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, what is their reason? The Gemara answers: It is written: 鈥淔rom day to day鈥 (Numbers 30:15), which indicates that a vow can be nullified from a particular hour on one day until the same hour on the following day.


讜诇转谞讗 拽诪讗 讛讗 讻转讬讘 诪讬讜诐 讗诇 讬讜诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讚讗讬 讘讬讜诐 砖诪注讜 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 讘讬诪诪讗 讗讬谉 讘诇讬诇讬讗 诇讗 讻转讬讘 诪讬讜诐 讗诇 讬讜诐


The Gemara asks: And according to the first tanna, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淔rom day to day鈥? The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary, as if it had said only 鈥渙n the day that he hears them,鈥 I would say that during the day, yes, he can nullify vows, but at night he is not able to. Therefore, it is written: 鈥淔rom day to day,鈥 to teach that nullification can be performed even between one day and the next, i.e., night.


讜诇诪讗谉 讚讗诪专 诪讬讜诐 讗诇 讬讜诐 讛讗 讻转讬讘 讘讬讜诐 砖诪注讜 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 讚讗讬 讻转讬讘 诪讬讜诐 讗诇 讬讜诐 讛讜讛 讗诪讬谞讗 诪讞讚 讘砖讘讗 诇讞讚 讘砖讘讗 诇讬驻专 诇讛 讻转讬讘 讘讬讜诐 砖诪注讜


The Gemara asks: And according to the one who said that 鈥渇rom day to day鈥 indicates a twenty-four-hour period for nullification, isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淥n the day that he hears them?鈥 The Gemara explains here, too: That verse was necessary, as if it had written only 鈥渇rom day to day,鈥 I would say that he can nullify a vow for her until the same day in the following week, i.e., he can nullify her vow during the entire period from one Sunday to the next Sunday. Therefore, it is written: 鈥淥n the day that he hears them鈥 to teach that nullification is limited to a period of a single day of twenty-four hours.


讗诪专 专讘讬 砖诪注讜谉 讘谉 驻讝讬 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜砖注 讘谉 诇讜讬 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讜转讜 讛讝讜讙 诇讜讬 住讘专 诇诪讬注讘讚 讻讛谞讬 转谞讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讛讻讬 讗诪专 讞讘讬讘讬 讗讬谉 讛诇讻讛 讻讗讜转讜 讛讝讜讙


Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is not in accordance with that pair [zug], Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, who hold that one has an entire twenty-four-hour period to nullify vows. Rather, one can nullify only on that day, as stated in the mishna. The Gemara relates: Levi thought to act in accordance with the opinion of those two tanna鈥檌m. Rav said to him: So said my uncle [岣vivi], Rabbi 岣yya: The halakha is not in accordance with that pair.


讞讬讬讗 讘专 专讘 砖讚讬 讙讬专讗 讜讘讚讬拽 专讘讛 讘专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讬转讬讘 讜拽讗讬诐


The Gemara relates that when a case of dissolving a vow was brought before 岣yya bar Rav, he would shoot an arrow [gira] and examine the vow at the same time. In other words, he would not examine the case in great depth, but would immediately dissolve it. Similarly, Rabba bar Rav Huna would sit to review the vow and stand immediately, without conducting a comprehensive examination.

Scroll To Top