Nedarim 78

זה הדבר חכם מתיר ואין בעל מתיר תניא אידך זה הדבר בעל מפר ואין חכם מפר שיכול ומה בעל שאין מתיר מפר חכם שמתיר אינו דין שמפר תלמוד לומר זה הדבר בעל מפר ואין חכם מפר

“This is the thing” (Numbers 30:2), to teach that the husband nullifies vows and a halakhic authority dissolves vows, but a husband does not dissolve them. It is taught in another baraita: The phrase “this is the thing” teaches that a husband nullifies vows but a halakhic authority does not nullify vows. As, one might have thought: Just as a husband, who cannot dissolve vows, nevertheless nullifies them, so too with regard to a halakhic authority, who can dissolve vows, is it not logical that he should also nullify them? Therefore, the verse states: “This is the thing,” to teach us that a husband nullifies vows, but a halakhic authority does not nullify them.

נאמר כאן זה הדבר ונאמר להלן זה הדבר בשחוטי חוץ מה בשחוטי חוץ אהרן ובניו וכל ישראל אף פרשת נדרים אהרן ובניו וכל ישראל ומה כאן ראשי המטות אף להלן ראשי המטות

It is taught in a baraita: It is stated here, with regard to vows: “This is the thing,” and it is stated elsewhere: “Speak to Aaron, and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel, and say to them: This is the thing which the Lord has commanded, saying” (Leviticus 17:2), in the verse introducing the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside of the Temple courtyard. Just as with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, the verse is directed to Aaron and his sons and all of Israel, so too, the portion in the Torah about vows is directed to Aaron and his sons and all of Israel. And just as here, with regard to vows, the verse states: “And Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel” (Numbers 30:2), so too, there, with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes.

בפרשת נדרים למאי הלכתא אמר רב אחא בר יעקב להכשיר שלשה הדיוטות והא ראשי המטות כתיב אמר רב חסדא ואיתימא רבי יוחנן ביחיד מומחה

The Gemara asks: With regard to the Torah portion on vows, for what halakha is the verbal analogy between it and slaughtering offerings outside the Temple courtyard taught? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says: The verbal analogy is the source to authorize three laymen to dissolve vows. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it written: “The heads of the tribes”? Rav Ḥisda said, and some say it was Rabbi Yoḥanan: From the phrase “the heads of the tribes” the Sages derive that vows can also be dissolved by a single expert.

ראשי המטות בשחוטי חוץ למאי הלכתא אמר רב ששת לומר שיש שאלה בהקדש

The Gemara then asks the corresponding question about the other passage. The verbal analogy connects “the heads of the tribes” to offerings slaughtered outside of the Temple courtyard. For what halakha is this connection made? Rav Sheshet said: This connection is made in order to say that there is a concept of requesting dissolution of consecration of consecrated property.

לבית שמאי דאמר אין שאלה בהקדש ראשי המטות דכתיב בשחוטי חוץ למאי הלכתא בית שמאי לית להו גזירה שוה

The Gemara asks: According to Beit Shammai, who say that there is no possibility of requesting from a halakhic authority to cancel the consecration of consecrated property, the treatment of the verse “the heads of the tribes” as if it were written also about offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard serves to teach what halakha? The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai do not have a tradition of interpreting the verses in accordance with this verbal analogy.

זה הדבר בפרשת נדרים למאי כתיב לומר חכם מתיר ואין בעל מתיר בעל מפר ואין חכם מפר

The Gemara asks: Since Beit Shammai do not use this verbal analogy, for what purpose is “this is the thing,” in the portion on vows, written? The Gemara answers: It is written to say that only a halakhic authority dissolves vows, but a husband does not dissolve them; a husband nullifies vows, but a halakhic authority does not nullify them.

זה הדבר בשחוטי חוץ למאי כתיב לומר על השחיטה חייב ואין חייב על המליקה

According to Beit Shammai, for what purpose is written the phrase “this is the thing,” found in the portion on offerings slaughtered outside of the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers: It is written to say that one is liable for slaughtering outside, but one is not liable for pinching the neck of a bird-offering outside the Temple courtyard, although that is the way it would be killed if it were a valid offering in the Temple.

אלא לבית שמאי להכשיר שלשה הדיוטות מנלן נפקא להו מדרב אסי בר נתן

The Gemara asks: But according to Beit Shammai, who do not accept the verbal analogy between vows and the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside of the Temple courtyard, from where do we derive the source to authorize three laymen to dissolve vows? The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai derive it from the explanation given to Rav Asi bar Natan.

דכתיב וידבר משה את מעדי ה׳ אל בני ישראל והתניא רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר מועדי נאמרו ולא נאמרה שבת בראשית עמהן בן עזאי אומר מועדי נאמרו ולא נאמר פרשת נדרים עמהן

This is as it is written: “And Moses declared the Festivals of the Lord to the children of Israel” (Leviticus 23:44). And it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The Festivals are stated, but Shabbat, which commemorates Creation, is not stated with them. Ben Azzai says: The Festivals are stated, but the portion on vows is not stated with them.

רב אסי בר נתן קשיא ליה הא מתניתא אתא לנהרדעא לקמיה דרב ששת ולא אשכחיה אתא אבתריה למחוזא אמר ליה מועדי ה׳ נאמרו ולא נאמרה שבת בראשית עמהן

The Gemara relates that Rav Asi bar Natan had a difficulty with this baraita. He came to Neharde’a to ask about it before Rav Sheshet, but he did not find him there. He pursued him to Meḥoza and said to him: How can the baraita say that the Festivals of the Lord were stated, but Shabbat, which commemorates Creation, was not stated with them?

והא כתיב שבת עמהן ותו מועדי ה׳ נאמרו ולא נאמרה פרשת נדרים עמהן והא מסיטרא כתיבא אמר ליה הכי קתני

But Shabbat is written with them in the portions of the Torah about the Festivals (Leviticus 23:3; Numbers 28:9–10). And furthermore, can it be said that the Festivals of the Lord are stated, but the portion on vows (Numbers, chapter 30) is not stated with them? Isn’t it next to one of the portions in the Torah detailing the halakhot of the Festivals (Numbers, chapters 28–29)? Rav Sheshet said to him: This is what Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s statement in the baraita is teaching:

מועדי ה׳ צריכין קידוש בית דין שבת בראשית אין צריכה קידוש בית דין

The Festivals of the Lord require sanctification by the court, as the Festival dates are established by the court’s determination of the New Moon, whereas Shabbat, which commemorates Creation, does not require sanctification by the court. Shabbat is sanctified every week independent of any court decision.

מועדי ה׳ צריכין מומחה ואין פרשת נדרים צריכין מומחה אפילו בית דין הדיוטות

As for ben Azzai’s statement, it should be understood as follows: The Festivals of the Lord require an expert, as the start of the month, which is dependent upon the appearance of the new moon, which in turn determines the Festivals, can be established only by a court composed of experts. But the portion on vows does not require an expert, i.e., vows can be dissolved even by a court of laymen. This explanation of the baraita given to Rav Asi bar Natan also serves to explain Beit Shammai’s source for the halakha that three laymen can dissolve vows.

והא בפרשת נדרים ראשי המטות כתיב אמר רב חסדא ואיתימא רבי יוחנן ביחיד מומחה

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But in the portion on vows the phrase “the heads of the tribes” (Numbers 30:2) is written. How, then, can it be said that vows can be dissolved by laymen? Rav Ḥisda said, and some say it was Rabbi Yoḥanan: From “the heads of the tribes,” the Sages derive that vows can be dissolved by a single expert by himself, but three laymen also have that ability.

אמר רבי חנינא השותק על מנת למיקט מפר אפילו מכאן ועד עשרה ימים מתיב רבא אימתי אמרו מת הבעל נתרוקנה רשות לאב בזמן שלא שמע הבעל או ששמע ושתק או ששמע והפר ומת בו ביום אבל שמע וקיים או ששמע ושתק ומת ביום של אחריו אין יכול להפר

§ Rabbi Ḥanina says: A husband who is silent and does not formally nullify his wife’s vow in order to annoy [lemeikat] her, but intends to nullify it later, can nullify it even from now until ten days later. Rava raised an objection to this from a baraita: When did they say that if the husband of a betrothed young woman dies, the authority to nullify the woman’s vows reverts to the father? The authority reverts to the father when the husband did not hear of her vow, or when he heard and was silent, or when he heard and nullified it and died on the same day. But if he heard and ratified it, or if he heard and was silent and died on the following day, he, the father, cannot nullify the vow.

מאי לאו בשותק על מנת למיקט לא בשותק על מנת לקיים אי הכי היינו או שמע וקיים אלא בשותק סתם

What, is the phrase: Heard and was silent, not referring even to one who is silent in order to annoy her, and nevertheless nullification is only possible that day, contradicting the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina? The Gemara answers: No, the baraita is referring to one who is silent in order to sustain the vow. The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same as: Or he heard and ratified, mentioned earlier in the baraita. Rather, the baraita is referring to one who is silent without any specific intent, as opposed to the husband who is silent in order to annoy his wife, whose intent is to nullify the vow.

מתיב רב חסדא חומר בהקם מבהפר ובהפר מבהקם חומר בהקם

Rav Ḥisda raised an objection from a different baraita: In some ways the halakha is more stringent in ratification than in nullification, and in other ways it is more stringent in nullification than in ratification. The stringency in ratification of vows is