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

Today's Daf Yomi

August 10, 2015 | 讻状讛 讘讗讘 转砖注状讛

  • 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 month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nedarim 78

讝讛 讛讚讘专 讞讻诐 诪转讬专 讜讗讬谉 讘注诇 诪转讬专 转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讝讛 讛讚讘专 讘注诇 诪驻专 讜讗讬谉 讞讻诐 诪驻专 砖讬讻讜诇 讜诪讛 讘注诇 砖讗讬谉 诪转讬专 诪驻专 讞讻诐 砖诪转讬专 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诪驻专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讛讚讘专 讘注诇 诪驻专 讜讗讬谉 讞讻诐 诪驻专

鈥淭his is the thing鈥 (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 鈥渢his is the thing鈥 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: 鈥淭his is the thing,鈥 to teach us that a husband nullifies vows, but a halakhic authority does not nullify them.

谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讝讛 讛讚讘专 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讝讛 讛讚讘专 讘砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 诪讛 讘砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗祝 驻专砖转 谞讚专讬诐 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪讛 讻讗谉 专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转

It is taught in a baraita: It is stated here, with regard to vows: 鈥淭his is the thing,鈥 and it is stated elsewhere: 鈥淪peak 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鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel鈥 (Numbers 30:2), so too, there, with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes.

讘驻专砖转 谞讚专讬诐 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诇讛讻砖讬专 砖诇砖讛 讛讚讬讜讟讜转 讜讛讗 专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转 讻转讬讘 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬讞讬讚 诪讜诪讞讛

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 A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov says: The verbal analogy is the source to authorize three laymen to dissolve vows. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭he heads of the tribes鈥? Rav 岣sda said, and some say it was Rabbi Yo岣nan: From the phrase 鈥渢he heads of the tribes鈥 the Sages derive that vows can also be dissolved by a single expert.

专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转 讘砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讜诪专 砖讬砖 砖讗诇讛 讘讛拽讚砖

The Gemara then asks the corresponding question about the other passage. The verbal analogy connects 鈥渢he heads of the tribes鈥 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.

诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 砖讗诇讛 讘讛拽讚砖 专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讘砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛

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 鈥渢he heads of the tribes鈥 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.

讝讛 讛讚讘专 讘驻专砖转 谞讚专讬诐 诇诪讗讬 讻转讬讘 诇讜诪专 讞讻诐 诪转讬专 讜讗讬谉 讘注诇 诪转讬专 讘注诇 诪驻专 讜讗讬谉 讞讻诐 诪驻专

The Gemara asks: Since Beit Shammai do not use this verbal analogy, for what purpose is 鈥渢his is the thing,鈥 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.

讝讛 讛讚讘专 讘砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 诇诪讗讬 讻转讬讘 诇讜诪专 注诇 讛砖讞讬讟讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛诪诇讬拽讛

According to Beit Shammai, for what purpose is written the phrase 鈥渢his is the thing,鈥 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.

讗诇讗 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讛讻砖讬专 砖诇砖讛 讛讚讬讜讟讜转 诪谞诇谉 谞驻拽讗 诇讛讜 诪讚专讘 讗住讬 讘专 谞转谉

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.

讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讚讘专 诪砖讛 讗转 诪注讚讬 讛壮 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 诪讜注讚讬 谞讗诪专讜 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专讛 砖讘转 讘专讗砖讬转 注诪讛谉 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪讜注讚讬 谞讗诪专讜 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专 驻专砖转 谞讚专讬诐 注诪讛谉

This is as it is written: 鈥淎nd Moses declared the Festivals of the Lord to the children of Israel鈥 (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.

专讘 讗住讬 讘专 谞转谉 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讛讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讗转讗 诇谞讛专讚注讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 讜诇讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讗转讗 讗讘转专讬讛 诇诪讞讜讝讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜注讚讬 讛壮 谞讗诪专讜 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专讛 砖讘转 讘专讗砖讬转 注诪讛谉

The Gemara relates that Rav Asi bar Natan had a difficulty with this baraita. He came to Neharde鈥檃 to ask about it before Rav Sheshet, but he did not find him there. He pursued him to Me岣za 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?

讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 砖讘转 注诪讛谉 讜转讜 诪讜注讚讬 讛壮 谞讗诪专讜 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专讛 驻专砖转 谞讚专讬诐 注诪讛谉 讜讛讗 诪住讬讟专讗 讻转讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬

But Shabbat is written with them in the portions of the Torah about the Festivals (Leviticus 23:3; Numbers 28:9鈥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鈥檛 it next to one of the portions in the Torah detailing the halakhot of the Festivals (Numbers, chapters 28鈥29)? Rav Sheshet said to him: This is what Rabbi Yosei HaGelili鈥檚 statement in the baraita is teaching:

诪讜注讚讬 讛壮 爪专讬讻讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖讘转 讘专讗砖讬转 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 拽讬讚讜砖 讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Festivals of the Lord require sanctification by the court, as the Festival dates are established by the court鈥檚 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.

诪讜注讚讬 讛壮 爪专讬讻讬谉 诪讜诪讞讛 讜讗讬谉 驻专砖转 谞讚专讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诪讜诪讞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讚讬讜讟讜转

As for ben Azzai鈥檚 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鈥檚 source for the halakha that three laymen can dissolve vows.

讜讛讗 讘驻专砖转 谞讚专讬诐 专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转 讻转讬讘 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬讞讬讚 诪讜诪讞讛

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

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇诪讬拽讟 诪驻专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讗讬诪转讬 讗诪专讜 诪转 讛讘注诇 谞转专讜拽谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讗讘 讘讝诪谉 砖诇讗 砖诪注 讛讘注诇 讗讜 砖砖诪注 讜砖转拽 讗讜 砖砖诪注 讜讛驻专 讜诪转 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讗讘诇 砖诪注 讜拽讬讬诐 讗讜 砖砖诪注 讜砖转拽 讜诪转 讘讬讜诐 砖诇 讗讞专讬讜 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专

Rabbi 岣nina says: A husband who is silent and does not formally nullify his wife鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇诪讬拽讟 诇讗 讘砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇拽讬讬诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜 砖诪注 讜拽讬讬诐 讗诇讗 讘砖讜转拽 住转诐

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 岣nina? 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讞住讚讗 讞讜诪专 讘讛拽诐 诪讘讛驻专 讜讘讛驻专 诪讘讛拽诐 讞讜诪专 讘讛拽诐

Rav 岣sda 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

  • 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 month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

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 78

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 78

讝讛 讛讚讘专 讞讻诐 诪转讬专 讜讗讬谉 讘注诇 诪转讬专 转谞讬讗 讗讬讚讱 讝讛 讛讚讘专 讘注诇 诪驻专 讜讗讬谉 讞讻诐 诪驻专 砖讬讻讜诇 讜诪讛 讘注诇 砖讗讬谉 诪转讬专 诪驻专 讞讻诐 砖诪转讬专 讗讬谞讜 讚讬谉 砖诪驻专 转诇诪讜讚 诇讜诪专 讝讛 讛讚讘专 讘注诇 诪驻专 讜讗讬谉 讞讻诐 诪驻专

鈥淭his is the thing鈥 (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 鈥渢his is the thing鈥 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: 鈥淭his is the thing,鈥 to teach us that a husband nullifies vows, but a halakhic authority does not nullify them.

谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讝讛 讛讚讘专 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讝讛 讛讚讘专 讘砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 诪讛 讘砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗祝 驻专砖转 谞讚专讬诐 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪讛 讻讗谉 专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转

It is taught in a baraita: It is stated here, with regard to vows: 鈥淭his is the thing,鈥 and it is stated elsewhere: 鈥淪peak 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鈥 (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: 鈥淎nd Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel鈥 (Numbers 30:2), so too, there, with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes.

讘驻专砖转 谞讚专讬诐 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诇讛讻砖讬专 砖诇砖讛 讛讚讬讜讟讜转 讜讛讗 专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转 讻转讬讘 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬讞讬讚 诪讜诪讞讛

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 A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov says: The verbal analogy is the source to authorize three laymen to dissolve vows. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn鈥檛 it written: 鈥淭he heads of the tribes鈥? Rav 岣sda said, and some say it was Rabbi Yo岣nan: From the phrase 鈥渢he heads of the tribes鈥 the Sages derive that vows can also be dissolved by a single expert.

专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转 讘砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讜诪专 砖讬砖 砖讗诇讛 讘讛拽讚砖

The Gemara then asks the corresponding question about the other passage. The verbal analogy connects 鈥渢he heads of the tribes鈥 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.

诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讗诪专 讗讬谉 砖讗诇讛 讘讛拽讚砖 专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讘砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讬转 诇讛讜 讙讝讬专讛 砖讜讛

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 鈥渢he heads of the tribes鈥 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.

讝讛 讛讚讘专 讘驻专砖转 谞讚专讬诐 诇诪讗讬 讻转讬讘 诇讜诪专 讞讻诐 诪转讬专 讜讗讬谉 讘注诇 诪转讬专 讘注诇 诪驻专 讜讗讬谉 讞讻诐 诪驻专

The Gemara asks: Since Beit Shammai do not use this verbal analogy, for what purpose is 鈥渢his is the thing,鈥 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.

讝讛 讛讚讘专 讘砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 诇诪讗讬 讻转讬讘 诇讜诪专 注诇 讛砖讞讬讟讛 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬谉 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛诪诇讬拽讛

According to Beit Shammai, for what purpose is written the phrase 鈥渢his is the thing,鈥 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.

讗诇讗 诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 诇讛讻砖讬专 砖诇砖讛 讛讚讬讜讟讜转 诪谞诇谉 谞驻拽讗 诇讛讜 诪讚专讘 讗住讬 讘专 谞转谉

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.

讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讚讘专 诪砖讛 讗转 诪注讚讬 讛壮 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 讜讛转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专 诪讜注讚讬 谞讗诪专讜 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专讛 砖讘转 讘专讗砖讬转 注诪讛谉 讘谉 注讝讗讬 讗讜诪专 诪讜注讚讬 谞讗诪专讜 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专 驻专砖转 谞讚专讬诐 注诪讛谉

This is as it is written: 鈥淎nd Moses declared the Festivals of the Lord to the children of Israel鈥 (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.

专讘 讗住讬 讘专 谞转谉 拽砖讬讗 诇讬讛 讛讗 诪转谞讬转讗 讗转讗 诇谞讛专讚注讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 砖砖转 讜诇讗 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讗转讗 讗讘转专讬讛 诇诪讞讜讝讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讜注讚讬 讛壮 谞讗诪专讜 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专讛 砖讘转 讘专讗砖讬转 注诪讛谉

The Gemara relates that Rav Asi bar Natan had a difficulty with this baraita. He came to Neharde鈥檃 to ask about it before Rav Sheshet, but he did not find him there. He pursued him to Me岣za 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?

讜讛讗 讻转讬讘 砖讘转 注诪讛谉 讜转讜 诪讜注讚讬 讛壮 谞讗诪专讜 讜诇讗 谞讗诪专讛 驻专砖转 谞讚专讬诐 注诪讛谉 讜讛讗 诪住讬讟专讗 讻转讬讘讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讻讬 拽转谞讬

But Shabbat is written with them in the portions of the Torah about the Festivals (Leviticus 23:3; Numbers 28:9鈥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鈥檛 it next to one of the portions in the Torah detailing the halakhot of the Festivals (Numbers, chapters 28鈥29)? Rav Sheshet said to him: This is what Rabbi Yosei HaGelili鈥檚 statement in the baraita is teaching:

诪讜注讚讬 讛壮 爪专讬讻讬谉 拽讬讚讜砖 讘讬转 讚讬谉 砖讘转 讘专讗砖讬转 讗讬谉 爪专讬讻讛 拽讬讚讜砖 讘讬转 讚讬谉

The Festivals of the Lord require sanctification by the court, as the Festival dates are established by the court鈥檚 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.

诪讜注讚讬 讛壮 爪专讬讻讬谉 诪讜诪讞讛 讜讗讬谉 驻专砖转 谞讚专讬诐 爪专讬讻讬谉 诪讜诪讞讛 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讬转 讚讬谉 讛讚讬讜讟讜转

As for ben Azzai鈥檚 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鈥檚 source for the halakha that three laymen can dissolve vows.

讜讛讗 讘驻专砖转 谞讚专讬诐 专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转 讻转讬讘 讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讜讗讬转讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬讞讬讚 诪讜诪讞讛

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

讗诪专 专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 讛砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇诪讬拽讟 诪驻专 讗驻讬诇讜 诪讻讗谉 讜注讚 注砖专讛 讬诪讬诐 诪转讬讘 专讘讗 讗讬诪转讬 讗诪专讜 诪转 讛讘注诇 谞转专讜拽谞讛 专砖讜转 诇讗讘 讘讝诪谉 砖诇讗 砖诪注 讛讘注诇 讗讜 砖砖诪注 讜砖转拽 讗讜 砖砖诪注 讜讛驻专 讜诪转 讘讜 讘讬讜诐 讗讘诇 砖诪注 讜拽讬讬诐 讗讜 砖砖诪注 讜砖转拽 讜诪转 讘讬讜诐 砖诇 讗讞专讬讜 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专

Rabbi 岣nina says: A husband who is silent and does not formally nullify his wife鈥檚 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鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇诪讬拽讟 诇讗 讘砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇拽讬讬诐 讗讬 讛讻讬 讛讬讬谞讜 讗讜 砖诪注 讜拽讬讬诐 讗诇讗 讘砖讜转拽 住转诐

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 岣nina? 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.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讞住讚讗 讞讜诪专 讘讛拽诐 诪讘讛驻专 讜讘讛驻专 诪讘讛拽诐 讞讜诪专 讘讛拽诐

Rav 岣sda 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

Scroll To Top