A gezeira shava (comparison of two different sections where the same words are used) is made between the section of vows and the section dealing with one who slaughters an animal for a sacrifice outside of the Temple/Tabernacle from the words ‘ze hadavar’ that appear in both sections. From the comparison, it is derived that vows can be annulled with three regular people (not judges) and that if one slaughters an animal that was sanctified, one can annul the sanctification and thus avoid the karet punishment. Beit Shamai doesn’t hold by the rule about annulling sanctification so they conclude that he must not hold by the gezeira shava. If so, what do they learn from ‘ze hadavar’ in each of these sections? From where do they derive the law that three regular people can annul vows? It is derived from the verses of the holidays – as the holidays are differentiated from vows – holidays require judges to determine their sanctity (by declaring the new moon) while vows do not. Rabbi Chanina brings an exception to the rule that the husband must cancel his wife’s vows on the day he hears them. If he wants to rebuke her first for vowing, he can push off the nullification for up to ten days. Rava raises a difficulty with Rabbi Chanina’s statement from the Tosefta, but it is resolved.
This week’s learning is dedicated by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Robert’s brother (my uncle), Richard Cohen on his first yahrzeit. “A true Baal Chesed who helped anyone in need without seeking recognition, he was a friend to everyone, young or old, and always put others’ needs before his own. He is truly missed by so many.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is dedicated by Robert and Paula Cohen in loving memory of Robert’s brother (my uncle), Richard Cohen on his first yahrzeit. “A true Baal Chesed who helped anyone in need without seeking recognition, he was a friend to everyone, young or old, and always put others’ needs before his own. He is truly missed by so many.”
Nedarim 78
״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ — חָכָם מַתִּיר, וְאֵין בַּעַל מַתִּיר. תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ — בַּעַל מֵפֵר וְאֵין חָכָם מֵפֵר. שֶׁיָּכוֹל: וּמָה בַּעַל שֶׁאֵין מַתִּיר — מֵפֵר, חָכָם שֶׁמַּתִּיר — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁמֵּפֵר, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ — בַּעַל מֵפֵר, וְאֵין חָכָם מֵפֵר.
“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.
נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״זֶה הַדָּבָר״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ בִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ. מָה בִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ — אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל, אַף פָּרָשַׁת נְדָרִים — אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּמָה כָּאן רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת — אַף לְהַלָּן רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת.
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.
בְּפָרָשַׁת נְדָרִים לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: לְהַכְשִׁיר שְׁלֹשָׁה הֶדְיוֹטוֹת. וְהָא ״רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת״ כְּתִיב! אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּיָחִיד מוּמְחֶה.
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.
רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת בִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לוֹמַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ שְׁאֵלָה בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ.
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.
לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי דְּאָמַר אֵין שְׁאֵלָה בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ, ״רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת״ דִּכְתִיב בִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לֵית לְהוּ גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה.
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.
״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ בְּפָרָשַׁת נְדָרִים לְמַאי כְּתִיב? לוֹמַר: חָכָם מַתִּיר וְאֵין בַּעַל מַתִּיר, בַּעַל מֵפֵר וְאֵין חָכָם מֵפֵר.
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.
״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ בִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ לְמַאי כְּתִיב? לוֹמַר: עַל הַשְּׁחִיטָה חַיָּיב, וְאֵין חַיָּיב עַל הַמְּלִיקָה.
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.
אֶלָּא לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי, לְהַכְשִׁיר שְׁלֹשָׁה הֶדְיוֹטוֹת מְנָלַן? נָפְקָא לְהוּ מִדְּרַב אַסִּי בַּר נָתָן.
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.
דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶת מֹעֲדֵי ה׳ אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״, וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: ״מוֹעֲדֵי״ נֶאֶמְרוּ, וְלֹא נֶאֶמְרָה שַׁבַּת בְּרֵאשִׁית עִמָּהֶן. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: ״מוֹעֲדֵי״ נֶאֶמְרוּ, וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר פָּרָשַׁת נְדָרִים עִמָּהֶן.
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.
רַב אַסִּי בַּר נָתָן קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ הָא מַתְנִיתָא. אֲתָא לִנְהַרְדְּעָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת וְלָא אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ, אֲתָא אַבָּתְרֵיהּ לְמָחוֹזָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוֹעֲדֵי ה׳ נֶאֶמְרוּ, וְלֹא נֶאֶמְרָה שַׁבַּת בְּרֵאשִׁית עִמָּהֶן?
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?
וְהָא כְּתִיב שַׁבָּת עִמָּהֶן! וְתוּ: מוֹעֲדֵי ה׳ נֶאֶמְרוּ, וְלֹא נֶאֶמְרָה פָּרָשַׁת נְדָרִים עִמָּהֶן? וְהָא מִסִּיטְרָא כְּתִיבָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי קָתָנֵי:
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:
מוֹעֲדֵי ה׳ צְרִיכִין קִידּוּשׁ בֵּית דִּין, שַׁבַּת בְּרֵאשִׁית אֵין צְרִיכָה קִידּוּשׁ בֵּית דִּין.
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.
מוֹעֲדֵי ה׳ צְרִיכִין מוּמְחֶה, וְאֵין פָּרָשַׁת נְדָרִים צְרִיכִין מוּמְחֶה, אֲפִילּוּ בֵּית דִּין הֶדְיוֹטוֹת.
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.
וְהָא בְּפָרָשַׁת נְדָרִים ״רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת״ כְּתִיב! אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּיָחִיד מוּמְחֶה.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הַשּׁוֹתֵק עַל מְנָת לְמֵיקַט, מֵפֵר אֲפִילּוּ מִכָּאן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים. מֵתִיב רָבָא: אֵימָתַי אָמְרוּ מֵת הַבַּעַל נִתְרוֹקְנָה רְשׁוּת לָאָב — בִּזְמַן שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמַע הַבַּעַל, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמַע וְשָׁתַק, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמַע וְהֵפֵר וּמֵת בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם. אֲבָל שָׁמַע וְקִיֵּים, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמַע וְשָׁתַק וּמֵת בַּיּוֹם שֶׁל אַחֲרָיו — אֵין יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר.
§ 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.
מַאי לָאו, בְּשׁוֹתֵק עַל מְנָת לְמֵיקַט? לֹא, בְּשׁוֹתֵק עַל מְנָת לְקַיֵּים. אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ אוֹ שָׁמַע וְקִיֵּים! אֶלָּא, בְּשׁוֹתֵק סְתָם.
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.
מֵתִיב רַב חִסְדָּא: חוֹמֶר בְּהָקֵם מִבְּהָפֵר, וּבְהָפֵר מִבְּהָקֵם. חוֹמֶר בְּהָקֵם —
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
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
A beautiful world of Talmudic sages now fill my daily life with discussion and debate.
bringing alive our traditions and texts that has brought new meaning to my life.
I am a מגילת אסתר reader for women . the words in the Mishna of מסכת megillah 17a
הקורא את המגילה למפרע לא יצא were powerful to me.
I hope to have the zchut to complete the cycle for my 70th birthday.
Jerusalem, Israel
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
Bronx, United States
Los Angeles, United States
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
I began learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
In my Shana bet at Migdal Oz I attended the Hadran siyum hash”as. Witnessing so many women so passionate about their Torah learning and connection to God, I knew I had to begin with the coming cycle. My wedding (June 24) was two weeks before the siyum of mesechet yoma so I went a little ahead and was able to make a speech and siyum at my kiseh kallah on my wedding day!
Givat Shmuel, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
Nedarim 78
״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ — חָכָם מַתִּיר, וְאֵין בַּעַל מַתִּיר. תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: ״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ — בַּעַל מֵפֵר וְאֵין חָכָם מֵפֵר. שֶׁיָּכוֹל: וּמָה בַּעַל שֶׁאֵין מַתִּיר — מֵפֵר, חָכָם שֶׁמַּתִּיר — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁמֵּפֵר, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ — בַּעַל מֵפֵר, וְאֵין חָכָם מֵפֵר.
“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.
נֶאֱמַר כָּאן ״זֶה הַדָּבָר״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן ״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ בִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ. מָה בִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ — אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל, אַף פָּרָשַׁת נְדָרִים — אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּמָה כָּאן רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת — אַף לְהַלָּן רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת.
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.
בְּפָרָשַׁת נְדָרִים לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: לְהַכְשִׁיר שְׁלֹשָׁה הֶדְיוֹטוֹת. וְהָא ״רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת״ כְּתִיב! אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּיָחִיד מוּמְחֶה.
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.
רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת בִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לוֹמַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ שְׁאֵלָה בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ.
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.
לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי דְּאָמַר אֵין שְׁאֵלָה בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ, ״רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת״ דִּכְתִיב בִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? בֵּית שַׁמַּאי לֵית לְהוּ גְּזֵירָה שָׁוָה.
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.
״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ בְּפָרָשַׁת נְדָרִים לְמַאי כְּתִיב? לוֹמַר: חָכָם מַתִּיר וְאֵין בַּעַל מַתִּיר, בַּעַל מֵפֵר וְאֵין חָכָם מֵפֵר.
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.
״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ בִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ לְמַאי כְּתִיב? לוֹמַר: עַל הַשְּׁחִיטָה חַיָּיב, וְאֵין חַיָּיב עַל הַמְּלִיקָה.
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.
אֶלָּא לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי, לְהַכְשִׁיר שְׁלֹשָׁה הֶדְיוֹטוֹת מְנָלַן? נָפְקָא לְהוּ מִדְּרַב אַסִּי בַּר נָתָן.
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.
דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶת מֹעֲדֵי ה׳ אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״, וְהָתַנְיָא, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר: ״מוֹעֲדֵי״ נֶאֶמְרוּ, וְלֹא נֶאֶמְרָה שַׁבַּת בְּרֵאשִׁית עִמָּהֶן. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר: ״מוֹעֲדֵי״ נֶאֶמְרוּ, וְלֹא נֶאֱמַר פָּרָשַׁת נְדָרִים עִמָּהֶן.
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.
רַב אַסִּי בַּר נָתָן קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ הָא מַתְנִיתָא. אֲתָא לִנְהַרְדְּעָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב שֵׁשֶׁת וְלָא אַשְׁכְּחֵיהּ, אֲתָא אַבָּתְרֵיהּ לְמָחוֹזָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוֹעֲדֵי ה׳ נֶאֶמְרוּ, וְלֹא נֶאֶמְרָה שַׁבַּת בְּרֵאשִׁית עִמָּהֶן?
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?
וְהָא כְּתִיב שַׁבָּת עִמָּהֶן! וְתוּ: מוֹעֲדֵי ה׳ נֶאֶמְרוּ, וְלֹא נֶאֶמְרָה פָּרָשַׁת נְדָרִים עִמָּהֶן? וְהָא מִסִּיטְרָא כְּתִיבָא! אֲמַר לֵיהּ, הָכִי קָתָנֵי:
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:
מוֹעֲדֵי ה׳ צְרִיכִין קִידּוּשׁ בֵּית דִּין, שַׁבַּת בְּרֵאשִׁית אֵין צְרִיכָה קִידּוּשׁ בֵּית דִּין.
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.
מוֹעֲדֵי ה׳ צְרִיכִין מוּמְחֶה, וְאֵין פָּרָשַׁת נְדָרִים צְרִיכִין מוּמְחֶה, אֲפִילּוּ בֵּית דִּין הֶדְיוֹטוֹת.
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.
וְהָא בְּפָרָשַׁת נְדָרִים ״רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת״ כְּתִיב! אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא וְאִיתֵּימָא רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּיָחִיד מוּמְחֶה.
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.
אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא: הַשּׁוֹתֵק עַל מְנָת לְמֵיקַט, מֵפֵר אֲפִילּוּ מִכָּאן וְעַד עֲשָׂרָה יָמִים. מֵתִיב רָבָא: אֵימָתַי אָמְרוּ מֵת הַבַּעַל נִתְרוֹקְנָה רְשׁוּת לָאָב — בִּזְמַן שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמַע הַבַּעַל, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמַע וְשָׁתַק, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמַע וְהֵפֵר וּמֵת בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם. אֲבָל שָׁמַע וְקִיֵּים, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמַע וְשָׁתַק וּמֵת בַּיּוֹם שֶׁל אַחֲרָיו — אֵין יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר.
§ 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.
מַאי לָאו, בְּשׁוֹתֵק עַל מְנָת לְמֵיקַט? לֹא, בְּשׁוֹתֵק עַל מְנָת לְקַיֵּים. אִי הָכִי, הַיְינוּ אוֹ שָׁמַע וְקִיֵּים! אֶלָּא, בְּשׁוֹתֵק סְתָם.
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.
מֵתִיב רַב חִסְדָּא: חוֹמֶר בְּהָקֵם מִבְּהָפֵר, וּבְהָפֵר מִבְּהָקֵם. חוֹמֶר בְּהָקֵם —
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
