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

Today's Daf Yomi

January 12, 2023 | 讬状讟 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讙

  • 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鈥檚 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. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Nedarim 79

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Linda Freedman in honor of her mother’s birthday. 鈥淗appiest of birthdays to Mom, Buby Selmy, the great one, Thelma Pultman, for your 96th birthday and a healthy, happy year to come. From your 3 daughters, Linda Freedman, Sheila Strulowitz, and Gwen Lerner, your 9 grandchildren and their spouses, and your 28 great grands, with one in the oven.”

Another four difficulties are raised against Rabbi Chanina’s position that a husband can push off nullifying vows of his wife for up to ten days in order to rebuke her. One of them is resolved and three remain as a difficulty. There is a debate between tanna kama and Rabbi Yosi as to what vows are considered i’nui nefesh, an affliction of the soul, that a husband can nullify. Is not washing or not adorning oneself considered an affliction of the soul? What is the difference between vows a husband can nullify because they are an affliction of the soul and vows he can nullify because they are negatively affecting the relationship between him and his wife? After some deliberation, they explain that the first category is nullified forever and the second is only nullified until he is no longer connected to her, which means, until they divorce and she marries someone us, thus prohibiting the first husband from being able to remarry her. The Mishna mentions a vow of affliction as “If I wash/adorn myself” “If I don’t wash/adorn myself.” The Gemara tries to ascertain what was the full language of the vow taken. One suggestion is raised and it is rejected.

砖讛砖转讬拽讛 诪拽讬讬诪转 讜讗讬谉 砖转讬拽讛 诪讘讟诇转 拽讬讬诐 讘诇讘讜 拽讬讬诐 讛驻专 讘诇讘讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讜驻专 拽讬讬诐 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 讛驻专 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇拽讬讬诐 拽转谞讬 砖讛砖转讬拽讛 诪拽讬讬诪转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇诪讬拽讟

that silence ratifies a vow, but silence does not cancel, i.e., nullify, a vow. If the husband ratified a vow in his heart, it is ratified, but if he nullified it in his heart, it is not nullified. The baraita adds: If he ratified a vow he can no longer nullify it; and similarly, if he nullified a vow he can no longer ratify it. In any case, the baraita teaches that silence ratifies a vow. What, is it not referring even to one who is silent in order to annoy his wife?

诇讗 讘砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇拽讬讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 拽讬讬诐 讘诇讘讜 拽讬讬诐 讗诇讗 讘砖讜转拽 住转诐

The Gemara rejects this interpretation: No, it is referring to one who is silent in order to sustain the vow. The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same as: If the husband ratified a vow in his heart, it is ratified. Rather, the phrase in the baraita: Silence ratifies a vow, is referring to a case where the husband is silent without specifying his intent.

讗砖讻讞谉 讞讜诪专 讘讛拽诐 诪讘讛驻专 讘讛驻专 诪讘讛拽诐 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞砖讗诇讬谉 注诇 讛讛拽诐 讜讗讬谉 谞砖讗诇讬谉 注诇 讛讛驻专

Relating to the baraita, the Gemara asks: We found how the halakha is more stringent in ratification of vows than in nullification of vows, but where do we find a case in which the halakha is more stringent in nullification than in ratification? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: One can request from a halakhic authority dissolution of the ratification of a vow his wife took, but one cannot request dissolution of the nullification of a vow.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讗诐 讛讞专砖 讬讞专讬砖 诇讛 讗讬砖讛 讜讙讜壮 讘砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇诪讬拽讟 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇诪讬拽讟 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇拽讬讬诐

Rav Kahana raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina that a husband who is silent about his wife鈥檚 vow in order to annoy her can nullify it even several days later. A baraita teaches: 鈥淏ut if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day, then he causes all her vows to be ratified鈥 (Numbers 30:15). The verse is speaking of one who is silent in order to annoy his wife. Do you say that the verse is referring to one who is silent in order to annoy her, or it is referring only to one who is silent in order to ratify the vow?

讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讻讬 讛讞专砖 诇讛 讛专讬 讘砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇拽讬讬诐 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讗诐 讛讞专砖 讬讞专讬砖 诇讛 讗讬砖讛 讘砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇诪讬拽讟 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 转讬讜讘转讗

The baraita continues: When it says, in the continuation of the same verse: 鈥淗e has ratified them, because he held his peace at her on the day that he heard them鈥 (Numbers 30:15), the verse is speaking of one who is silent in order to ratify the vow. How do I realize the meaning of: 鈥淚f her husband altogether holds his peace at her鈥? It must be that the verse is speaking of one who is silent in order to annoy his wife, and that this is also considered an act of ratification. This baraita is a conclusive refutation [teyuveta] of Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 opinion.

讜诇讜拽讬诐 讛讗 讘砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇拽讬讬诐 讛讗 讘砖讜转拽 住转诐 拽专讗讬 讬转讬专讬 讻转讬讘讬

The Gemara asks about this baraita: And let the tanna interpret this part of the verse as referring to one who is silent in order to ratify the vow, and that part of the same verse as referring to one who was silent without specifying his intent, as the Gemara suggests above in explanation of the baraita? The Gemara answers: Superfluous verses are written about silence, leading to the conclusion that whatever the reason for the husband鈥檚 silence, the vow is ratified.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 谞讚专讛 注诐 讞砖讻讛 诪驻专 诇讛 注讚 砖诇讗 讞砖讻讛 砖讗诐 诇讗 讛驻专 讜讞砖讻讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 讗诪讗讬 诇讛讜讬 讻砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇诪讬拽讟 转讬讜讘转讗

Rava raised a further objection to the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina, from a mishna (76b): If she took a vow on Friday 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. Why should this be so? Let the fact that the husband refrained from nullifying the vow out of respect for Shabbat be regarded like one who is silent in order to annoy his wife, who, according to Rav Huna, can still nullify the vow later. The fact that this is not the case is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讗砖讬 讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 砖讬砖 谞讚专讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讬砖 诪驻讬专讬谉 讬驻专 讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 砖讬砖 诪驻讬专讬谉 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讝讛 谞讚专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬驻专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬驻专

Rav Ashi also raised an objection to Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 opinion, from another mishna (87b): If a husband or father said, after failing to nullify a vow on the day he heard it: I know that there are vows, but I do not know that there are those who can nullify vows, i.e., he was unaware that he can nullify a vow, he can nullify it even after the day he heard it. However, if he said: I know there are those who nullify, but I refrained from nullifying the vow because I do not know that this is considered a vow that I could nullify, Rabbi Meir says: He cannot nullify at this point, but the Rabbis say: Even in this case he can nullify the vow when he discovers his error.

讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬讛讜讬 讻砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇诪讬拽讟 转讬讜讘转讗

Rav Ashi asks rhetorically: But why may he not nullify according to Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion? Let his silence by mistake be like that of one who is silent in order to annoy, who, according to Rabbi 岣nina, can nullify the vow at a later stage. This is a conclusive refutation of Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 opinion.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 谞讚专讬诐 砖讛讜讗 诪驻专 讚讘专讬诐 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讗诐 讗专讞抓 讜讗诐 诇讗 讗专讞抓 讗诐 讗转拽砖讟 讜讗诐 诇讗 讗转拽砖讟

MISHNA: And these are the vows that he, the husband or father, can nullify: The first category consists of matters that involve affliction for the woman who took the vow. For example, if a woman vowed: If I bathe, or: If I do not bathe; if she vowed: If I adorn myself [etkashet], or: If I do not adorn myself.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬谉 讗诇讜 谞讚专讬 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 谞讚专讬 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讗诪专讛 拽讜谞诐 驻讬专讜转 讛注讜诇诐 注诇讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 驻讬专讜转 诪讚讬谞讛 讝讜 注诇讬 讬讘讬讗 诇讛 诪诪讚讬谞讛 讗讞专转 驻讬专讜转 讞谞讜讜谞讬 讝讛 注诇讬 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 讜讗诐 诇讗 讛讬转讛 驻专谞住转讜 讗诇讗 诪诪谞讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讬驻专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

Rabbi Yosei said: These are not vows of affliction. Rather, these are vows of affliction: For example, if she said: The produce of the entire world is konam for me as if it were an offering, he can nullify the vow, as it certainly involves affliction. If, however, she said: The produce of this country is konam for me, he cannot nullify the vow, as it does not involve affliction, since he may still bring her produce from another country. Similarly, if she said: The produce of this storekeeper is konam for me, he cannot nullify her vow, as he may still bring her produce from another storekeeper. But if he can obtain his sustenance only from him, that particular storekeeper, he can nullify the vow. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

讙诪壮 谞讚专讬 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讛讜讗 讚诪驻专 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讗讬谞讜 诪驻专 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讘讬谉 讗讬砖 诇讗砖转讜 讘讬谉 讗讘 诇讘转讜 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讘注诇 诪驻专 谞讚专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a question with regard to the ruling of the mishna: Is it only vows of affliction that he can nullify, whereas vows that do not involve affliction he cannot nullify? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The verse 鈥淭hese are the statutes that the Lord commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter鈥 (Numbers 30:17) teaches that a husband can nullify any of his wife鈥檚 vows that adversely affect the relationship between him and her, even if they do not involve affliction?

讗诪专讬 讛诇讬谉 讜讛诇讬谉 诪驻专 诪讬讛讜 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 诪驻专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讻讚讗讬转讛 转讞讜转讬讛 讛讜讬讗 讛驻专讛 诪讻讬 诪讙专砖 诇讛 讞讬讬诇 注诇讛 谞讚专讛 讘讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讗讘诇 讬砖 讘讛谉 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 诇讗 讞讬讬诇 注诇讬讛 谞讚专讛

The Sages say in response: In fact, he can nullify both these and those. There is, however, a difference between them. When he nullifies vows of affliction, he nullifies them forever, i.e., the vows remain nullified even if they subsequently divorce. But when he nullifies vows that do not involve affliction but merely impact upon their relationship, then, while they are married and she is under his authority it is an effective nullification, but when he divorces her, her vow takes effect upon her, i.e., his nullification is no longer effective. As stated, this is referring to vows concerning matters that adversely affect the relationship between him and her, that do not involve affliction. However, if he nullifies a vow that affects their relationship and also involves affliction, her vow does not take effect upon her even after she leaves her husband鈥檚 authority.

讜讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讻讬 诪讙专砖 诇讛 讞讬讬诇讗 注诇讛 讜讛讗 转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 讬驻专 砖诪讗 讬讙专砖谞讛 讜转讛讗 讗住讜专讛 诇讜 讗诇诪讗 讻讬 诪讙专砖 诇讛 讜诪驻专 诇讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讬讗 讛驻专讛

The Gemara asks: And as for vows concerning matters that do not involve affliction, when a man divorces his wife, do they really take effect upon her? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna with regard to a woman who prohibited her handiwork to her husband by way of a vow (85a) that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri says: Even though the vow is presently invalid, as a woman cannot render forbidden to her husband that to which he is already entitled, he should nevertheless nullify the vow? This is because perhaps he will one day divorce her, at which point the vow will take effect and she will then be forbidden to him, since he will be unable to remarry her lest he come to benefit from her handiwork. Apparently, however, if he divorces her after having nullified her vow from the outset, before their divorce, it is a permanent nullification, and although the vow does not involve affliction it remains nullified after their divorce.

讗诪专讬 讛诇讬谉 讜讛诇讬谉 讛讜讬讗 讛驻专讛 讗诇讗 谞讚专讬 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 诪驻专 讘讬谉 诇注爪诪讜 讜讘讬谉 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 诇注爪诪讜 诪驻专 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪驻专 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗诇讜 谞讚专讬诐 砖讛讜讗 诪驻专 讘讬谉 诇注爪诪讜 讜讘讬谉 诇讗讞专讬诐 谞讚专讬诐 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖

Consequently, the Sages say a different answer: With regard to both these and those, vows of affliction and vows adversely affecting the relationship between them, when the husband nullifies the vow, it is a permanent nullification. Rather, the difference between them is as follows: Vows of affliction he can fully nullify, both with respect to himself and with respect to others, i.e., the vow remains nullified even if he divorces her and she marries another man. Whereas vows that do not involve affliction but still adversely affect the relationship between him and her he can permanently nullify with respect to himself, but he cannot nullify with respect to others; if she marries another man, the vow takes effect. And according to this explanation, this is what the mishna is teaching: These are the vows that he can nullify both for himself and for others: Vows that involve affliction.

讗诐 讗专讞抓 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专讛 拽讜谞诐 驻讬专讜转 注讜诇诐 注诇讬 讗诐 讗专讞抓 诇诪讛 诇讛 讛驻专讛 诇讗 转专讞抓 讜诇讗 诇讬转住专谉 驻讬专讜转 注讜诇诐 讗诇讜 注诇讛

搂 The mishna teaches that, according to the first tanna, a woman鈥檚 vow: If I bathe, falls into the category of vows of affliction, whereas Rabbi Yosei disagrees and says that this is not a vow of affliction. The Gemara asks: As the phrase: If I bathe, is not the main substance of the vow, but rather the woman wishes to prohibit herself from deriving a certain benefit depending on whether or not she bathes, with regard to what case is the mishna speaking? If we say that she said: The produce of the world is konam for me if I bathe, why, according to the first tanna, does she need nullification at all to prevent her affliction? Let her not bathe and this produce of the world will not be forbidden to her.

讜注讜讚 讘讛讗 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬谉 讗诇讜 谞讚专讬 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讚诇诪讗 专讞爪讛 讜讗讬转住专讜 驻讬专讜转 注讜诇诐 注诇讛

And furthermore, this explanation is problematic for a different reason: With regard to a vow of this type, would Rabbi Yosei say that these are not vows of affliction? There is certainly room for concern that perhaps she will bathe and the produce of the world will be forbidden to her, a situation that certainly entails deprivation.

  • 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鈥檚 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. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

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: 78-84 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn the law if a husband is silent about his wife鈥檚 vow. Does his silence signify...
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 79: The Safety Net

Finishing the 10 chapter of Nedarim on the husband who revokes his wife's vows, as needed. And... beginning chapter 11,...

Nedarim 79

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 79

砖讛砖转讬拽讛 诪拽讬讬诪转 讜讗讬谉 砖转讬拽讛 诪讘讟诇转 拽讬讬诐 讘诇讘讜 拽讬讬诐 讛驻专 讘诇讘讜 讗讬谞讜 诪讜驻专 拽讬讬诐 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 讛驻专 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇拽讬讬诐 拽转谞讬 砖讛砖转讬拽讛 诪拽讬讬诪转 诪讗讬 诇讗讜 讘砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇诪讬拽讟

that silence ratifies a vow, but silence does not cancel, i.e., nullify, a vow. If the husband ratified a vow in his heart, it is ratified, but if he nullified it in his heart, it is not nullified. The baraita adds: If he ratified a vow he can no longer nullify it; and similarly, if he nullified a vow he can no longer ratify it. In any case, the baraita teaches that silence ratifies a vow. What, is it not referring even to one who is silent in order to annoy his wife?

诇讗 讘砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇拽讬讬诐 讛讬讬谞讜 拽讬讬诐 讘诇讘讜 拽讬讬诐 讗诇讗 讘砖讜转拽 住转诐

The Gemara rejects this interpretation: No, it is referring to one who is silent in order to sustain the vow. The Gemara asks: If so, this is the same as: If the husband ratified a vow in his heart, it is ratified. Rather, the phrase in the baraita: Silence ratifies a vow, is referring to a case where the husband is silent without specifying his intent.

讗砖讻讞谉 讞讜诪专 讘讛拽诐 诪讘讛驻专 讘讛驻专 诪讘讛拽诐 诪谞讗 诇谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 谞砖讗诇讬谉 注诇 讛讛拽诐 讜讗讬谉 谞砖讗诇讬谉 注诇 讛讛驻专

Relating to the baraita, the Gemara asks: We found how the halakha is more stringent in ratification of vows than in nullification of vows, but where do we find a case in which the halakha is more stringent in nullification than in ratification? Rabbi Yo岣nan says: One can request from a halakhic authority dissolution of the ratification of a vow his wife took, but one cannot request dissolution of the nullification of a vow.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讜讗诐 讛讞专砖 讬讞专讬砖 诇讛 讗讬砖讛 讜讙讜壮 讘砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇诪讬拽讟 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讗转讛 讗讜诪专 讘砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇诪讬拽讟 讗讜 讗讬谞讜 讗诇讗 讘砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇拽讬讬诐

Rav Kahana raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina that a husband who is silent about his wife鈥檚 vow in order to annoy her can nullify it even several days later. A baraita teaches: 鈥淏ut if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day, then he causes all her vows to be ratified鈥 (Numbers 30:15). The verse is speaking of one who is silent in order to annoy his wife. Do you say that the verse is referring to one who is silent in order to annoy her, or it is referring only to one who is silent in order to ratify the vow?

讻砖讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讻讬 讛讞专砖 诇讛 讛专讬 讘砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇拽讬讬诐 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 讛讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讗诐 讛讞专砖 讬讞专讬砖 诇讛 讗讬砖讛 讘砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇诪讬拽讟 讛讻转讜讘 诪讚讘专 转讬讜讘转讗

The baraita continues: When it says, in the continuation of the same verse: 鈥淗e has ratified them, because he held his peace at her on the day that he heard them鈥 (Numbers 30:15), the verse is speaking of one who is silent in order to ratify the vow. How do I realize the meaning of: 鈥淚f her husband altogether holds his peace at her鈥? It must be that the verse is speaking of one who is silent in order to annoy his wife, and that this is also considered an act of ratification. This baraita is a conclusive refutation [teyuveta] of Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 opinion.

讜诇讜拽讬诐 讛讗 讘砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇拽讬讬诐 讛讗 讘砖讜转拽 住转诐 拽专讗讬 讬转讬专讬 讻转讬讘讬

The Gemara asks about this baraita: And let the tanna interpret this part of the verse as referring to one who is silent in order to ratify the vow, and that part of the same verse as referring to one who was silent without specifying his intent, as the Gemara suggests above in explanation of the baraita? The Gemara answers: Superfluous verses are written about silence, leading to the conclusion that whatever the reason for the husband鈥檚 silence, the vow is ratified.

诪转讬讘 专讘讗 谞讚专讛 注诐 讞砖讻讛 诪驻专 诇讛 注讚 砖诇讗 讞砖讻讛 砖讗诐 诇讗 讛驻专 讜讞砖讻讛 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 讗诪讗讬 诇讛讜讬 讻砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇诪讬拽讟 转讬讜讘转讗

Rava raised a further objection to the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina, from a mishna (76b): If she took a vow on Friday 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. Why should this be so? Let the fact that the husband refrained from nullifying the vow out of respect for Shabbat be regarded like one who is silent in order to annoy his wife, who, according to Rav Huna, can still nullify the vow later. The fact that this is not the case is a conclusive refutation of the opinion of Rabbi 岣nina.

诪转讬讘 专讘 讗砖讬 讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 砖讬砖 谞讚专讬诐 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讬砖 诪驻讬专讬谉 讬驻专 讬讜讚注 讗谞讬 砖讬砖 诪驻讬专讬谉 讗讘诇 讗讬谞讬 讬讜讚注 砖讝讛 谞讚专 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 诇讗 讬驻专 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讬驻专

Rav Ashi also raised an objection to Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 opinion, from another mishna (87b): If a husband or father said, after failing to nullify a vow on the day he heard it: I know that there are vows, but I do not know that there are those who can nullify vows, i.e., he was unaware that he can nullify a vow, he can nullify it even after the day he heard it. However, if he said: I know there are those who nullify, but I refrained from nullifying the vow because I do not know that this is considered a vow that I could nullify, Rabbi Meir says: He cannot nullify at this point, but the Rabbis say: Even in this case he can nullify the vow when he discovers his error.

讜讗诪讗讬 诇讬讛讜讬 讻砖讜转拽 注诇 诪谞转 诇诪讬拽讟 转讬讜讘转讗

Rav Ashi asks rhetorically: But why may he not nullify according to Rabbi Meir鈥檚 opinion? Let his silence by mistake be like that of one who is silent in order to annoy, who, according to Rabbi 岣nina, can nullify the vow at a later stage. This is a conclusive refutation of Rabbi 岣nina鈥檚 opinion.

讛讚专谉 注诇讱 谞注专讛 讛诪讗讜专住讛

 

诪转谞讬壮 讜讗诇讜 谞讚专讬诐 砖讛讜讗 诪驻专 讚讘专讬诐 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讗诐 讗专讞抓 讜讗诐 诇讗 讗专讞抓 讗诐 讗转拽砖讟 讜讗诐 诇讗 讗转拽砖讟

MISHNA: And these are the vows that he, the husband or father, can nullify: The first category consists of matters that involve affliction for the woman who took the vow. For example, if a woman vowed: If I bathe, or: If I do not bathe; if she vowed: If I adorn myself [etkashet], or: If I do not adorn myself.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬谉 讗诇讜 谞讚专讬 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讜讗诇讜 讛谉 谞讚专讬 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讗诪专讛 拽讜谞诐 驻讬专讜转 讛注讜诇诐 注诇讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 驻讬专讜转 诪讚讬谞讛 讝讜 注诇讬 讬讘讬讗 诇讛 诪诪讚讬谞讛 讗讞专转 驻讬专讜转 讞谞讜讜谞讬 讝讛 注诇讬 讗讬谞讜 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专 讜讗诐 诇讗 讛讬转讛 驻专谞住转讜 讗诇讗 诪诪谞讜 讛专讬 讝讛 讬驻专 讚讘专讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

Rabbi Yosei said: These are not vows of affliction. Rather, these are vows of affliction: For example, if she said: The produce of the entire world is konam for me as if it were an offering, he can nullify the vow, as it certainly involves affliction. If, however, she said: The produce of this country is konam for me, he cannot nullify the vow, as it does not involve affliction, since he may still bring her produce from another country. Similarly, if she said: The produce of this storekeeper is konam for me, he cannot nullify her vow, as he may still bring her produce from another storekeeper. But if he can obtain his sustenance only from him, that particular storekeeper, he can nullify the vow. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.

讙诪壮 谞讚专讬 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讛讜讗 讚诪驻专 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讗讬谞讜 诪驻专 讜讛讗 转谞讬讗 讘讬谉 讗讬砖 诇讗砖转讜 讘讬谉 讗讘 诇讘转讜 诪诇诪讚 砖讛讘注诇 诪驻专 谞讚专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a question with regard to the ruling of the mishna: Is it only vows of affliction that he can nullify, whereas vows that do not involve affliction he cannot nullify? But isn鈥檛 it taught in a baraita: The verse 鈥淭hese are the statutes that the Lord commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter鈥 (Numbers 30:17) teaches that a husband can nullify any of his wife鈥檚 vows that adversely affect the relationship between him and her, even if they do not involve affliction?

讗诪专讬 讛诇讬谉 讜讛诇讬谉 诪驻专 诪讬讛讜 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 诪驻专 诇注讜诇诐 讗讘诇 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讻讚讗讬转讛 转讞讜转讬讛 讛讜讬讗 讛驻专讛 诪讻讬 诪讙专砖 诇讛 讞讬讬诇 注诇讛 谞讚专讛 讘讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讗讘诇 讬砖 讘讛谉 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 诇讗 讞讬讬诇 注诇讬讛 谞讚专讛

The Sages say in response: In fact, he can nullify both these and those. There is, however, a difference between them. When he nullifies vows of affliction, he nullifies them forever, i.e., the vows remain nullified even if they subsequently divorce. But when he nullifies vows that do not involve affliction but merely impact upon their relationship, then, while they are married and she is under his authority it is an effective nullification, but when he divorces her, her vow takes effect upon her, i.e., his nullification is no longer effective. As stated, this is referring to vows concerning matters that adversely affect the relationship between him and her, that do not involve affliction. However, if he nullifies a vow that affects their relationship and also involves affliction, her vow does not take effect upon her even after she leaves her husband鈥檚 authority.

讜讚讘专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讻讬 诪讙专砖 诇讛 讞讬讬诇讗 注诇讛 讜讛讗 转谞谉 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘谉 谞讜专讬 讗讜诪专 讬驻专 砖诪讗 讬讙专砖谞讛 讜转讛讗 讗住讜专讛 诇讜 讗诇诪讗 讻讬 诪讙专砖 诇讛 讜诪驻专 诇讛 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讜讬讗 讛驻专讛

The Gemara asks: And as for vows concerning matters that do not involve affliction, when a man divorces his wife, do they really take effect upon her? But didn鈥檛 we learn in a mishna with regard to a woman who prohibited her handiwork to her husband by way of a vow (85a) that Rabbi Yo岣nan ben Nuri says: Even though the vow is presently invalid, as a woman cannot render forbidden to her husband that to which he is already entitled, he should nevertheless nullify the vow? This is because perhaps he will one day divorce her, at which point the vow will take effect and she will then be forbidden to him, since he will be unable to remarry her lest he come to benefit from her handiwork. Apparently, however, if he divorces her after having nullified her vow from the outset, before their divorce, it is a permanent nullification, and although the vow does not involve affliction it remains nullified after their divorce.

讗诪专讬 讛诇讬谉 讜讛诇讬谉 讛讜讬讗 讛驻专讛 讗诇讗 谞讚专讬 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 诪驻专 讘讬谉 诇注爪诪讜 讜讘讬谉 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗讬谉 讘讛谉 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 诇注爪诪讜 诪驻专 诇讗讞专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪驻专 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讗诇讜 谞讚专讬诐 砖讛讜讗 诪驻专 讘讬谉 诇注爪诪讜 讜讘讬谉 诇讗讞专讬诐 谞讚专讬诐 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖

Consequently, the Sages say a different answer: With regard to both these and those, vows of affliction and vows adversely affecting the relationship between them, when the husband nullifies the vow, it is a permanent nullification. Rather, the difference between them is as follows: Vows of affliction he can fully nullify, both with respect to himself and with respect to others, i.e., the vow remains nullified even if he divorces her and she marries another man. Whereas vows that do not involve affliction but still adversely affect the relationship between him and her he can permanently nullify with respect to himself, but he cannot nullify with respect to others; if she marries another man, the vow takes effect. And according to this explanation, this is what the mishna is teaching: These are the vows that he can nullify both for himself and for others: Vows that involve affliction.

讗诐 讗专讞抓 讛讬讻讬 拽讗诪专 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专讛 拽讜谞诐 驻讬专讜转 注讜诇诐 注诇讬 讗诐 讗专讞抓 诇诪讛 诇讛 讛驻专讛 诇讗 转专讞抓 讜诇讗 诇讬转住专谉 驻讬专讜转 注讜诇诐 讗诇讜 注诇讛

搂 The mishna teaches that, according to the first tanna, a woman鈥檚 vow: If I bathe, falls into the category of vows of affliction, whereas Rabbi Yosei disagrees and says that this is not a vow of affliction. The Gemara asks: As the phrase: If I bathe, is not the main substance of the vow, but rather the woman wishes to prohibit herself from deriving a certain benefit depending on whether or not she bathes, with regard to what case is the mishna speaking? If we say that she said: The produce of the world is konam for me if I bathe, why, according to the first tanna, does she need nullification at all to prevent her affliction? Let her not bathe and this produce of the world will not be forbidden to her.

讜注讜讚 讘讛讗 诇讬诪讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬谉 讗诇讜 谞讚专讬 注谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讚诇诪讗 专讞爪讛 讜讗讬转住专讜 驻讬专讜转 注讜诇诐 注诇讛

And furthermore, this explanation is problematic for a different reason: With regard to a vow of this type, would Rabbi Yosei say that these are not vows of affliction? There is certainly room for concern that perhaps she will bathe and the produce of the world will be forbidden to her, a situation that certainly entails deprivation.

Scroll To Top