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

Daf Yomi

January 12, 2023 | ื™ืดื˜ ื‘ื˜ื‘ืช ืชืฉืคืดื’

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.ย 

  • 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 79

Todayโ€™s daf is sponsored by Linda Freedman in honor of her mother’s birthday. โ€œHappiest 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.

ืฉื”ืฉืชื™ืงื” ืžืงื™ื™ืžืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉืชื™ืงื” ืžื‘ื˜ืœืช ืงื™ื™ื ื‘ืœื‘ื• ืงื™ื™ื ื”ืคืจ ื‘ืœื‘ื• ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืคืจ ืงื™ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืคืจ ื”ืคืจ ืื™ืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœืงื™ื™ื ืงืชื ื™ ืฉื”ืฉืชื™ืงื” ืžืงื™ื™ืžืช ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ืฉื•ืชืง ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืžื™ืงื˜


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?


ืœื ื‘ืฉื•ืชืง ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืงื™ื™ื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืงื™ื™ื ื‘ืœื‘ื• ืงื™ื™ื ืืœื ื‘ืฉื•ืชืง ืกืชื


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.


ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ื”ืงื ืžื‘ื”ืคืจ ื‘ื”ืคืจ ืžื‘ื”ืงื ืžื ื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื ืฉืืœื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ื”ืงื ื•ืื™ืŸ ื ืฉืืœื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ื”ืคืจ


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 Yoแธฅanan 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.


ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื•ืื ื”ื—ืจืฉ ื™ื—ืจื™ืฉ ืœื” ืื™ืฉื” ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื‘ืฉื•ืชืง ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืžื™ืงื˜ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืฉื•ืชืง ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืžื™ืงื˜ ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ื‘ืฉื•ืชืง ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืงื™ื™ื


Rav Kahana raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina that a husband who is silent about his wifeโ€™s vow in order to annoy her can nullify it even several days later. A baraita teaches: โ€œBut if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day, then he causes all her vows to be ratifiedโ€ (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?


ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื™ ื”ื—ืจืฉ ืœื” ื”ืจื™ ื‘ืฉื•ืชืง ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืงื™ื™ื ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื ืžื” ืื ื™ ืžืงื™ื™ื ืื ื”ื—ืจืฉ ื™ื—ืจื™ืฉ ืœื” ืื™ืฉื” ื‘ืฉื•ืชืง ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืžื™ืงื˜ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื


The baraita continues: When it says, in the continuation of the same verse: โ€œHe has ratified them, because he held his peace at her on the day that he heard themโ€ (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: โ€œIf her husband altogether holds his peace at herโ€? 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 แธคaninaโ€™s opinion.


ื•ืœื•ืงื™ื ื”ื ื‘ืฉื•ืชืง ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืงื™ื™ื ื”ื ื‘ืฉื•ืชืง ืกืชื ืงืจืื™ ื™ืชื™ืจื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื™


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 husbandโ€™s silence, the vow is ratified.


ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื ื ื“ืจื” ืขื ื—ืฉื›ื” ืžืคืจ ืœื” ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื—ืฉื›ื” ืฉืื ืœื ื”ืคืจ ื•ื—ืฉื›ื” ืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืคืจ ืืžืื™ ืœื”ื•ื™ ื›ืฉื•ืชืง ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืžื™ืงื˜ ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื


Rava raised a further objection to the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina, 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 แธคanina.


ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื ื™ ืฉื™ืฉ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืฉื™ืฉ ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ื™ืคืจ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื ื™ ืฉื™ืฉ ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืฉื–ื” ื ื“ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื™ืคืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื™ืคืจ


Rav Ashi also raised an objection to Rabbi แธคaninaโ€™s 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.


ื•ืืžืื™ ืœื™ื”ื•ื™ ื›ืฉื•ืชืง ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืžื™ืงื˜ ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื


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


ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื ืขืจื” ื”ืžืื•ืจืกื”



ื•ืืœื• ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื”ื•ื ืžืคืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ืื ืืจื—ืฅ ื•ืื ืœื ืืจื—ืฅ ืื ืืชืงืฉื˜ ื•ืื ืœื ืืชืงืฉื˜


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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื™ืŸ ืืœื• ื ื“ืจื™ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ืืžืจื” ืงื•ื ื ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื”ืขื•ืœื ืขืœื™ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืคืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืžื“ื™ื ื” ื–ื• ืขืœื™ ื™ื‘ื™ื ืœื” ืžืžื“ื™ื ื” ืื—ืจืช ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื—ื ื•ื•ื ื™ ื–ื” ืขืœื™ ืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืคืจ ื•ืื ืœื ื”ื™ืชื” ืคืจื ืกืชื• ืืœื ืžืžื ื• ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื™ืคืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™


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.


ื’ืžืณ ื ื“ืจื™ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ื”ื•ื ื“ืžืคืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ืื™ื ื• ืžืคืจ ื•ื”ื ืชื ื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืื™ืฉ ืœืืฉืชื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืื‘ ืœื‘ืชื• ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื”ื‘ืขืœ ืžืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื‘ื™ื ื• ืœื‘ื™ื ื”


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 isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: The verse โ€œThese are the statutes that the Lord commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughterโ€ (Numbers 30:17) teaches that a husband can nullify any of his wifeโ€™s vows that adversely affect the relationship between him and her, even if they do not involve affliction?


ืืžืจื™ ื”ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืœื™ืŸ ืžืคืจ ืžื™ื”ื• ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ืžืคืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ืื‘ืœ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ื›ื“ืื™ืชื” ืชื—ื•ืชื™ื” ื”ื•ื™ื ื”ืคืจื” ืžื›ื™ ืžื’ืจืฉ ืœื” ื—ื™ื™ืœ ืขืœื” ื ื“ืจื” ื‘ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉื‘ื™ื ื• ืœื‘ื™ื ื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ืื‘ืœ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืœ ืขืœื™ื” ื ื“ืจื”


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 husbandโ€™s authority.


ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ื›ื™ ืžื’ืจืฉ ืœื” ื—ื™ื™ืœื ืขืœื” ื•ื”ื ืชื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื ื•ืจื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืคืจ ืฉืžื ื™ื’ืจืฉื ื” ื•ืชื”ื ืืกื•ืจื” ืœื• ืืœืžื ื›ื™ ืžื’ืจืฉ ืœื” ื•ืžืคืจ ืœื” ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื”ื•ื™ื ื”ืคืจื”


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 didnโ€™t 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 Yoแธฅanan 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.


ืืžืจื™ ื”ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืœื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื™ื ื”ืคืจื” ืืœื ื ื“ืจื™ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ืžืคืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžื• ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืื—ืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ืœืขืฆืžื• ืžืคืจ ืœืื—ืจื™ื ืื™ื ื• ืžืคืจ ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืืœื• ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื”ื•ื ืžืคืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžื• ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืื—ืจื™ื ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ


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.


ืื ืืจื—ืฅ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ืืžืจื” ืงื•ื ื ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืขื•ืœื ืขืœื™ ืื ืืจื—ืฅ ืœืžื” ืœื” ื”ืคืจื” ืœื ืชืจื—ืฅ ื•ืœื ืœื™ืชืกืจืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืขื•ืœื ืืœื• ืขืœื”


ยง The mishna teaches that, according to the first tanna, a womanโ€™s 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.


ื•ืขื•ื“ ื‘ื”ื ืœื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื™ืŸ ืืœื• ื ื“ืจื™ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ื“ืœืžื ืจื—ืฆื” ื•ืื™ืชืกืจื• ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืขื•ืœื ืขืœื”


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.


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.ย 

  • 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: 78-84 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn the law if a husband is silent about his wifeโ€™s 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

ืฉื”ืฉืชื™ืงื” ืžืงื™ื™ืžืช ื•ืื™ืŸ ืฉืชื™ืงื” ืžื‘ื˜ืœืช ืงื™ื™ื ื‘ืœื‘ื• ืงื™ื™ื ื”ืคืจ ื‘ืœื‘ื• ืื™ื ื• ืžื•ืคืจ ืงื™ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืคืจ ื”ืคืจ ืื™ืŸ ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœืงื™ื™ื ืงืชื ื™ ืฉื”ืฉืชื™ืงื” ืžืงื™ื™ืžืช ืžืื™ ืœืื• ื‘ืฉื•ืชืง ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืžื™ืงื˜


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?


ืœื ื‘ืฉื•ืชืง ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืงื™ื™ื ื”ื™ื™ื ื• ืงื™ื™ื ื‘ืœื‘ื• ืงื™ื™ื ืืœื ื‘ืฉื•ืชืง ืกืชื


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.


ืืฉื›ื—ืŸ ื—ื•ืžืจ ื‘ื”ืงื ืžื‘ื”ืคืจ ื‘ื”ืคืจ ืžื‘ื”ืงื ืžื ื ืœืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื ืฉืืœื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ื”ืงื ื•ืื™ืŸ ื ืฉืืœื™ืŸ ืขืœ ื”ื”ืคืจ


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 Yoแธฅanan 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.


ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ื›ื”ื ื ื•ืื ื”ื—ืจืฉ ื™ื—ืจื™ืฉ ืœื” ืื™ืฉื” ื•ื’ื•ืณ ื‘ืฉื•ืชืง ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืžื™ืงื˜ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืืชื” ืื•ืžืจ ื‘ืฉื•ืชืง ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืžื™ืงื˜ ืื• ืื™ื ื• ืืœื ื‘ืฉื•ืชืง ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืงื™ื™ื


Rav Kahana raised an objection to the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina that a husband who is silent about his wifeโ€™s vow in order to annoy her can nullify it even several days later. A baraita teaches: โ€œBut if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day, then he causes all her vows to be ratifiedโ€ (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?


ื›ืฉื”ื•ื ืื•ืžืจ ื›ื™ ื”ื—ืจืฉ ืœื” ื”ืจื™ ื‘ืฉื•ืชืง ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืงื™ื™ื ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ื”ื ืžื” ืื ื™ ืžืงื™ื™ื ืื ื”ื—ืจืฉ ื™ื—ืจื™ืฉ ืœื” ืื™ืฉื” ื‘ืฉื•ืชืง ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืžื™ืงื˜ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืžื“ื‘ืจ ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื


The baraita continues: When it says, in the continuation of the same verse: โ€œHe has ratified them, because he held his peace at her on the day that he heard themโ€ (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: โ€œIf her husband altogether holds his peace at herโ€? 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 แธคaninaโ€™s opinion.


ื•ืœื•ืงื™ื ื”ื ื‘ืฉื•ืชืง ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืงื™ื™ื ื”ื ื‘ืฉื•ืชืง ืกืชื ืงืจืื™ ื™ืชื™ืจื™ ื›ืชื™ื‘ื™


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 husbandโ€™s silence, the vow is ratified.


ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื ื ื“ืจื” ืขื ื—ืฉื›ื” ืžืคืจ ืœื” ืขื“ ืฉืœื ื—ืฉื›ื” ืฉืื ืœื ื”ืคืจ ื•ื—ืฉื›ื” ืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืคืจ ืืžืื™ ืœื”ื•ื™ ื›ืฉื•ืชืง ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืžื™ืงื˜ ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื


Rava raised a further objection to the opinion of Rabbi แธคanina, 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 แธคanina.


ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื ื™ ืฉื™ืฉ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืื‘ืœ ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืฉื™ืฉ ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ื™ืคืจ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื ื™ ืฉื™ืฉ ืžืคื™ืจื™ืŸ ืื‘ืœ ืื™ื ื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืฉื–ื” ื ื“ืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืœื ื™ืคืจ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ื™ืคืจ


Rav Ashi also raised an objection to Rabbi แธคaninaโ€™s 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.


ื•ืืžืื™ ืœื™ื”ื•ื™ ื›ืฉื•ืชืง ืขืœ ืžื ืช ืœืžื™ืงื˜ ืชื™ื•ื‘ืชื


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


ื”ื“ืจืŸ ืขืœืš ื ืขืจื” ื”ืžืื•ืจืกื”



ื•ืืœื• ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื”ื•ื ืžืคืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ืื ืืจื—ืฅ ื•ืื ืœื ืืจื—ืฅ ืื ืืชืงืฉื˜ ื•ืื ืœื ืืชืงืฉื˜


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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื™ืŸ ืืœื• ื ื“ืจื™ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ื•ืืœื• ื”ืŸ ื ื“ืจื™ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ืืžืจื” ืงื•ื ื ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื”ืขื•ืœื ืขืœื™ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืคืจ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืžื“ื™ื ื” ื–ื• ืขืœื™ ื™ื‘ื™ื ืœื” ืžืžื“ื™ื ื” ืื—ืจืช ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื—ื ื•ื•ื ื™ ื–ื” ืขืœื™ ืื™ื ื• ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืคืจ ื•ืื ืœื ื”ื™ืชื” ืคืจื ืกืชื• ืืœื ืžืžื ื• ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื™ืคืจ ื“ื‘ืจื™ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™


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.


ื’ืžืณ ื ื“ืจื™ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ื”ื•ื ื“ืžืคืจ ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ืื™ื ื• ืžืคืจ ื•ื”ื ืชื ื™ื ื‘ื™ืŸ ืื™ืฉ ืœืืฉืชื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืื‘ ืœื‘ืชื• ืžืœืžื“ ืฉื”ื‘ืขืœ ืžืคืจ ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื‘ื™ื ื• ืœื‘ื™ื ื”


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 isnโ€™t it taught in a baraita: The verse โ€œThese are the statutes that the Lord commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughterโ€ (Numbers 30:17) teaches that a husband can nullify any of his wifeโ€™s vows that adversely affect the relationship between him and her, even if they do not involve affliction?


ืืžืจื™ ื”ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืœื™ืŸ ืžืคืจ ืžื™ื”ื• ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ืžืคืจ ืœืขื•ืœื ืื‘ืœ ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ื›ื“ืื™ืชื” ืชื—ื•ืชื™ื” ื”ื•ื™ื ื”ืคืจื” ืžื›ื™ ืžื’ืจืฉ ืœื” ื—ื™ื™ืœ ืขืœื” ื ื“ืจื” ื‘ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉื‘ื™ื ื• ืœื‘ื™ื ื” ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ืื‘ืœ ื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ืœื ื—ื™ื™ืœ ืขืœื™ื” ื ื“ืจื”


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 husbandโ€™s authority.


ื•ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ื›ื™ ืžื’ืจืฉ ืœื” ื—ื™ื™ืœื ืขืœื” ื•ื”ื ืชื ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ื ื•ืจื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืคืจ ืฉืžื ื™ื’ืจืฉื ื” ื•ืชื”ื ืืกื•ืจื” ืœื• ืืœืžื ื›ื™ ืžื’ืจืฉ ืœื” ื•ืžืคืจ ืœื” ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื”ื•ื™ื ื”ืคืจื”


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 didnโ€™t 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 Yoแธฅanan 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.


ืืžืจื™ ื”ืœื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืœื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื™ื ื”ืคืจื” ืืœื ื ื“ืจื™ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ืžืคืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžื• ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืื—ืจื™ื ืื™ืŸ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ืœืขืฆืžื• ืžืคืจ ืœืื—ืจื™ื ืื™ื ื• ืžืคืจ ื•ื”ื›ื™ ืงืชื ื™ ืืœื• ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื”ื•ื ืžืคืจ ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืขืฆืžื• ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืœืื—ืจื™ื ื ื“ืจื™ื ืฉื™ืฉ ื‘ื”ืŸ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ


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.


ืื ืืจื—ืฅ ื”ื™ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ืืžืจื” ืงื•ื ื ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืขื•ืœื ืขืœื™ ืื ืืจื—ืฅ ืœืžื” ืœื” ื”ืคืจื” ืœื ืชืจื—ืฅ ื•ืœื ืœื™ืชืกืจืŸ ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืขื•ืœื ืืœื• ืขืœื”


ยง The mishna teaches that, according to the first tanna, a womanโ€™s 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.


ื•ืขื•ื“ ื‘ื”ื ืœื™ืžื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ืื™ืŸ ืืœื• ื ื“ืจื™ ืขื ื•ื™ ื ืคืฉ ื“ืœืžื ืจื—ืฆื” ื•ืื™ืชืกืจื• ืคื™ืจื•ืช ืขื•ืœื ืขืœื”


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