נדרים עח

נדרים עח

״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