Nedarim 69

Nedarim 69

שָׁמַע אָבִיהָ וְהֵפֵר לָהּ, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק הַבַּעַל לִשְׁמוֹעַ עַד שֶׁמֵּת — חוֹזֵר הָאָב וּמֵפֵר חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל בַּעַל. אָמַר רַבִּי נָתָן: הֵן הֵן דִּבְרֵי בֵּית שַׁמַּאי. בֵּית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵין יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר.

If her father heard and nullified the vow for her, and the husband did not manage to hear of the vow before he died, the father may go back and nullify the husband’s portion, and that will complete the nullification of her vow. Rabbi Natan said: This last ruling is the statement of Beit Shammai, but Beit Hillel say that he cannot nullify only the husband’s share of the vow but must also nullify his own share again.

שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי מִיגָּז גָּיֵיז, לְבֵית הִלֵּל מִקְלָשׁ קָלֵישׁ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

Having completed its citation of the baraita, the Gemara now states its proof: Conclude from this that, according to the opinion of Beit Shammai, whoever nullifies the vow first completely severs his half of the vow, and therefore the father needed only to nullify the part left by the husband. However, according to the opinion of Beit Hillel, his nullification weakens the general force of the vow, so the father’s subsequent nullification must address the whole vow. The Gemara rules: Conclude from this baraita that the husband’s nullification weakens the general force of the vow, as the halakha is in accordance with Beit Hillel.

בָּעֵי רָבָא: יֵשׁ שְׁאֵלָה בְּהָקֵם, אוֹ אֵין שְׁאֵלָה בְּהָקֵם? אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר יֵשׁ שְׁאֵלָה בְּהָקֵם: יֵשׁ שְׁאֵלָה בְּהָפֵר, אוֹ אֵין שְׁאֵלָה בְּהָפֵר?

§ Rava raises a dilemma: Is there the possibility of a request to a halakhic authority about dissolving the ratification of one’s wife’s vow, or is there no possibility of a request to a halakhic authority about dissolving his ratification of one’s wife’s vow? One might seek to dissolve one’s ratification if he now desires to nullify the vow. Furthermore, if you say that there is the possibility of a request to dissolve his ratification, is there the possibility of a request to a halakhic authority about dissolving nullification of his wife’s vow, to allow him to ratify the vow in place of nullifying it? Or is there no possibility of a request to dissolve the nullification of his wife’s vow?

תָּא שְׁמַע דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: נִשְׁאָלִין עַל הֶהָקֵם, וְאֵין נִשְׁאָלִין עַל הֶהָפֵר.

The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which Rabbi Yoḥanan says: A halakhic authority may be requested to dissolve ratification of one’s wife’s vow but may not be requested to dissolve nullification.

בָּעֵי רַבָּה: ״קַיָּים לִיכִי, קַיָּים לִיכִי״, וְנִשְׁאַל עַל הֲקָמָה רִאשׁוֹנָה, מַהוּ?

Rabba asks: If, after hearing one’s wife or one’s daughter’s vow, one said: It is ratified for you, it is ratified for you, and then a halakhic authority was requested about the first ratification and dissolved it, but one did not request dissolution of the second ratification, what is the halakha? Is the second ratification in force, or is it irrelevant, as it was performed on an vow that was already ratified and consequently never took effect?

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאָמַר רָבָא: אִם נִשְׁאַל עַל הָרִאשׁוֹנָה — שְׁנִיָּה חָלָה עָלָיו. בָּעֵי רַבָּה: ״קַיָּים לִיכִי, וּמוּפָר לִיכִי, וְלָא תֵּיחוּל הֲקָמָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חָלָה הֲפָרָה״, מַהוּ?

The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which Rava said with regard to one who said: I take an oath that I will not eat, I take an oath that I will not eat: If a halakhic authority was requested to dissolve the first oath and dissolved it, the second oath goes into effect for him. Similarly, the second ratification goes into effect. Rabba further asks: If he said to her: The vow is ratified for you and nullified for you, and the ratification will not take effect unless the nullification takes effect, what is the halakha?

תָּא שְׁמַע מִפְּלוּגְתָּא דְּרַבִּי מֵאִיר וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי. דִּתְנַן: ״הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה תְּמוּרַת שְׁלָמִים״ — הֲרֵי זוֹ תְּמוּרַת עוֹלָה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר: אִם לְכָךְ נִתְכַּוֵּין מִתְּחִלָּה, הוֹאִיל וְאִי אֶפְשָׁר לִקְרוֹת שְׁנֵי שֵׁמוֹת כְּאֶחָד — דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין.

The Gemara answers: Come and hear a resolution of this dilemma from the dispute between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yosei, as we learned in a mishna (Temura 25b): If one said about an animal: This is hereby a substitute for a burnt-offering, a substitute for a peace-offering, the halakha is that it becomes a substitute only for a burnt-offering; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir, who holds that one’s initial statement is determinant. And Rabbi Yosei says: If this is what he intended from the outset, that it should be a substitute for both a burnt-offering and a peace-offering, then since it is impossible to give it two names at once and he could not have said burnt-offering and peace-offering simultaneously, his statement is effective, and the animal is a substitute for both of them at once. Similarly, it is possible for him to intend to both ratify and nullify the vow and the vow is nullified, despite the fact that his first statement was to ratify it.

וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי מֵאִיר לָא קָאָמַר, דְּלָא אָמַר ״לָא תֵּיחוּל זוֹ אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חָלָה זוֹ״, אֲבָל הָכָא דְּאָמַר ״לֹא תֵּיחוּל הֲקָמָה אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חָלָה הֲפָרָה״ — רַבִּי מֵאִיר נָמֵי מוֹדֶה דַּהֲפָרָה חָלָה.

The Gemara adds: And even Rabbi Meir says that the first part of one’s statement is determinant only where he did not state: This will not take effect unless this also takes effect. Here, however, where he expressly said: The ratification of the vow will not take effect unless the nullification takes effect, even Rabbi Meir concedes that the nullification takes effect.

בָּעֵי רַבָּה: ״קַיָּים וּמוּפָר לִיכִי״ בְּבַת אַחַת, מַהוּ? תָּא שְׁמַע דְּאָמַר רַבָּה: כׇּל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה, אֲפִילּוּ בְּבַת אַחַת אֵינוֹ.

Rabba further asks: If he said: It is ratified and nullified for you simultaneously, what is the halakha? The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which Rabba himself said: Any two halakhic statuses that one is not able to implement sequentially are not realized even when one attempts to bring them about simultaneously. Since one cannot ratify a vow and subsequently nullify it, one can also not ratify and nullify a vow simultaneously.

בָּעֵי רַבָּה: ״קַיָּים לִיכִי הַיּוֹם״, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כְּמַאן דַּאֲמַר לַהּ ״מוּפָר לִיכִי לְמָחָר״, אוֹ דִלְמָא הָא לָא אֲמַר לַהּ?

Rabba raises another dilemma: If one says to his wife or daughter: Your vow is ratified for you today, what is the halakha? Do we say that he is like one who said to her: It is nullified for you tomorrow? Or perhaps, since he did not explicitly say to her that the vow is nullified, it remains in force.