From the last case in the Tosefta, the Gemara arrives at the answer to its question: When a fiance annuls part of the vow, is it that he annuls half the vow entirely (meigaz gayiz) and the father will come and annul the second part or is it that he weakens the vow (miklash kalish) and the father then annuls what is left of the weakened vow? The answer is that it is a debate between Beit Shamai and Beit Hillel. The Gemara brings five questions of Rava (or Raba) regarding the ratifying and nullifying of a vow by the father/husband. One, is it possible to go to a chacham to dissolve a ratification and if so, is it possible to dissolve a nullification? If he said the ratification twice and dissolved one ratification, does the other still stand? If he said ratification and nullification together but first said ratification, however, he said that the ratification will not apply unless there is a nullification, do we understand this to mean that he wants to nullify the vow or the ratification will apply first and then there is no possibility of the nullification to apply? If they said both languages should be applied at once, what is the law? If he said that the vow is ratified today, is the vow nullified tomorrow – was that his intent? The Gemara provides answers to all questions from the statements of Amoraim or from Tanaim.
Nedarim 69
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
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.
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.
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
Last cycle, I listened to parts of various מסכתות. When the הדרן סיום was advertised, I listened to Michelle on נידה. I knew that בע”ה with the next cycle I was in (ב”נ). As I entered the סיום (early), I saw the signs and was overcome with emotion. I was randomly seated in the front row, and I cried many times that night. My choice to learn דף יומי was affirmed. It is one of the best I have made!
אפרת, Israel
I went to day school in Toronto but really began to learn when I attended Brovenders back in the early 1980’s. Last year after talking to my sister who was learning Daf Yomi, inspired, I looked on the computer and the Hadran site came up. I have been listening to each days shiur in the morning as I work. I emphasis listening since I am not sitting with a Gamara. I listen while I work in my studio.
Tekoa, Israel
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
Philadelphia, United States
Richmond, CA, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, United States
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
Minneapolis, MN, United States
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
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.
