Gittin 35b (לה:) — the Talmud in English

and value them [

we assessed all of these]

at five maneh.

And when

the woman

comes before you

in Babylonia,

collect the remainder

that is still owed to her by virtue of her marriage contract!

We find explicitly, then, that even a divorcee takes a vow in order to collect her marriage contract. But this is difficult for Shmuel, who said: “But in the case of a divorcee, they administer an oath to her”!?

Rav Ashi said:

It is not difficult. Actually, the divorcee does not take a vow. And there, she was not a divorcee; rather, she was a widow,

and that

bill of divorce mentioned there

was a levir’s bill of divorce!

That is to say: The woman had fallen before her husband’s brother for levirate marriage, and one of the brothers arose and gave her a bill of divorce, thereby disqualifying her from levirate marriage with all the brothers. [Although, by Torah law, the levirate bond is severed by a bill of divorce only in conjunction with ḥalitza, this bill of divorce is effective by rabbinic enactment to prohibit her from levirate marriage with all the brothers of the deceased.] Since she became prohibited to all of them, she came to collect her marriage contract from the estate of her first husband.

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that she should take a vow

to the orphans, whatever they wish, and collect her marriage contract:

Rav Huna said: They taught

that she collects her marriage contract through a vow

only when

she still

has not remarried

a second time.

But

if she has already

remarried

and subsequently comes to collect her marriage contract,

they do not impose a vow upon her,

because once she has married, she is not concerned about taking a vow, even if she has already collected her marriage contract, as she relies on the fact that her husband will annul her vow.

And since the vow is not effective for her, she cannot collect her marriage contract at all, as an oath is not administered to a widow; and Rav Huna follows Rav, who says that an oath is not administered to her even outside the court, and she has no means by which to collect her marriage contract.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: But if she

has remarried, for what reason does she not

rely on her vow? It is

because her husband will annul

the vow. If so,

when she has not remarried as well,

she should not be concerned about taking a vow, because she can rely on the fact that

when she marries [

when she marries],

her

husband

will annul it!

And we answer: Since at the time she took the vow she had not yet married him, her husband cannot annul it after he marries her, for we maintain that

a husband cannot annul

vows

that preceded [

that preceded the marriage]!

The Gemara continues to challenge this: Even if she has not remarried,

let us be concerned

that perhaps she will go to a Sage, and he will permit it

her vow [let us be concerned that she will go to a Sage who will release her from her vow]. That is to say: Perhaps she will rely on the fact that she can go to a Sage the next day and have him release her from the vow, and therefore she will not be concerned about taking it!?

And we answer:

Rav Huna holds:

One who comes to ask a Sage to release his vow

must explain

the vow

before him,

the vow

and say how he took this vow. If she explains to the Sage that she took the vow in this manner for the orphans, he will certainly not release her vow, since he will not wish to enable her to collect her marriage contract deceitfully.

But

Rav Naḥman disagreed with Rav Huna and

disagreed with Rav Huna and

said:

A widow takes a vow and collects her marriage contract

even

if she has already

remarried.

The Gemara asks: But if she

has remarried, surely

she will rely on the fact that

her husband will annul it, so what purpose does her vow serve?

so what benefit is there in her vow?

And we answer:

They impose the vow upon her in the presence of many people!

Rav Naḥman holds that a vow taken in the presence of many people cannot be annulled. But Rav Huna holds that a vow taken in the presence of many people can be annulled, and therefore he disagrees and maintains that once she has remarried, she does not take a vow.

The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Huna from that which is taught in a beraita: A widow who

has

remarried collects

her

marriage contract

from the orphans

if she took a vow!

Is it not

that

she took the vow now,

at the time of collection, after she had remarried? This proves that she takes a vow even after she has remarried, which is difficult for Rav Huna!?

And we reject this:

No,

that is not the meaning of the beraita, which states “unless she took a vow.” Rather, the intention of the beraita is

that she took the vow originally,

before she remarried, and now, after the marriage, she comes to collect her marriage contract on the basis of that vow. In this case there is no concern that her husband will annul it, since he cannot annul vows that preceded his marriage.

We nevertheless ask:

The Gemara continues to challenge this:

If she

has remarried, she takes a vow

now

and collects

her

marriage contract! This proves that she takes a vow even after her marriage, and it remains difficult for Rav Huna!?

It is therefore evident that she takes a vow even after her marriage, and this is still difficult for Rav Huna!?

And we answer: Rather, it is a dispute between

tanna’im! The issue is whether a vow taken in the presence of many people can be annulled or not.

The issue is whether a vow taken in public can be annulled.

There is one who says: A vow taken in the presence of many people can be annulled,

and Rav Huna holds accordingly. Therefore, if she has remarried, she should not take a vow and collect her marriage contract, since her husband can annul it.

And there is one who says:

A vow taken in the presence of many people

cannot be annulled,

and Rav Naḥman and the tanna of the earlier beraita hold accordingly. Therefore, even after she has remarried, she should take a vow in the presence of many people in order to collect her marriage contract, since her husband cannot annul it.

They raised a dilemma:

One who comes before a Sage to ask about his vow:

must he explain

before him

the vow,

and tell him in what manner and for what reason he took the vow? For example, in the case of a widow, must she explain that she took the vow in this manner for the orphans?

Or

perhaps

he need not

explain the vow? Even though he does not explain in what manner he took the vow, the Sage releases him from it.

And amora’im disagree concerning this:

Rav Naḥman said: He need not

explain the vow; that is to say, he need not explain why he took the vow!

And Rav Pappa said: He must

explain the vow!

The Gemara explains the reasoning of each of them:

Rav Naḥman said, “

He need not

explain the vow,” because if you say that he must explain it,

sometimes the one who took the vow abridges

omits ]

his

speech

when describing it,

and does not state all the details. But

the Sage releases only that which he hears, and nothing else; he releases the vow only on the basis of the details he heard. Since he omitted a particular detail, the vow is not released, as he did not release it with that detail in mind. The result is that he violates the prohibition of the vow. Therefore, it is preferable that he not explain it at all, in which case the Sage releases him from the vow in every respect.

and no more. He releases the vow only on the basis of the details he heard, and since the person omitted a particular detail, the vow is not released, because the Sage did not release it on that basis. The person would consequently violate the prohibition of the vow. Therefore, it is preferable not to specify anything at all; then the Sage releases the vow in every event.

Rav Pappa said: “

He must

explain the vow.” His reason is

because

we are concerned that perhaps he took a vow concerning

a matter of prohibition [

a prohibited matter]! For example, he may have said: “All the produce in the world shall be prohibited to me if I collected my marriage contract, or if I commit a particular transgression,” and he comes to have his vow released. If he does not explain it, the Sage will release his vow.

The Gemara raises a difficulty against Rav Naḥman from that which

we learned:

A koen

who marries women

who are disqualified from marrying into the priesthood

in violation of a prohibition,

such as a divorcee, a woman who engaged in illicit relations, or a woman of disqualified lineage, is

disqualified

by rabbinic law from performing the Temple service

until he vows to derive no benefit

from that woman, thereby compelling himself to divorce her!

And it is taught concerning this

in a beraita: He need not wait until he divorces her. Rather, he

vows

not to derive benefit from her,

and performs the service

in the Temple; and when he completes his service,

he descends

from the service

and divorces

her!

And if you say: “

He need not explain the vow,”

let us be concerned that perhaps he will go to a Sage, and he will permit it to him,

his vow [let us be concerned that he will take the vow now in order to be permitted to perform the service, relying on the fact that he will go to a Sage after the service and not divorce her]!

Rather, it is necessarily the case that he must explain before the Sage that he vowed not to derive benefit from her because she is prohibited to him. Consequently, the Sage will not release him from the vow, and this is difficult for Rav Naḥman, who said: “He need not explain the vow”!?