Nedarim 66b (סו:) — the Talmud in English

The tanna said:

the tanna taught in the beraita how she was ugly and he made her beautiful:

“An artificial tooth,”

an ugly artificial tooth

“she had,”

as one of her teeth had fallen out and they had placed an artificial tooth in its place.

“And Rabbi Ishmael made her a tooth”

artificial

“of gold, from his own,”

and thereby she became beautiful.

When

he died,

“Rabbi Ishmael passed away, a eulogizer delivered this eulogy for him,”

for him,

that eulogizer

said

as follows:

“Daughters of Israel, weep for Rabbi Ishmael,”

for he was

“the one who clothed you, and so on.”

There was a certain man who said to his wife,

his wife:

“Konam, you are forbidden to me for benefit until you make

the

dish you cooked tasteable to Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon.”

The woman went to them with her dish and asked Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon to taste it.

Rabbi Yehuda tasted

the dish, despite the fact that this involved compromising his dignity.

He said:

Rabbi Yehuda reasoned by means of a

kal va-homer:

“And just as

in order

“to make peace between a man and his wife, the Torah said: ‘My Name,’”

the Name of the Almighty

“which was written in sanctity, shall be erased in the bitter waters!”

When a husband’s wife secluded herself with another man, after he had warned her and cautioned her not to seclude herself with him, she becomes forbidden to him until he brings her to the Temple and gives her bitter waters to drink; the waters test her to determine whether she is impure or pure.

The koen writes the passage concerning the Sotah, in which the Name of the Almighty is mentioned, and erases the entire passage into the water, and gives the Sotah that water to drink.

It follows that the koen erases the passage containing the Name of the Almighty into the water so that, if the woman is found to be pure, her husband will take her back and live with her in peace.

And they do this even though bringing about peace between them is

uncertain.

For there is no certainty that they will be at peace with one another, since if she did commit adultery, she will die and there will be no peace between them.

And

if so,

I,

who am required only to suffer embarrassment and taste the dish this woman brought me, so that her husband’s Konam prohibition will not take effect against her,

all the more so

must I bear the disgrace so that there will certainly be peace between them.

But

Rabbi Shimon did not taste

it. Rather, Rabbi Shimon cursed her husband for having slighted the honor of Torah scholars and

said: “May all the sons of widows die,”

an allusion to this husband, who was uncultured, like the sons of a widow who had no father to educate them

, “and Shimon should not move from his place”

to taste the dish because of this man’s desire.

Another

reason why Rabbi Shimon did not taste it:

“So that people would not become accustomed to making vows.”

So that people would not become accustomed to vowing lightly in order to obtain whatever their hearts desired.

There was a certain man who said to his wife,

his wife:

“Konam, you are forbidden to me for benefit until you spit at Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.”

She came,

the woman came,

and spat

at

his garment,

on Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel’s garment,

and he permitted her,

and permitted her to benefit from her husband, since the condition had been fulfilled.

Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: “But this man

was

intending to cause disgrace

to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel,

was he not?

And there is disgrace only if she spat at him himself, not when she spat on his garment.”

He said to him,

Ravina said to him:

“Spitting on the garments

of

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel—

that is a great disgrace!”

There was a certain man who said to his wife,

his wife:

“Konam, you are forbidden to me for benefit until you show

a blemish [that is, something], meaning, until you are able to show anything, something

beautiful in you”

in you,

“to Rabbi Ishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei.”

Rabbi Ishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to them:

Rabbi Ishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said to those accompanying him:

“Perhaps her head is beautiful?”

They said to him:

Her head is

round,

round and ugly.

“Perhaps her hair is beautiful?”—

“It resembles tufts of flax,”

which are spread out and tangled together.

“Perhaps her eyes are beautiful?”—

“They are bulging,”

round,

“they are!”

“Perhaps her ears are beautiful?”—

“They are doubled,”

large, as though they were doubled,

“they are!”

“Perhaps her nose is beautiful?”—

“It is blum,”

contracted and appearing blocked,

“it is!”

“Perhaps her lips are beautiful?”—

“They are thick!”

“Perhaps her neck is beautiful?”—

“It is shakut,”

short,

“it is!”

“Perhaps her belly is beautiful?”—

“It is swollen,”

a protruding belly,

“it is!”

“Perhaps her legs are beautiful?”—

“They are broad,”

they are,

“like those of a goose!”

“Perhaps her name is beautiful?”—

“Her name is Lichlukhit.”

He said to them: “It is fitting that she is called Lichlukhit, for she is soiled with blemishes,”

and this name suits her, to describe her by it.

And he permitted her

Rabbi Ishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, because he found something beautiful in her name, “Lichlukhit.”

There was a certain Babylonian who went up

who went up

to the Land of Israel.

He married a woman.

And he married a woman who did not understand the allusions in his speech; rather, she did everything according to the literal meaning of his words.

He said to her,

her husband said to her:

“Cook for me “

two talfim,”

but his allusive meaning was to refer to a small amount, that she should cook a little for him, one or two dishes.

And she

cooked two talfim for him,

two full measures of what he had requested, in accordance with the literal meaning of his words.

He became angry

he was enraged

at

her.

The next day he said to her: “Cook for me a geriva,”

and his allusive meaning was a large measure.

And she

cooked a geriva for him,

a standard, known measure, in accordance with its literal meaning.

He said to her: “Go, bring

go and bring

me two butsinei,”

watermelons.

She went and brought him two lamps,

lamps [earthenware vessels into which oil and a wick are placed], which are also called butsinei in the language of the Targum.

He said to her: “Go, break them

break these lamps

on

the head of the gate”

the top of the entrance, that is, the door in the gateway of the house. She understood that she was to break them on the head of Bava ben Buta, who was the great scholar of the generation.

Bava ben Buta was sitting

he was sitting

at the gate,

at the entrance to the court,

and was judging a case,

and adjudicating the case.

She went and broke them

the woman went and broke the earthenware lamps

on his head,

the head of Bava ben Buta.

He said to her: “What is this thing that you have done?”

Why did you do this?

She said to him: “This is what my husband instructed me to do!”

He said

to her: Since

“you have fulfilled your husband’s will,”—

“may the Omnipresent grant you two sons”

corresponding to the two lamps that you broke on me because your husband instructed you to do so, that they should be like me,

“like Bava ben Buta.”

We have returned to you, chapter of Rabbi Eliezer.

Introduction

A.

The Father’s Annulment of His Daughter’s Vows

The Torah states in the passage concerning the tribes: “When a woman takes a vow to the Lord and imposes a prohibition upon herself in her father’s house during her youth, and her father hears her vow and the prohibition that she imposed upon herself, and her father remains silent concerning her, all her vows shall stand, and every prohibition that she imposed upon herself shall stand.

And if her father annuls it on the day that he hears it, all her vows and prohibitions that she imposed upon herself shall not stand. And the Lord shall forgive her, because her father annulled it.”

These verses refer to a minor daughter who took a vow during her twelfth year, when her vows are subject to examination. If she knows for whose sake she made the vow, she has taken a valid vow, despite being a minor.

The same applies to a young woman who took a vow during the period of her na'arut, in her thirteenth year, from the time that she develops two pubic hairs until six months thereafter.

The minor and the young woman are under their father’s authority with regard to vows, and by virtue of this he can annul their vows.

But the father cannot annul every vow!

Rather, only if she took a vow involving affliction of the soul, or if she took a vow concerning a matter between her and her father, only then can her father, on the day that he hears the vow, say to her: “It is annulled for you!” or use any other expression whose meaning is that he does not agree to the vow. Through this, the vow is annulled.

If the father remained silent on the day that he heard his daughter’s vow, or explicitly said that he “upholds” the vow, the vow is upheld, and the father no longer has the ability to annul it.

B.

The Husband’s Annulment of His Wife’s Vows

The Torah further states later in the passage: "

And if she becomes married to a man while her vows are upon her, or the utterance of her lips by which she imposed a prohibition upon herself.

And her husband hears on the day that he hears it, and remains silent concerning her, then her vows shall stand, and the prohibition that she imposed upon herself shall stand.

But if her husband annuls it on the day that he hears it, he shall annul her vow that is upon her and the utterance of her lips by which she imposed a prohibition upon herself, and the Lord shall forgive her.

And if she vowed in her husband’s house, or imposed a prohibition upon herself by an oath—

and her husband hears it and remains silent concerning her, not annulling it,

then all her vows shall stand, and every prohibition that she imposed upon herself shall stand.

But if her husband utterly annuls them on the day that he hears them, every utterance of her lips concerning her vows and the prohibition of her soul shall not stand. Her husband has annulled them, and the Lord shall forgive her.

Every vow and every oath of prohibition involving affliction of the soul—her husband may uphold it, and her husband may annul it.”

These verses refer to a married or betrothed woman [who has been betrothed but has not yet married] who took vows involving affliction of the soul or vows concerning matters between her and her husband, which the husband can annul on the day that he hears them.

If he remained silent on the day that he heard it, or explicitly upheld her vow, the vow is upheld, and the husband no longer has the ability to annul it.

The husband alone annuls the vows of his married wife. But a betrothed man cannot annul the vows of his betrothed by himself.

Rather, if his betrothed is a young woman, who remains under her father’s authority with regard to the annulment of vows until marriage, the betrothed man can annul the vow in partnership with her father, who must also annul her vow.

However, neither the father alone nor the betrothed man alone can annul the vow, because she requires the annulment of both of them together.

Mishna:

A betrothed young woman

who took a vow—

her father and her husband annul her vows

in partnership, and one cannot annul without the other.