Nedarim 69a (סט.) — the Talmud in English

Her father heard and nullified it for her, but her husband did not have time to hear

the vow

before he died—

the father may again nullify

it,

the husband’s share.

And

Rabbi Natan said regarding

the latter ruling, that the father may again nullify the husband’s share:

These are indeed the words of Beit Shammai.

But

Beit Hillel say: The father cannot

the father

again

and

nullify

the husband’s share.

Infer from it:

It is proven from here that the dispute between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerns the Gemara’s uncertainty:

according to

the view of

Beit Shammai,

the father’s nullification before the husband died effects

a severing,

and therefore the husband’s share remains as strong as it was initially, and the father can inherit the husband’s share and nullify it again.

But

according to

the view of

Beit Hillel,

the father’s nullification effects

a weakening,

and this is therefore a weakened vow; once the vow has been weakened, it is not significant enough for the father to be able to inherit the husband’s share. Therefore, the father cannot again nullify the husband’s share.

One who makes a vow and subsequently wishes to have it dissolved can come before a sage and ask about his vow. If the sage finds an opening for dissolving the vow, he can dissolve it for him and uproot it as though it had never existed.

Rava raised a dilemma:

Is the law of upholding a vow like the law of the vow itself? Just as we find that with regard to a vow it is possible to ask about it and have it dissolved by means of an opening or regret, so too

is there

a possibility of

asking

and having a sage dissolve

an upholding,

after which it would be possible to nullify the vow again?

Or

is there

no

possibility of

asking about an upholding,

and once the vow has been upheld, is it no longer possible to nullify it again?

And if you would say,

even if we say that

there is a possibility of asking about an upholding,

there is still uncertainty concerning the law with regard to nullification of vows:

Since nullification of vows was juxtaposed to upholding of vows, is the law of nullification like the law of upholding, and

is there

a possibility of

asking

and having a sage dissolve

a nullification,

thereby annulling the nullification?

Or perhaps, although nullification was juxtaposed to upholding, nevertheless, it was not juxtaposed to it with regard to dissolution, and

therefore

there is no possibility of asking about a nullification,

and there is no possibility of annulling the nullification?

Ta shma:

A resolution of this question may be brought from the statement of Rabbi Yoḥanan:

For Rabbi Yoḥanan said: One may ask about an upholding, but one may not ask about a nullification!

Rabba raised a dilemma:

If the father or husband upheld the vow using a doubled expression, saying twice:

“It is upheld for you, it is upheld for you.”

And afterward

asked about

the

first

upholding

and

annulled it,

what is the law?—

After the first upholding has been annulled, does the second upholding return and take effect?

Or perhaps, since the second upholding did not take effect when he uttered it, because the vow had already been upheld and was standing, this upholding will not take effect again even after the first upholding has been annulled.

Ta shma from that

which

Rava said:

If a person swore an oath and then repeated the same oath a second time, the second oath does not take effect, since one oath cannot take effect upon another oath. Nevertheless, the second oath remains suspended.

If he asks about

the

first oath

and annuls it, the

second oath

then

takes effect upon him.

From here one can derive the law relevant to our case, concerning one who upheld a vow and then upheld it again: Although the second upholding did not take effect while the first upholding was in force, nevertheless, the second upholding remains suspended, and if the first upholding is annulled, the second upholding returns and takes effect.

Rabba raised a dilemma:

If, within the time required for the utterance of a brief statement, he said this expression:

“It is upheld for you and it is nullified for you, but the upholding shall take effect only if the nullification takes effect”—

that is, he upheld and nullified the vow simultaneously, and also stipulated that his upholding should take effect only if the nullification likewise takes effect ,

what is the law?—

Is the vow nullified or not?

For in either case the upholding cannot take effect: If the nullification does not take effect, the upholding cannot take effect, since he stipulated and said that the upholding should take effect only if the nullification also takes effect. And if the nullification does take effect, the upholding likewise cannot take effect, since the vow has already been nullified, and it is impossible to uphold a vow after it has been nullified.

Therefore, the entire uncertainty concerns only the nullification

Is it that, since he stated the expression of upholding before the expression of nullification, he intended to stipulate also that the nullification should take effect only if the upholding likewise takes effect? According to this possibility, even the nullification cannot take effect, since the upholding did not take effect.

Or perhaps he had no particular intention in stating the expression of upholding first [since he was unable to utter both simultaneously], and his primary intention was that the upholding should not take effect without the nullification, but he did not care whether the nullification took effect even without the upholding.