Nedarim 69a — the Talmud in English

Her father heard and annulled it for her, but the husband did not manage to hear

the vow

until he died—

the father returns and annuls

it

the husband’s portion.

And

Rabbi Natan said,

concerning the latter ruling, that the father returns and annuls the husband’s portion:

These are indeed the words of Beit Shammai.

But

Beit Hillel say: the father does not

the father

have the ability

to return and

annul

the husband’s portion.

Infer from this,

it is established from here that the disagreement between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel concerns the Gemara’s uncertainty:

according

to the view of

Beit Shammai,

the father’s annulment, before the husband died, effects

a complete severing,

and therefore the husband’s portion remains strong as it was at first, and the father can inherit the husband’s portion and return and annul it.

But

according

to the view of

Beit Hillel,

the father’s annulment effects

a weakening,

and this is a weak vow, and since the vow was weakened, it is not significant enough for the father to be able to inherit the husband’s portion. And therefore the father cannot return and annul the husband’s portion.

A person who makes a vow and afterwards wishes to release it can come before a Sage and seek release from his vow, and if the Sage finds for him an opening for releasing the vow, the Sage can release his vow for him and uproot it as though it had not existed.

Rava raised a question:

whether the law of upholding the vow is like the law of the vow itself, and just as we find in the case of a vow the possibility of seeking release from it and releasing it through an opening and regret, so too

there is

a possibility of

seeking release

and release by a Sage

from an upholding,

and after the release of the upholding it is possible to return and annul the vow .

Or

whether

there is no

possibility of

seeking release from an upholding.

And after the vow has been upheld, there is no longer any possibility of returning and annulling it?

And if you should say,

and even if we say

there is a possibility of seeking release from an upholding,

there is still uncertainty as to what the law is with regard to annulling vows:

whether, since the annulment of vows was equated with the upholding of vows, the law of annulment will be like the law of upholding, and

there is

a possibility of

seeking release

and release by a Sage

from an annulment,

and through this the annulment will be nullified.

Or

perhaps, even though annulment was equated with upholding, nevertheless, with regard to release it was not equated, and

there is no possibility of seeking release from an annulment,

and there is no possibility of nullifying the annulment?

Come and hear

a resolution of this question from the words of Rabbi Yohanan:

For Rabbi Yohanan said: One may seek release from an upholding, but one may not seek release from an annulment!

Rabba raised a question:

if the father or the husband upheld it with a doubled expression, saying twice:

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

And afterwards

he sought release from

the

upholding

the

first,

and nullified it.

What is the law?—

does the second upholding return and take effect after the first upholding was nullified?

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

Come and hear

from that

which Rava said:

a person who swore and then swore once more, a second time, that same oath—the second oath does not take effect, since an oath does not take effect upon an oath. Nevertheless, the second oath remains suspended. And

if he sought release from

the oath

first,

and nullified it, the

second oath

and

takes effect upon him.

And from here it can be learned with regard to our matter, concerning one who upheld and then upheld again, that even though the second upholding did not take effect while the first upholding existed, nevertheless the second upholding remains suspended, and if the first upholding is nullified, the second upholding returns and takes effect.

Rabba raised a question:

if, within the time of speech, he said this expression:

“It is upheld for you and it is annulled for you, and the upholding shall not take effect unless the annulment takes effect”—

that is, he upheld and annulled simultaneously, and he also stipulated that his upholding should not take effect unless the annulment also takes effect ,

What is the law?—

is the vow annulled or not?

For the upholding cannot take effect either way: if the annulment did not take effect, then the upholding cannot take effect, since he stipulated and said that the upholding should not take effect unless the annulment also takes effect. And if the annulment takes effect, the upholding also cannot take effect, since the vow has already been annulled, and there is no possibility of upholding a vow that has been annulled.

And therefore the entire uncertainty concerns only the annulment

Whether, since he preceded the expression of upholding with the expression of annulment, his intention was also to stipulate that the annulment should not take effect unless the upholding also takes effect; and according to this possibility, even the annulment cannot take effect, since the upholding did not take effect.

Or perhaps he had no particular intention in preceding the expression of upholding with the expression of annulment [since he is unable to say both at once], and his primary intention was that the upholding should not take effect without the annulment, but he does not care whether the annulment takes effect even without the upholding.