Nedarim 74b — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Eliezer said

a kal va-chomer to prove his words:

And if a woman whom he acquired for himself

through betrothal,

he may annul her vows,

a woman whom Heaven granted him

through her husband’s death,

is it not logical that he may annul her vows?

And the Gemara raises an objection from the wording of the Mishna against Rabbi Ami’s answer:

But if

Rabbi Eliezer is speaking

when he performed a maamar with her,

as Rabbi Ami said, she is not a woman whom Heaven granted him, but a woman whom he

acquired for himself.

For through the maamar that he performed with her, he acquired her; and why does Rabbi Eliezer say that this is considered “a woman whom Heaven granted him”?

And we answer:

The intention of the Mishna is to say:

whom he acquired for himself,

through a maamar,

by means of Heaven—

Through her husband’s death, a bond between them was created by Heaven, and for this reason the yavam can perform a maamar with her.

Resolve it:

The Gemara brings a proof from our Mishna to resolve a doubt that Rabba raised:

For Rabba asked:

What is the status of

a maamar according to

the view of

Beit Shammai—

does it

effect betrothal, or does it effect marriage?

That is, Rabba holds that according to Beit Shammai, the maamar causes the removal of the bond of yibbum, and from then on the status of the yevama is like that of an ordinary woman.

And Rabba was uncertain whether, because of the maamar, the woman of the maamar is considered betrothed, and from then on, even if her yavam has intercourse with her through ordinary intercourse, without bringing her beneath the wedding canopy, she does not thereby become married to him [as a yevama, who becomes married through intercourse alone]; and as long as he does not bring her beneath the wedding canopy, he does not inherit from her, and if he is a kohen, he does not become impure for her if she dies.

Or perhaps the maamar places her at the level of a married woman, in this respect: that if he has intercourse with her even without bringing her beneath the wedding canopy, but through intercourse alone, she is considered married with regard to all her matters.

Resolve it

from Rabbi Eliezer’s words in our Mishna, who follows Beit Shammai, that a maamar

effects marriage.

For if

it were said that a maamar

effects betrothal

and not marriage, how can the yavam annul her vows by himself? [

And see the Ran as to why the Gemara now assumes that the yavam annuls them by himself and not in partnership with the father.]

But we learned: An engaged maiden—

her father and her husband annul her vows!

And if so, the yavam requires the father’s annulment to be joined [to his own].

And we reject this:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: What is

that we say in the Mishna,

“he may annul,”

that is, that he

may annul in partnership

with the father, as is the law of an engaged maiden.

It was taught likewise, in accordance with Rabbi Ami,

that Rabbi Eliezer’s words apply when he performed a maamar with her.

For it was taught:

A woman awaiting yibbum, whether with one yavam or with two yavamim, Rabbi Eliezer says: He may annul her vows.

And Rabbi Yehoshua says: With one but not with two.

Rabbi Akiva says: Neither with one nor with two.

Rabbi Eliezer said: And if, with regard to a woman in whom he has no share before she comes into his authority, once she comes into his authority she is completed for him,

and he can annul her vows.

A woman in whom he has a share before she comes into his authority [

for even before he performed a maamar with her, she is considered bound to him],

once she comes into his authority

through a maamar,

is it not logical that she should be completed for him,

and he should be able to annul her vows?

Rabbi Akiva said to him: No.

If you said this with regard to a woman whom he acquired for himself—

just as he has no share in her

before she came into his authority,

so others have no share in her.

Can you say this with regard to a woman whom Heaven granted him, for just as he has a share with her

before the maamar, because of the bond of yibbum,

so others [

the other yavamim]

have a share in her,

because of the bond of yibbum!

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Akiva, your words [

this claim of yours]

apply only to two yavamim.

But what do you answer regarding one yavam?

He said to him,

Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yehoshua:

Have we made a distinction

with regard to other matters

between one yavam and two yavamim, whether he performed a maamar with her or whether he did not perform a maamar with her?

And j

ust as with regard to

other matters

we have made no distinction,

so

with regard to the annulment of

vows

there is no distinction in this matter.

And below the Gemara explains what is meant by “other matters.”

And the beraita concludes that Ben Azzai was astonished by Rabbi Akiva’s answers—

In this language Ben Azzai said,

about himself, for he did not merit learning from Rabbi Akiva:

Woe to you, Ben Azzai, that you did not serve Rabbi Akiva—

That is,

woe to you, Ben Azzai, that you are a veteran and important student, yet you did not serve a great man such as Rabbi Akiva, who knows how to give such excellent answers.

Thus far are the words of the beraita.

And now the Gemara explains the proof from this beraita for Rabbi Ami—