Nedarim 74b (עד:) — the Talmud in English

Rabbi Eliezer said:

a kal va-homer to substantiate his words:

What is the case with a woman whom he acquired for himself

through betrothal?

He may indeed dissolve her vows.

As for a woman whom Heaven assigned to him

through the death of her husband,

is it not all the more so that he should be able to dissolve her vows?

The Gemara raises an objection from the wording of the Mishna to Rabbi Ami’s resolution:

But if so,

if Rabbi Eliezer is speaking

of a case in which he performed maamar with her,

as Rabbi Ami said, she is not a woman whom Heaven assigned to him, but rather a woman whom he

acquired for himself.

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

And we answer:

The Mishna intends to say that he

acquired for himself

through maamar,

by means of Heaven—

Through the death of her husband, a bond was created between them by divine agency, and therefore the yavam can perform maamar with her.

Resolve it;

the Gemara brings a proof from our Mishna to resolve a dilemma raised by Rabba:

For Rabba asked:

What is the status of

the maamar according to

the opinion of

Beit Shammai—

does it

effect betrothal, or does it effect marriage?

That is, Rabba maintains that according to Beit Shammai, the maamar removes the bond of yibbum, and from that point the yevama has the status of an ordinary woman.

Rabba was uncertain whether, on account of the maamar, the woman with whom maamar was performed is considered betrothed, so that even if her yavam subsequently has intercourse with her in the ordinary manner, without bringing her beneath the wedding canopy, he has not thereby made her his wife [as is the case with a yevama, who becomes married through intercourse alone]. And as long as he has not brought her beneath the wedding canopy, he does not inherit from her, and if he is a kohen, he may not become impure for her if she dies.

Or perhaps the maamar places her on the level of a married woman, in the sense that if he has intercourse with her even without bringing her beneath the wedding canopy, through intercourse alone, she is considered married for all matters.

Resolve it

from the words of Rabbi Eliezer in our Mishna, who agrees with Beit Shammai, that maamar

effects marriage.

For if

the maamar

effects betrothal

and not marriage, how can the yavam alone dissolve her vows? See the Ran for why the Gemara now assumes that the yavam dissolves her vows alone, and not in partnership with the father.

See the Ran for why the Gemara now assumes that the levir annuls the vows by himself, and not jointly with her father.]

But we learned in the Mishna: “A betrothed young woman,”

“her father and her husband dissolve her vows!”

If so, the yavam requires the father’s participation in dissolving the vows.

And we reject this:

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: What

is meant by what we say in the Mishna,

“he may dissolve,”

is that he

may dissolve them in partnership

with the father, as is the law concerning a betrothed young woman.

It was taught likewise, in accordance with Rabbi Ami,

that Rabbi Eliezer’s statement concerns a case in which he performed maamar with her.

For it was taught:

A woman awaiting yibbum, whether there is one yavam or two yevamin, Rabbi Eliezer says: He may dissolve her vows.

And Rabbi Yehoshua says: One may, but two may not.

Rabbi Akiva says: Neither one nor two may do so.

Rabbi Eliezer said: If, in the case of a woman in whom he has no share before she enters his authority, once she enters his authority she becomes entirely his,

and he can dissolve her vows.

In the case of a woman in whom he has a share before she enters his authority [

for even before he performed maamar with her, she is considered bound to him by the bond of yibbum],

once she enters his authority

through maamar,

is it not all the more so that she should become entirely his,

and he should be able to dissolve her vows?

Rabbi Akiva said to him: No.

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

just as he has no share in her

before she enters his authority,

so others have no share in her.

Can you say this with regard to a woman whom Heaven assigned to him? Just as he has a share with her

before the maamar, on account of the bond of yibbum,

so others [

the other yevamin]

have a share in her,

on account of the bond of yibbum!

Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Akiva, your words [

this claim of yours]

apply only when there are two yevamin.

But what do you reply concerning a case with one yavam?

He said to him,

Rabbi Akiva said to Rabbi Yehoshua:

Have we made any distinction

with regard to other matters

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

And just

as with regard to

other matters

we have made no distinction,

so

with regard to the dissolution of

vows

there is no basis for making such a distinction.

The Gemara will later explain what is meant by “other matters.”

The beraita concludes by recounting that ben Azzai was impressed by Rabbi Akiva’s responses—

In these words ben Azzai said,

speaking about himself, because he had not merited to study from Rabbi Akiva:

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

that is,

Woe to you, ben Azzai, that although you are an accomplished and important student, you did not serve a great man such as Rabbi Akiva, who knows how to give such excellent responses.

This concludes the words of the beraita.

The Gemara now explains the proof from this beraita in support of Rabbi Ami—