Nedarim 75a (עה.) — the Talmud in English

What

It was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami:

where do we find in this beraita a proof for the statement of Rabbi Ami, that Rabbi Eliezer’s statement concerns a case in which he performed ma’amar with her? -

As it teaches

in the beraita [in the statement of Rabbi Akiva], “

whether he performed ma’amar with her or whether he did not perform ma’amar with her” \-

This indicates that Rabbi Akiva heard Rabbi Eliezer’s statement as referring to a case in which he performed ma’amar with her.

Alternatively,

there is also a proof

from the first clause.

As it teaches

in the statement of Rabbi Eliezer:

“Once she entered his domain, it was completed for him,”

once she came into his domain, is it not logical that it should be completed for him?

And if

Rabbi Eliezer’s statement concerns a case in which he

did not consecrate her, what

relevance is there to the expression

“it was completed for him”?

He has not yet consecrated her!?

You can resolve from this that it is referring to a case in which he performed ma’amar with her—

it is evident from this that Rabbi Eliezer’s statement concerns a case in which he performed ma’amar with her, meaning betrothal.

The Gemara now explains the continuation of the beraita:

What does “and vows are likewise” mean, as it teaches—

what are the other matters from which Rabbi Akiva brings proof for his position?

Rava said: This is what it teaches:

“Do you not concede that one is not liable to stoning, as in the case of an betrothed young woman,

for intercourse by a stranger with a woman awaiting levirate marriage, even when she is bound to only one yavam, and even when he performed ma’amar with her?”

It is evident from this that a yevama is not considered betrothed in any way. And likewise, with regard to the annulment of vows, she is not considered betrothed.

Rav Ashi said:

The Mishna also indicates this

[the Mishna as well indicates that this is the reason for Rabbi Akiva’s position],

as it states in the Mishna:

“A yevama is not fully a wife, as a betrothed woman is fully a wife.”

This indicates that Rabbi Akiva’s proof is based on the fact that we see that a yevama is not considered betrothed with regard to stoning if a stranger has intercourse with her. Therefore, likewise with regard to the annulment of vows, she is not considered betrothed.

Mishna:

One who says to his wife: “All vows that you will vow from now

from today

until I return from such-and-such a place shall be upheld”—

he has said nothing

[the upholding does not take effect] 42 .

And if he said: “All vows that you will vow until I return from such-and-such a place

are annulled”—

Rabbi Eliezer says: They are annulled.

And the Sages say: They are not annulled.

Rabbi Eliezer said

to the Sages, there is a kal va-chomer that demonstrates the correctness of his statement:

If

we find that the husband

annulled vows that

had already taken effect and

had entered the status of prohibition—

then surely

he should annul vows that

have not yet taken effect and have not yet

entered the status of prohibition!?

They said to him,

the Sages:

“Behold, it says: ‘A man may uphold it, and a man may annul it,’”

the verse juxtaposed annulment with upholding, and the verse teaches—

That which can enter the status of being upheld can enter the status of annulment—

only a vow that has taken effect, and is therefore capable of being upheld, is also capable of being annulled.

But a vow

that cannot enter the status of being upheld cannot enter the status of annulment—

such a vow, which cannot be upheld because it has not yet taken effect, is likewise not capable of being annulled.

Gemara:

They raised a dilemma:

According

to the view of

Rabbi Eliezer,

who holds that vows may be annulled before they take effect, how does the annulment operate?

When the woman or daughter makes the vow,

do they take effect

the vows,

and

immediately become

nullified,

by virtue of the husband’s or father’s annulment?

Or perhaps

the annulment is effective in that these vows

do not take effect at all.

The Gemara asks:

What practical difference is there

between the two sides of the dilemma?