Nedarim 75a — the Talmud in English

What ![](pamud.bmp "

exact page location")

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

where do we find in this beraita proof for the words of Rabbi Ami, that the words of Rabbi Eliezer refer to a case in which he performed maamar with her? - \-

For it teaches

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

whether he performed maamar with her or whether he did not perform maamar with her” \-

it follows that Rabbi Akiva heard the words of Rabbi Eliezer as referring to a case in which he performed maamar with her.

Alternatively

[and there is likewise proof]

from the beginning.

For it teaches

[in the words of Rabbi Eliezer]:

once she entered his domain, it was completed for him,

once she came into his domain, is it not all the more so that it should be completed for him?

And if

the words of Rabbi Eliezer refer to a case in which he

did not consecrate her, what

relevance does the expression

“it was completed for him” have?

After all, he had still not consecrated her!?

Infer from this that he performed maamar with her -

it is proved from this that the words of Rabbi Eliezer refer to a case in which he performed maamar with her, that is, betrothal.

And the Gemara explains the continuation of the beraita:

What does “and vows are likewise like the other matters,” which it teaches, mean -

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

Rava said: This is what it teaches -

Do you not admit that there is no liability for stoning, as with a betrothed maiden,

for intercourse by a stranger with a woman awaiting levirate marriage, even when she is bound to one levir, and even when he performed maamar with her?

And it is proved from this that the yevama is in no way considered betrothed. And even with regard to the annulment of vows, she is not considered betrothed.

Rav Ashi said:

Our Mishna too precisely indicates

[from our Mishna it is also explained that this is Rabbi Akiva’s reason],

as it is written in the Mishna:

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

And it follows from this that Rabbi Akiva’s proof is from the fact that we see that the yevama is not considered betrothed with regard to stoning, if a stranger has intercourse with her. Therefore, even 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, they 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,

they are annulled -

Rabbi Eliezer says: It is annulled.

And the Sages say: It is not annulled.

Rabbi Eliezer said

to the Sages, there is a kal va-chomer that proves his words:

If

we find that the husband

annulled vows that

had already taken effect and

had entered the category of prohibition -

then surely

he should not annul vows that

have not yet taken effect, and have still

not entered the category of prohibition!?

They said to him

the Sages:

After all, it says, “A husband shall uphold it, and a husband shall annul it,”

the verse compared annulment to upholding, and the verse teaches -

that which has entered the category of upholding enters the category of annulment -

only a vow that has taken effect, and is “subject to upholding,” is also “subject to annulment.”

But a vow

that has not entered the category of upholding has not entered the category of annulment -

such a vow, which is not subject to upholding because it has not yet taken effect, is also not “subject to annulment.”

Gemara:

It was raised as a dilemma before them:

For

the opinion of

Rabbi Eliezer,

who holds that vows can be annulled even before they take effect, how does the annulment operate in their case?

Does it mean that when the woman or daughter vows,

they take effect

the vows,

and

immediately they are

annulled,

by virtue of the annulment of the husband or father?

Or perhaps

the annulment is effective in that these vows

do not take effect at all.

And the Gemara asks:

What practical difference is there

between the sides of the doubt?