Nedarim 75b — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara explains:

For example, where another person made an association with this vow -

that he said concerning a particular object that it should be like the object concerning which she made the vow.

And

if you say that they take effect,

the vows, then

there is an association

[the association of the vow takes effect], since the vow takes effect and it is possible to make an association with it.

And

if you say that they do not take effect,

the vows at all, then the association of the vow does not take effect, since

there is no substance

in her vow, for it does not take effect at all, and it is not applicable to make an association with it.

What [is the conclusion]?

And we resolve it from the Mishna:

Come and hear:

Rabbi Eliezer said: If he annuls vows that have entered the category of prohibition, he should not annul vows that have not entered the category of prohibition.

And from the fact that Rabbi Eliezer said that these vows are easier to annul because they have not entered the category of prohibition -

Infer from it

that

they do not take effect

the vows at all.

For if they took effect and were annulled, in what way would they be easier than every vow that takes effect and he annuls it, and what is the kal va-chomer?

And we reject this:

Does

[indeed]

it teach, “that do not enter

the category of prohibition”?

For

it teaches, “that have not entered.”

And according to your statement, that they do not take effect at all, it should have said, “that do not enter.”

Rather, certainly, the meaning is that at the time of the annulment they

have not yet entered

the category of prohibition, but when she makes the vow, the vows take effect and are immediately annulled.

And although they take effect, they are still easier than other vows, since at the time that they took effect, their annulment already existed in the world.

And we resolve it from a beraita:

Come and hear:

As it was taught:

Rabbi Eliezer said to them

to the Sages

And just as in a case

[with regard to one’s own vows]

where

the one who makes the vow

does not annul

the

vows of himself once he has made the vow

[after he has made the vow], and nevertheless

he annuls

his

own vows before he makes the vow

[before he makes the vow], by delivering a declaration beforehand that he does not want his vows to take effect,

in a case

[with regard to his wife’s vows]

where the husband annuls his wife’s vows once she makes the vow, is it not logical that he should annul his wife’s vows

even

before she makes the vow?

And the Gemara proves from the fact that Rabbi Eliezer derives the annulment of his wife’s vows before she made the vow from delivering a declaration before the vow -

Is it not so

that the law concerning the annulment of the vows

of his wife is analogous to his own

[similar to one’s own vows]?

Just as

he

[with regard to his own vows]

that

the vows

do not take effect

at all after he delivered this declaration,

so too

with regard to his

wife’s vows as well, that

the vows

do not take effect

at all after he annulled them.

And if so, there is proof for the Gemara’s doubt.

And we reject this:

No.

Although it is possible to derive from one another that nullification of the vow is effective even before the vow takes effect, nevertheless the two laws are not analogous; rather,

each one is according to its own nature, and each one is according to its own nature.

With regard to one’s own vows, the vows do not take effect at all after delivering a declaration, whereas with regard to his wife’s vows, the vows take effect and afterward the annulment takes effect and the vow is nullified.

And we resolve it from a beraita:

Introduction:

In the beraitot below, it is explained that Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagree as to whether what we find, that it is possible to nullify something that has already taken effect, is a stringency, and it is possible to derive from this by a kal va-chomer that it should be possible to nullify even something that has not yet taken effect, or not.

Rabbi Eliezer’s view is that it is possible to state this kal va-chomer, whereas the view of the Sages is that this kal va-chomer cannot be stated, because sometimes it is more reasonable to say that there should be an option to nullify something only after it has already taken effect.

Come and hear:

The Sages said to him

the Sages

to Rabbi Eliezer -

the Sages responded to the fact that Rabbi Eliezer derived by a kal va-chomer from one’s own vows, with regard to which self-nullification is effective only before he makes the vow, to his wife’s vows, that all the more so annulment should be effective before she makes the vow,

for if so, let us state a kal va-chomer of this kind as well:

And just as a ritual bath, which elevates

[purifies]

the impure from their impurity

after they became impure, nevertheless

does not

the ritual bath

protect

[guard]

the pure from becoming impure,

when they touch impurity within the ritual bath.

A person, who

has a stringency, that if a pure person swallowed impure rings,

does not

he

elevate,

the swallowing of the rings within the pure person does not purify

the

rings

impure from their impurity -

is it not logical,

for it is a kal va-chomer that we should derive from a ritual bath: if a person swallowed pure rings and entered with them, while they were inside his intestines, into a tent containing a corpse, and the person became impure,

that it would not protect

the person

against

the rings

pure from becoming impure

because they are inside his intestines, but the rings too would become impure?

And yet the law is not so.

Rather, if a person swallowed a pure ring and entered a tent containing a corpse, and upon leaving the tent containing a corpse he vomited out the ring, the ring does not become impure, since this is “swallowed purity.”

And necessarily, one must say that this kal va-chomer cannot be reasoned, because it is more reasonable to say that there should be an option to nullify impurity only after it has taken effect. Therefore, one cannot prove anything from a ritual bath, since immersion in it is effective to purify only after the impurity has already taken effect.

And if so, also with regard to the annulment of vows, it is impossible to state this kal va-chomer, that the annulment should be effective even before the woman makes the vow.

If so, in the case of the annulment of vows as well, one cannot make this a-fortiori inference, namely, that annulment should be effective even before the woman makes the vow.

And the Gemara proves from this beraita concerning our doubt -

It follows from the Sages’ argument to Rabbi Eliezer that they compare the law of protection from impurity to Rabbi Eliezer’s law, for they understood from his words that the vow does not take effect at all, because with regard to pure rings that are swallowed within him, certainly the impurity does not take effect at all, and therefore they brought their proof from there.

Rather,

infer from it

that according to Rabbi Eliezer

they do not take effect

the vows at all, and therefore the Sages brought proof against him from this kal va-chomer.