Nedarim 76a (עו.) — the Talmud in English

The latter clause says, -

And we raise an objection to this proof, as the latter clause of the beraita presents an opposite proof:

They said to Rabbi Eliezer -

The Sages challenged the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, who proved in the Mishna that one may annul a vow before it has been uttered from the fact that one may annul it after it has already been uttered:

And can you prove this as well from the fact that

if

we find that

one immerses an impure vessel

in order

to purify it, let him immerse

even a

vessel

that is pure, which

when it becomes impure

then its immersion would be effective

now to purify it?

Yet this is not the law, and immersion is effective for a vessel only to purify an impure vessel.

It follows that one cannot prove from the fact that it is possible to annul something that has already taken effect that it is possible to annul something that has not yet taken effect.

The Gemara proves from the words of the latter clause an opposing proof concerning our uncertainty.

We see from the challenge of the Sages to Rabbi Eliezer that according to Rabbi Eliezer, the law should be that immersion is effective even for a pure vessel, in order to purify it from future impurity.

And it is implied by the wording of the beraita, “when it becomes impure—to become pure,” that even if immersion were effective for a pure vessel, the vessel would first become impure and then become pure.

And if so,

conclude from it

that according to Rabbi Eliezer

the vows take effect

after the annulment and are then nullified.

It follows that the statements of the beraita contradict one another, from its first clause to its latter clause.

They say [

The members of the academy answer the contradiction in the beraita: ]

The Rabbis were not acquainted with Rabbi Eliezer’s reasoning [

They did not know what Rabbi Eliezer’s position was].

And this is what they said to him: What is your position?

They challenged him, in either case:

If you hold that the vows take effect

the vows

and are nullified

immediately,

let the vessel be your refutation -

The immersion of vessels will contradict your statement.

And

if you do not hold that they take effect -

And if you hold that the vows do not take effect at all,

let the ritual bath be your refutation -

The ritual bath will contradict your statement.

Therefore, there is no proof concerning the uncertainty we raised from the words of the Sages.

And we resolve it from a beraita.

Come and hear:

Rabbi Eliezer said to them

to the Sages [he proved to them that we do derive such a kal va-chomer.]

The law is that if impurity touches seed that has been sown in the ground, the seed does not become impure, and this law is derived by means of a kal va-chomer.

And if impure seeds

that became impure before they were sown, their law is that

once they are sown in the ground, they are pure

because this is learned from the verse, “Whatever he sows—it is pure.”

Seeds that are

already sown and standing

when they become impure,

all the more so

should they not become impure?

And we see that one may formulate a kal va-chomer from the fact that it is possible to annul something that has already taken effect.

The Gemara proves from this point concerning our uncertainty:

The law is that seeds sown in the ground do not become impure at all. And from the fact that Rabbi Eliezer compares the law of seeds to the law of the annulment of vows,

conclude from it

that Rabbi Eliezer holds that

the vows do not take effect

at all after they have been annulled.

The Gemara raises an objection to the view of the Rabbis:

And

do

the Rabbis not derive a kal va-chomer

of this kind?

But it was taught in a beraita: One might have thought that a person may sell his daughter

as a Hebrew maidservant even

when she is a na'ara?

You must say by means of a kal va-chomer:

If

one who was already sold goes free

when she becomes a na'ara,

one who is still

not sold -

is it not logical that she should not be sold

when she becomes a na'ara?

And we see that the Rabbis as well concede that one may formulate a kal va-chomer from the fact that it is possible to annul something that has already taken effect.