Nedarim 76b — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

No.

Indeed,

in general, the Rabbis expound

this

kal va-chomer.

itself.

But here it is different, for the verse says: “Her husband may uphold it, and her husband may annul it.”

And

we expound from this that the verse equated annulment with upholding:

That which comes within the category of upholding—

comes within the category of annulment.

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

But a vow

that has not come within the category of upholding—

has not come within the category of annulment.

A vow that is not capable of being upheld, since it has not yet taken effect, is not capable of being annulled.

And likewise with regard to a ritual bath, we do not say a kal va-chomer. For there too, we learn from the words of the verse that immersion in a ritual bath of a pure vessel cannot protect it from impurity in the future [“and one who touches their carcasses becomes impure"].

And likewise with regard to a person who protects swallowed purity, we learn from this verse.

And this was the objection of the Sages to Rabbi Eliezer: where we have a verse, the verse comes and removes the matter from the kal va-chomer. And the same applies with regard to the annulment of vows: the verse says, “Her husband may annul it,” and removes it from the kal va-chomer. Ran

Mishna:

The annulment of vows—

the entire day.

The entire day on which the husband or the father heard the vow, he is able to annul it, until evening. And the tanna of our Mishna holds that the annulment of vows is on the same day on which she made the vow, and not during the period of “from time to time".

There is in this matter

—that the annulment of vows is only on that day—

a side of leniency and

a side of

stringency.

And the intention is not leniency or stringency in the law; rather, the intention is the duration of the annulment, which is sometimes a long period of time and sometimes a short period of time.

How so?—

For leniency—for example, a woman who

made her vow on Friday night —

her husband may annul her vow during a long period of time,

on Friday night and on the day of Shabbat—

until nightfall.

For stringency—

she made her vow as it was growing dark [

close to nightfall at the conclusion of Shabbat]—

he annuls

only during the short period of time that remains

until it grows dark.

For if it grew dark, and

still

he did not annul it—

again he

is unable to annul it,

since the day on which he heard it has already passed.

Gemara:

It was taught in a beraita: The annulment of vows—

the entire day

until evening.

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Shimon said: From time to time [

within twenty-four hours from when he heard the vow].

And the Gemara explains the reasoning of those who disagree:

And we raised it:

What is the reason of the first tanna,

who holds that he may annul only until evening? For

the verse says: “On the day of his hearing,”

and therefore he may annul only on the same day on which he heard it.

And the Rabbis—

what is their reason

that he may annul during twenty-four hours?

Because

it is written: “From day to day.”

And it implies that he may annul within the measure of an entire day from the time at which he heard the vow.

And we object:

But according to the first tanna, is it not written: “From day to day”?

And we answer:

It is necessary

to have both verses,

For if

only

“On the day of his hearing” were written, I would say: During the daytime, yes; at night, no—

that it is possible to annul only during the day and not at night.

And therefore

“From day to day” is written

to teach us that it is also possible to annul at night.

And we object:

But according to the one who says

that we learn from the verse

“From day to day”

that it is possible to annul from time to time,

is it not written: “On the day of his hearing”?

And we answer:

It is necessary

to have both verses.

For if only

the verse

“From day to day” were written, I would say

that the intention of the verse is that

from one Sunday (

the first day) until

the following Sunday

in the subsequent week

he may annul it.

And therefore

“On the day of his hearing” is written,

to teach us that he may annul it only for one day after he heard the vow.

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: The halakha is not in accordance with that pair [

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Eliezer son of Rabbi Shimon].

Levi thought of acting [

he thought of conducting himself]

in accordance with those two tannaim [

in accordance with Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Judah and Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon].

Rav said to him: This is what my beloved said [

Rabbi Hiyya, Rav’s uncle]:

The halakha is not in accordance with that pair.

And since a statement of Rav was brought in the Gemara, the Gemara brings an incident concerning Hiyya bar Rav.

Hiyya bar Rav shot arrows and examined—

even while he was occupied with shooting arrows, he was occupied with finding an opening and regret for a person who came before him to have his vow released; that is, he was not so meticulous, because he held that one may open with regret alone.

Rabba bar Rav Huna sat and stood—

he too was not so meticulous with the release of vows; rather, whether he was standing or whether he was sitting, he was occupied with finding an opening and regret .