Nedarim 76b (עו:) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

No.

Indeed,

in general, the Sages expound

this

kal va-chomer

.

But here it is different, as the verse says: “A husband may uphold it, and a husband may annul it.”

And

we derive from this that Scripture compared annulment to upholding:

That which can come within the category of upholding—

can come within the category of annulment.

Only a vow that has taken effect, and can therefore be upheld, can be annulled.

But a vow

that cannot come within the category of upholding—

cannot come within the category of annulment.

A vow that cannot be upheld, since it has not yet taken effect, cannot be annulled.

And likewise with regard to a ritual bath, we do not say that this can be derived by a kal va-chomer. For there too, we learn from the verse that immersing a pure vessel in a ritual bath cannot protect it from future ritual impurity: “and whoever touches their carcass shall become impure.”

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

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

Mishna:

The annulment of vows—

is for the entire day.

Throughout the day on which the husband or father heard the vow, he may annul it, until evening. The tanna of our Mishna maintains that the annulment of vows is on the same day on which she made the vow, and not for a period of “twenty-four hours.”

There is in this

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

that is lenient and

an aspect

that is stringent.

This does not mean lenient or stringent with regard to the law itself. Rather, it refers to the duration of the period available for annulment, which is sometimes long and sometimes short.

How so?—

The lenient aspect applies, for example, to a woman who

made her vow on Friday night —

her husband may annul her vow over a long period,

on Friday night and during Shabbat—

until nightfall.

The stringent aspect applies when she

made her vow as it was getting dark

[shortly before nightfall at the conclusion of Shabbat]—

he may annul it

only during the short period that remains

until nightfall.

If nightfall arrives and

she has still

not annulled it—

she

can no longer annul it,

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

Gemara:

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

is for the entire day

until evening.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, said: For twenty-four hours

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

The Gemara explains the rationale of those who disagree:

And we raise a difficulty:

What is the reason of the first tanna,

who maintains that he may annul it only until evening?

For the verse says: “On the day that he hears it,”

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

And the Sages—

what is their reason

for ruling that he may annul it for twenty-four hours?

Because

it is written: “From day to day.”

This indicates that he may annul it within the measure of one full day from the time that he heard the vow.

And we raise an objection:

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

And we answer:

It was necessary

to have both verses.

For if

only

“On the day that he hears it” were written, I would have said: During the day, yes; at night, no—

that he may annul it only during the day and not at night.

Therefore,

“From day to day” is written

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

And we raise an objection:

But according to the one who says

that the verse

“From day to day”

teaches that it is possible to annul it for twenty-four hours,

is it not written: “On the day that he hears it”?

And we answer:

It was necessary

to have both verses.

For if

only the verse

“From day to day” were written, I would have said

that the verse means that

from one Sunday

(the first day of the week) until

the following Sunday

of the next week,

he may annul it.

Therefore,

“On the day that he hears it” is written,

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

Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is not in accordance with those two sages

[that is, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon].

Levi thought of acting

[he intended to conduct himself]

in accordance with those tannaim

[like Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon].

Rav said to him: This is what my beloved teacher

[Rabbi Hiyya, Rav’s uncle]

said: The halakha is not in accordance with those two sages.

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

Hiyya bar Rav shot arrows and examined—

even while he was occupied with shooting arrows, he was engaged in finding an opening and grounds for regret for a person who came before him to have his vow permitted. This was because he did not investigate the matter very carefully, as he maintained that a vow may be dissolved on the basis of regret alone.

Rabba bar Rav Huna would sit and stand—

he too did not investigate the annulment of vows very carefully. Whether he was standing or sitting, he occupied himself with finding an opening and grounds for regret .