Nedarim 78b (עח:) — the Talmud in English

The appointed times of the Lord -

require the sanctification by the court.

For the court sanctifies the New Moon, and accordingly it is determined when the appointed time will occur.

But

the weekly Shabbat -

does not require sanctification by the court.

Rather, it is fixed and established from the day the world was created.

Likewise,

the appointed times of the Lord require

a court of

experts,

i.e., ordained judges who will sanctify the month, thereby determining when the appointed time will occur.

But the section of vows does not require an expert

to annul the vow, and

even an ordinary court

can annul the vow.

From these expositions, Beit Shammai learn that three ordinary people can annul vows.

And we challenge this:

Regarding the section of vows -

“The heads of the tribes” is written,

and the heads of the tribes are Torah scholars; how, then, can it be said that even ordinary people are qualified for this?

And we answer:

Rav Ḥisda said, and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan:

The requirement of “the heads of the tribes” for the annulment of vows was stated

with regard to an individual

who annuls the vow; in that case, he must specifically be an

expert.

But when three people annul the vow, even three ordinary people suffice.

Rabbi Ḥanina said:

A husband

who remains silent

on the day he heard the vow

with the intention of vexing

[to vex his wife] -

may annul it even from then until ten days later.

For his silence is not considered silence that confirms the vow, since his intention was to annul it afterward.

Rava raised an objection,

from the earlier beraita concerning a betrothed minor whose father and husband annul her vows jointly.

As it was taught:

When did they say that, if the husband dies, the authority

of the betrothed is transferred

to the father,

and the father can annul alone the vows she made during the betrothal period? Only

when he had not heard

the vow before he died,

or when he heard and remained silent, or when he heard and annulled it, and he died on the very day

he heard it.

But

if

the husband heard

the vow

and confirmed it, or heard it and remained silent

throughout the day on which he heard it,

and died on the day

following it,

this is considered confirmation.

The

father

cannot annul

the vow after the husband has confirmed it.

Rava proves from the words of the beraita that the husband’s silence with the intention of vexing is also considered confirmation, contrary to Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement:

Is that not so,

that the beraita, which says, “If the husband heard and confirmed it, or heard it and remained silent, and died on the following day, the father cannot annul it,” is speaking

of one who remains silent with the intention of vexing?

For if it is speaking of one who remains silent with the intention of confirming the vow, this is already the case of “confirmed it,” mentioned earlier in the beraita.

If so, it is proven that even silence with the intention of vexing is considered silence that confirms the vow.

The Gemara rejects this:

No.

The beraita means that he was

silent,

thinking in his heart

with the intention of confirming

the vow.

But the Gemara questions this rejection:

If so, this is

what the beraita said at first,

“or he heard and confirmed it.”

And according to your explanation, this is difficult: Why did the beraita repeat the same manner of confirmation twice?

Rather,

the challenge to Rabbi Ḥanina from the beraita should be resolved in another way:

The beraita is speaking

of one who remains silent without any specific intention,

who did not think in his heart either to confirm or to annul the vow.

Therefore, nothing can be proven from this beraita concerning the law of one who remains silent with the intention of vexing.

Rav Ḥisda raised an objection

from another beraita against Rabbi Ḥanina’s ruling.

As it was taught: There is

a stringency with confirmation

more

than with annulment.

And there is a stringency with annulment

more

than with confirmation.

The stringency with confirmation

than with annulment -