Knowing that the father and the husband both have to dissolve the na'arah hameorsah (נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה)’s vow, daf TB Nedarim 68 wants to understand what is the relationship between the father and the husband. Is it a 50/50 partnership? When one of the two dissolves the vow, he only dissolves his share. Alternately, they each are responsible for the entire vow. When the first person dissolves it, he weakens the force of the vow. When the second person dissolves it, he knocks it out.
“A dilemma was raised before
the Sages: If a husband nullifies his betrothed’s vow, does he sever
(מִיגָּז גָּיֵיז) his share of the vow or does he weaken
(מִקְלָישׁ קָלֵישׁ) the force of the entire vow?”
(Sefaria.org translation) Ultimately the Gemara decides that this very question
is argued over by Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai. “If her father heard and
nullified the vow for her, and the husband did not manage to hear of
the vow before he died, the father may go back and nullify the husband’s
portion, and that will complete the nullification of her vow. Rabbi Natan
said: This last ruling is the statement of Beit Shammai, but Beit Hillel say that he
cannot nullify only the husband’s share of the vow but must also nullify
his own share again.” (Sefaria.org translation) Beit Shammai holds that the
husband’s portion reverts back to the father as an inheritance. Now the father
controls the 50% of the husband’s position; consequently, he can annul it as
well. Beit Hillel holds that they jointly owned the entire ability to nullify a
vow. When the father dissolved the vow, he just weakened it. Since the husband
is dead and father cannot dissolve the husband’s portion of the vow as well,
the father has to go through the whole process again to annul the vow. In the
above case the halakha follows Beit Hillel as stated by Rabbi Natan. ( Shulkhan
Arukh, Yoreh De’ah, 234:16
Rabba asks four questions
on today’s daf TB Nedarim 69. Some have practical halakhic implications while
others are just interesting theoretical investigations. An example of the
former is the following. “Rabba asks: If, after hearing one’s wife or one’s daughter’s
vow, one said: It is ratified for you, it is ratified for you, and then
a halakhic authority was requested about the first ratification and
dissolved it, but one did not request dissolution of the second ratification, what
is the halakha? Is the second ratification in force, or is it irrelevant,
as it was performed on a vow that was already ratified and consequently never
took effect?
“The Gemara answers: Come and hear
that which Rava said with regard to one who said: I take an oath that I
will not eat, I take an oath that I will not eat: If a halakhic
authority was requested to dissolve the first oath and dissolved
it, the second oath goes into effect for him. Similarly, the second
ratification goes into effect.” (Sefria.org translation) Think of the second
ratification as standing by as opposed to being irrelevant. Once the first
ratification is dissolved, the second ratification goes into effect.
The following has to be a
theoretical case where the person wants the ratification and the annulment of
the woman’s vow at the same time. Obviously, that’s impossible. “Rabba further asks: If he said: It
is ratified and nullified for you simultaneously, what is the halakha?
The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which Rabba
himself said: Any two halakhic statuses that one is not
able to implement sequentially are not realized even when one
attempts to bring them about simultaneously. Since one cannot ratify a
vow and subsequently nullify it, one can also not ratify and nullify a vow
simultaneously.” (Sefaria.org translation)
Rabba’s answer concerns a case found
in TB Kiddushin 50b. A man is forbidden to marry two sisters. If he can’t marry
them sequentially, he can’t marry them concurrently. This means that his simultaneous
act of betrothal doesn’t ever take effect at all for either woman no matter who
receives the gift of betrothal first.
No comments:
Post a Comment