Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nedarim

Folio 79a

Now we have seen that confirmation is more stringent than annulment; where do we find that annulment is more [stringent] than confirmation? — Said R. Johanan: One may seek absolution from confirmation, but not from annulment.

R. Kahana objected: But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day:³  Scripture refers to silence in order to vex. You say, in order to vex. Perhaps this is not so, the reference being to silence with intention to confirm? Now, when it is said, because he held his peace at her,⁴  Scripture already refers to silence in order to confirm; hence, to what can I apply the phrase, 'but if the husband altogether hold his peace at her? To silence in order to vex. That is indeed a refutation.⁵  But let one [verse] be applied to silence in order to confirm, and the other to silence without specified intentions? — Additional verses are written.⁶

Raba objected: IF SHE VOWED JUST BEFORE NIGHTFALL, HE CAN ANNUL ONLY UNTIL NIGHTFALL: FOR IF NIGHT FELL AND HE HAD NOT ANNULLED IT, HE CAN NO LONGER DO SO: but why? Let it [at least] be counted as though he were silent in order to provoke her! This is a refutation.

R. Ashi objected: [If the husband declares,] 'I know that there were vows, but did not know that they could be annulled,' he may annul them [now].⁷  'I knew that they could be annulled, but did not know that this is a vow,'⁸  R. Meir ruled: He cannot annul [now];⁹  whilst the Sages maintain: He can annul. But why [not, according to R. Meir]; let it [at least] be as though he were silent in order to provoke! This is a refutation.

CHAPTER XI

MISHNAH. NOW THESE ARE THE VOWS WHICH HE¹⁰  CAN ANNUL: VOWS WHICH INVOLVE SELF-DENIAL.¹¹  [E.G.,]. 'IF I BATHE,' OR, 'IF I DO NOT BATHE,' 'IF I ADORN MYSELF,' OR, 'IF I DO NOT ADORN MYSELF.'

1. Which is viewed as greater stringency.
2. This is not stated as an aspect of greater stringency in one or the other, but merely teaches a law.
3. Num. XXX, 15.
4. Ibid.
5. Of R. Hanina.
6. The idea of silence is expressed three times in that verse, But if her husband altogether keep silence — expressed in Heb. by [H], which is a double expression, and, because he has kept silence — a third time; therefore every form of silence is meant.
7. Because only when he knows his authority is the day regarded as 'the day on which he heard it.'
8. Rashi: of a binding nature; Ran such as the husband may annul, (v. next Mishnah).
9. For since he knew that the husband could annul vows, the day that he first learnt of his wife's vow is the day that he heard it.
10. The husband.
11. Cf. Num. XXX, 13.

GEMARA. [He can annul] only vows of self-denial, but not if they involve no self-denial? But it was taught: Between a man and his wife, between thee father and his daughter:³  this teaches that a husband can annul vows which [affect the relationship] between himself and his wife? — I will tell you: He can annul both; but vows of self-denial he can permanently annul;⁴  but if they involve no self-denial, annulment is valid only so long as she is under him, but if he divorces her, the vow becomes effective. [This refers however] to matters affecting their mutual relationship but involving no self-denial; but if they involve self-denial, the vow does not become effective. Now, do vows involving no self-denial become effective if he divorces her? But we learnt: R. Johanan b. Nuri said: He must annul it, lest he divorce her and she thereby be forbidden to him.⁵  This proves that if he divorces her after first having annulled the vow, the annulment remains valid? — I will tell you: in both cases the annulment stands; but vows of self-denial he can annul in respect of both himself and strangers,⁶  whereas if they involve no self-denial, he can annul in respect of himself only, not of others;⁷  and it is thus meant: THESE ARE THE VOWS WHICH HE CAN ANNUL in respect of both himself and others, viz., VOWS THAT INVOLVE SELF-DENIAL.

'IF I BATHE.' What does this mean? Shall we say, that she declared, 'Konam be the fruit of the world to me, if I bathe'? then why annul it? Let her not bathe, and so the fruit of the world will not be prohibited to her! Moreover, could R. Jose maintain in this case that THESE ARE NOT VOWS OF SELF-DENIAL: perhaps she bathes, and the fruit of the world become forbidden to her?

1. Hence it is not a vow of self-deprival.
2. E.g., if he must buy on credit, and no other tradesman trusts him.
3. Num. XXX, 17.
4. Even if he subsequently divorces her.
5. If a woman vows that the work of her hands be forbidden to her husband, though the vow, through seeking to deprive the husband of his legal due, is invalid, R. Johanan b. Nuri ruled that the husband should nevertheless annul it. For, should he divorce her, the vow becomes valid, and therefore be could not remarry her, v. infra 85a.
6. I.e., even if she marries another, the annulment holds good.
7. I.e. if he divorces her and she marries another, the vow resumes its force.