וְשַׁמְנוּם בַּחֲמִשָּׁה מָנֶה, לִכְשֶׁתָּבֹא לְיֶדְכֶם הַגְּבּוּהָ אֶת הַשְּׁאָר״! אֲמַר רַב אַשִׁי: הַהוּא גֵּט יְבָמִין הֲוָה.

And we appraised them, and found that their value is five hundred dinars. When she comes to you with this document, collect the rest of the payment for her from her husband’s property in Babylonia. This demonstrates that it is also sufficient for a divorcée to take a vow. Rav Ashi said: That bill of divorce was a levirate bill of divorce that she received from the brother of her deceased husband and not a standard bill of divorce. She therefore took a vow, and not an oath, in the manner of all widows, as she was demanding payment of her marriage contract from the property of her deceased husband.

״הִתְקִין רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁתְּהֵא נוֹדֶרֶת״ כו׳. אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁלֹּא נִיסֵּת, אֲבָל נִיסֵּת – אֵין מַדִּירִין אוֹתָהּ.

§ The mishna taught: Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that she should take, for the benefit of the orphans, any vow that the orphans wished to administer to her. Rav Huna says: They taught this halakha only in a case where she did not marry again; however, if she married again, they do not administer a vow to her.

נִיסֵּת מַאי טַעְמָא – דְּמֵיפֵר לָהּ בַּעַל, כִּי לָא נִיסֵּת נַמִי – לְכִי מִנַּסְּבָא מֵיפֵר לָהּ בַּעַל! אֵין הַבַּעַל מֵיפֵר בְּקוֹדְמִין.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: What is the reason that a widow who married again may not take a vow in order to collect? It is because of a concern that perhaps she is lying and is not concerned about the vow that she took, as she relies on the fact that her husband will nullify her vow. If so, when she is not married one should also be concerned that she may rely on the fact that when she will marry again, her husband will nullify her vow. The Gemara answers: The halakha is that the husband does not have the ability to nullify with regard to vows his wife took prior to their marriage.

וְנֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא אָזְלָה לְגַבֵּי חָכָם וְשָׁרֵי לָהּ! קָסָבַר: צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵט אֶת הַנֵּדֶר.

The Gemara asks: But let us be concerned that perhaps she in fact received payment of her marriage contract, and she relies on the fact that she will go to a halakhic authority and he will dissolve the vow for her. The Gemara answers: Rav Huna holds that one who wishes to have a vow dissolved must detail the vow before the halakhic authority who dissolves it. There is no concern that the halakhic authority, knowing that she vowed in order to collect the payment of the marriage contract, will dissolve it.

רַב נַחְמָן אֲמַר: אֲפִילּוּ נִיסֵּת. נִיסֵּת, וַדַּאי מֵיפֵר לָהּ בַּעַל! דְּמַדְּרִינַן לָהּ בָּרַבִּים.

Rav Naḥman disagreed with Rav Huna and said: Even if she married again, the orphans can have the court administer a vow to the widow. The Gemara asks: If she married, then her husband will certainly nullify this vow. The Gemara answers that we, the court, administer the vow in public, and therefore her husband cannot nullify the vow.

מֵיתִיבִי: נִיסֵּת – גּוֹבָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ אִם נָדְרָה; מַאי לָאו נָדְרָה הָשְׁתָּא? לָא, דְּנָדְרָה מֵעִיקָּרָא.

The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Huna from a baraita : In a case where she married again, she collects payment of her marriage contract if she has taken a vow. What, is it not the case that she takes a vow now, after she has remarried? The Gemara answers: No, it is possible to explain that it is referring to when she took a vow initially, before remarrying.

וְהָתַנְיָא: נִיסֵּת – נוֹדֶרֶת וְגוֹבָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ! תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּאִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: נֶדֶר שֶׁהוּדַּר בָּרַבִּים – יֵשׁ לוֹ הֲפָרָה, וְאִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אֵין לוֹ הֲפָרָה.

The Gemara raises another difficulty for Rav Huna: But isn’t it taught explicitly in a baraita : If she married again, she takes a vow and collects payment of her marriage contract. Here, it is clear that she takes the vow after remarrying. The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between tanna’im , as there is one who says: A vow that was taken in public has the possibility of nullification by the husband, and therefore, even if the widow takes the vow in public, her husband can nullify it. As a result, she can collect payment of her marriage contract only if she takes a vow before she remarries. And there is one who says: A vow that was taken in public does not have the possibility of nullification. Therefore, even after the widow remarries, she is still able to take a vow and collect payment, as she takes the vow in public.

אִיבַּעֲיָא לְהוּ: צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵט אֶת הַנֵּדֶר, אוֹ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ? רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, רַב פַּפָּא אָמַר: צָרִיךְ.

§ Since Rav Huna’s statement included the fact that one who requests that a halakhic authority dissolve his vow must detail the vow, the Gemara mentions that a dilemma was raised before the Sages: Does one who comes to a halakhic authority and requests that he dissolve his vow need to detail the vow, or does he not need to do so? Rav Naḥman says: He does not need to detail the vow. Rav Pappa says: He needs to detail the vow.

רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ, דְּאִי אָמְרַתְּ צָרִיךְ, זִימְנִין דְּגָיֵיז לֵיהּ לְדִיבּוּרֵיהּ, וְחָכָם מַאי דְּשָׁמַע מֵיפֵר.

The Gemara explains each one’s reasoning: Rav Naḥman says that he does not need to detail the vow, as if you say that he needs to do so, sometimes the person who took the vow will cut short his statement and not provide all of the details of the vow, and the halakhic authority dissolves only what he hears and does not dissolve the vow in its entirety. Nevertheless, the one who took the vow will act as though the vow has been dissolved entirely. Therefore, it is preferable that he just report that he took a vow, and the halakhic authority will dissolve it entirely, whatever it is.

רַב פַּפָּא אֲמַר צָרִיךְ, מִשּׁוּם מִילְּתָא דְּאִיסּוּרָא.

Rav Pappa says that he needs to detail the vow, because the vow might concern a matter that is prohibited, such as the case of the mishna here where it is essential that the vow not be dissolved, as the purpose of the vow is to ensure that the widow will not lie. In such a case, if the halakhic authority is not aware of the circumstances that prompted the widow to take the vow, he could mistakenly dissolve it.

תְּנַן: הַנּוֹשֵׂא נָשִׁים בַּעֲבֵירָה – פָּסוּל, עַד שֶׁיִּדּוֹר הֲנָאָה, וְתָנֵי עֲלָהּ: נוֹדֵר וְעוֹבֵד, יוֹרֵד וּמְגָרֵשׁ; וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵט אֶת הַנֵּדֶר, לֵיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא אָזֵיל לְגַבֵּי חָכָם וְשָׁרֵי לֵיהּ!

The Gemara attempts to bring a proof that one must detail the vow: We learned in a mishna ( Bekhorot 45b): A priest who marries women in transgression of a prohibition is disqualified from taking part in the Temple service until he takes a vow not to derive benefit from his wives, thereby requiring him to divorce them. And it is taught with regard to this: He takes a vow and immediately serves in the Temple. He then descends from the service and divorces his wives. And if you say that he does not need to detail the vow, then let us be concerned lest he go to a halakhic authority and the halakhic authority dissolve the vow for him. He would then remain married to the women who are prohibited to him, and serve in the Temple despite being disqualified from doing so.