menu
small logo

Back

Nedarim

Daf 66a

תָּנָא: שֵׁן תּוֹתֶבֶת הָיְתָה לָהּ, וְעָשָׂה לָהּ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל שֵׁן שֶׁל זָהָב מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. כִּי שָׁכֵיב רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל פְּתַח עֲלֵיהּ הַהוּא סַפְדָּנָא הָכִי: בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּכֶינָה, הַמַּלְבִּישְׁכֶן וכו׳.

It was taught: She had a false tooth [ shen totevet ], which disfigured her, and Rabbi Yishmael made her a gold tooth from his own money, thereby beautifying her. When Rabbi Yishmael died, a certain eulogizer began his eulogy about him like this: Daughters of Israel, weep for Rabbi Yishmael, who clothed you.

RASHI

שן תותבת שנפלה שינה והושיבה שן אחר באותו מקום ועומד בכיעור:

ועשה לה ר' ישמעאל שן באותו מקום של זה משלו והיינו שייפוה:

בכינה עליו:

הַהוּא דַּאֲמַר לָהּ לִדְבֵיתְהוּ ״קוֹנָם שֶׁאִי אַתְּ נֶהֱנֵית לִי עַד שֶׁתַּטְעִימִי תַּבְשִׁילֵךְ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן״. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה טָעֵים, אָמַר: קַל וָחוֹמֶר, וּמַה לַּעֲשׂוֹת שָׁלוֹם בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה: שְׁמִי שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בִּקְדוּשָּׁה – יִמָּחֶה עַל הַמַּיִם הַמְאָרְרִים בְּסָפֵק, וַאֲנִי – עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.

§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to his wife: Benefiting from me is konam for you until you have given Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon your cooked food to taste, so they can see for themselves what a bad cook you are. She brought the food to them, and Rabbi Yehuda tasted it, without concern for his honor. He said: This is an a fortiori inference: And what can be seen, that in order to make peace between a man and his wife, the Torah said: My name, that is written in sanctity, shall be blotted out in the waters that curse, as the words written on a scroll, including the name of God, were blotted out during the ceremony of preparing the water that a sota would drink. And this is so even in a case of where it is uncertain if this will bring peace between them, as she may or not be guilty of adultery. I, all the more so, should waive my honor in order to bring peace to this couple.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא טָעֵים, אָמַר: יָמוּתוּ כָּל בְּנֵי אַלְמָנָה, וְאַל יָזוּז שִׁמְעוֹן מִמְּקוֹמוֹ. וְעוֹד: כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לִתְרַגְּלִי לְמִינְדַּר.

Conversely, Rabbi Shimon did not taste. He said: Let all the children of the widow die, and Shimon will not budge from his place. In other words, the husband can die and leave his wife a widow and his children orphans, and let them die too, rather than have people belittle the dignity of Torah scholars by taking such vows. And furthermore, there is another reason for my refusal: So that they should not become used to taking vows.

RASHI

ימותו בל בני אלמנה כלומר ימות הבעל ותהא היא אלמנה ואח"כ ימותו בניה:

לא יזוז שמעון ממקומו שיטעום תבשילה ולהכי לא רצה לטעום כי היכי דלא לירגלי למידר שלא יהיו קלים בנדרים:

הַהוּא דַּאֲמַר לִדְבֵיתְהוּ ״קוֹנָם שֶׁאִי אַתְּ נֶהֱנֵית לִי עַד שֶׁתָּרוֹקִי בּוֹ בְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל״. אָתַת וְרָקַק אַלְּבוּשֵׁיהּ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: וְהָא הַאי לְזִילּוּתָא קָא מִיכַּוֵּין! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מֵירָק עַל מָנֵי דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל – זִילּוּתָא רַבְּתָא הִיא.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to his wife: Benefiting from me is konam for you until you have spat on Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. She came to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and spat on his clothing. Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: But this man intended the humiliation of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, which is not achieved by spitting on his clothing. Ravina said to him: Spittle on the clothing of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is a great humiliation for him, and she has thereby fulfilled the vow.

RASHI

האי לזילותא דרשב"ג קמיכוון וכל כמה דלא ירקא באנפיה ממש ליכא זילותא ואי לא לא הוה מותרת דאיהו על דעת כן אמרה כדי לזלזלו:

א"ל מידק לר"ג זילותא רבה היא דאדם חשוב הוא:

הַהוּא דַּאֲמַר לִדְבֵיתְהוּ ״קוֹנָם שֶׁאִי אַתְּ נֶהֱנֵית לִי עַד שֶׁתַּרְאִי מוּם יָפֶה שֶׁבִּיךְ לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי״.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to his wife: Benefiting from me is konam for you until you show some beautiful [ yafeh ] part of you to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Yishmael attempted to find something beautiful about the woman.

RASHI

מום יפה שביך דמשום שהיה בה כ"כ מומין קאמר לה אם יש בה שום דבר יפה:

TOSAFOT

עד שתראי מום יפה כלומר יפה מאום שום דבר יפה כמו ובכפי דבק מאום (איוב ל״א:ז׳):

אָמַר לָהֶם: שֶׁמָּא רֹאשָׁהּ נָאֶה? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: סְגַלְגַּל. שֶׁמָּא שְׂעָרָהּ נָאֶה? דּוֹמֶה לַאֲנִיצֵי פִּשְׁתָּן. שֶׁמָּא עֵינֶיהָ נָאוֹת? טְרוּטוֹת הֵן. שֶׁמָּא אָזְנֶיהָ נָאוֹת? כְּפוּלוֹת הֵן. שֶׁמָּא חוֹטְמָהּ נָאֶה? בָּלוּם הוּא. שֶׁמָּא שִׂפְתוֹתֶיהָ נָאוֹת? עָבוֹת הֵן. שֶׁמָּא צַוָּארָהּ נָאֶה? שָׁקוּט הוּא. שֶׁמָּא כְּרֵיסָהּ נָאֶה? צָבֶה הוּא. שֶׁמָּא רַגְלֶיהָ נָאוֹת? רְחָבוֹת כְּשֶׁל אַוְוזָא. שֶׁמָּא שְׁמָהּ נָאֶה? לִכְלוּכִית שְׁמָהּ. אָמַר לָהֶן: יָפֶה קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ לִכְלוּכִית, שֶׁהִיא מְלוּכְלֶכֶת בְּמוּמִין, וְשָׁרְיָיהּ.

He said to his students: Perhaps her head is beautiful? They said to him: It is round [ segalgal ]. Perhaps her hair is beautiful? They replied: Her hair resembles stalks of flax. Perhaps her eyes are beautiful? They are narrow [ terutot ]. Perhaps her ears are beautiful? They are double in size. Perhaps her nose is beautiful? It is stubby. Perhaps her lips are beautiful? They are thick. Perhaps her neck is beautiful? It is low and short. Perhaps her stomach is beautiful? It is swollen. Perhaps her legs are beautiful? They are as wide as a goose’s. Perhaps her name is beautiful? Her name is Likhlukhit. He said to them: It is fitting [ yafeh ] that she is called by the name Likhlukhit, as she is dirty [ melukhlekhet ] with blemishes, and he permitted her to benefit from her husband, because she did have one beautiful feature, her fitting name.

RASHI

שמא ראשה נאה ולכך הדירה שתראהו לו:

סגלגל דומה לאניצי פשתן שראשיהן סגלגלים עגולין:

טרוטות רכות:

בלום סתום:

צוארה שקוט שראשה מונח בין כתיפותיה:

אמר להן יפה אתם קורים אותה לכלוכית שהיא מלוכלכת במומין זה השם יפה לה והיינו ודאי מום יפה שבה ועל דעת כן הדירה שתודיעני אותו דבר יפה דשמה יפה לה ששמה לכלוכית ואיהי נמי מלוכלכת. ע"א יפה אתם קורין אותה לכלוכית שהיא מלוכלכת במומין דכיון דאין בה דבר יפה להראות ודאי על דעת כן הדירה בעלה שהיה יודע שאין בה דבר יפה ואין יכולה להראות והואיל ואין בה שום דבר יפה נמצא שאין הנדר חל עליה:

TOSAFOT

סגלגל עגול:

טרוטות פירושו עגולות:

כפולות פירושו גדולות:

בלום סתום:

שקוט קצר כדתנן בבכורות (דף מג:) צוארו שקוט:

עבה ונראה שהוא נפוח:

ושרייה שהיה בה דבר יפה ששמה הגון ויפה לה:

הַהוּא בַּר בָּבֶל דִּסְלֵיק לְאַרְעָא דְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, נְסֵיב אִיתְּתָא. אֲמַר לָהּ: בְּשִׁילִי לִי תְּרֵי טַלְפֵי. בְּשֵׁילָה לֵיהּ תְּרֵי טַלְפֵי. רְתַח עֲלָהּ. לְמָחָר אֲמַר לָהּ: בְּשִׁילִי לִי גְּרִיוָא. בְּשֵׁילָה לֵיהּ גְּרִיוָא. אֲמַר לָהּ: זִילִי אַיְיתִי לִי תְּרֵי בּוּצִינֵי. אָזְלַתְּ וְאַיְיתֵי לֵיהּ תְּרֵי שְׁרַגֵּי.

The Gemara cites another incident: There was a certain Babylonian who went up to Eretz Yisrael and married a woman there. He said to her: Cook two lentils, i.e., some lentils, for me. She cooked exactly two lentils for him. He grew angry with her. On the following day, so that she would not repeat what she had done, he said to her: Cook a se’a [ geriva ] for me, intending: A large amount. She cooked an actual se’a for him, far more than what one person could eat. He said to her: Go and bring me two butzinei , intending small gourds, as butzinei are small gourds in the Aramaic dialect spoken in Babylonia. She went and brought him two lamps [ sheraggei ], called butzinei in the Aramaic dialect spoken in Eretz Yisrael.

RASHI

בשילי לי תרי טלפי שני רגלי בהמה ובישלה ב' עדשים שלא היתה מכרת בלשונות שלהם בא"י לא היו טוענין כך ואית דגרסי בשילי טלופחי כלומר מעט עדשים שכן אדם נוהג לומר ואיהי סברה דשתי עדשים קאמר לה ובשלה לו שתי עדשים בלבד ולא רצתה לשנות על דבריו:

ורתח עלה למחר אמר אי אמינא לה נמי תרי תעביד לי כאיתמל ואמר לה בשילי לי גריוא מידה גדולה דסבר כי היכי דתטרח עלה דמילתא ולא תבשיל אלא כדי סעודה:

תרי בוציני לשון שני שרגי שני מנורות דתרוייהו נקראו בוציני בלשון ארמי:

TOSAFOT

בוציני אבטיחים:

שרגי נרות דמתרגמינן בוציני:

אֲמַר לָהּ: זִילִי תַּבְרִי יַתְהוֹן עַל רֵישָׁא דְּבָבָא. הֲוָה יָתֵיב בָּבָא בֶּן בּוּטָא אַבָּבָא, וְקָא דָּאֵין דִּינָא. אָזְלַתְּ וְתַבְרַתְ יַתְהוֹן עַל רֵישֵׁיהּ. אֲמַר לָהּ: מָה הָדֵין דְּעָבְדַתְּ?! אֲמָרָהּ לֵיהּ: כָּךְ צִיוָּנִי בַּעְלִי. אָמַר: אַתְּ עָשִׂיתָ רְצוֹן בַּעְלֵיךְ – הַמָּקוֹם יוֹצִיא מִמֵּךְ שְׁנֵי בָּנִים כְּבָבָא בֶּן בּוּטָא. הדרן עלך רבי אליעזר

In anger, he said to her: Go and break them on the head of the bava , intending the gate, as bava means a gate in the Aramaic dialect spoken in Babylonia. She did not recognize this word. At that time, the Sage Bava ben Buta was sitting as a judge at the gate. She went and broke them on his head, as his name was Bava. He said to her: What is this you have done? She said to him: This is what my husband commanded me to do. He said: You fulfilled your husband’s desire, may the Omnipresent bring forth from you two sons, corresponding to the two candles, like Bava ben Buta.

RASHI

תברינהו על רישא דבבא על ראש הפתח ומחמת כעס אמר לה ואיהי סברה דקאמר לה למיתבר יתהון על רישא דבבא בן בוטא דהוה יתיב תמן:

TOSAFOT

תברינהו אבבא בכעס אמר לה לשבור אותם על הדלת והיא היתה סבורה שאמר לה לשבור אותם על ראש בבא בן בוטא:

שני בנים כנגד שני שרגי:

SUMMARY

The Sages concur that a halakhic authority may not broach dissolution of a vow by mentioning an extenuation that may cause the one who took the vow to falsely claim that he would not have vowed had he been aware of its consequences. Therefore, a halakhic authority may not broach dissolution by raising the issue of the disgrace brought upon the parents of one who stated a vow and other such issues. Another angle that may not be used to broach dissolution of a vow is that of a new situation. If a new situation developed, or if changes occurred to the previous situation, either of which causes the one who took the vow to regret having done so, this cannot be used as an extenuation to dissolve the vow. The reason is that the dissolution of a vow is dependent upon the discovery of a condition, which, had the one taking the vow considered it, would have caused him to reconsider taking the vow in the first place. A situation that arose after the vow was stated could not have been considered at the time the vow was taken, and one does not regret having stated the vow under the circumstances that existed at the time. Even if the situation has changed, if this change could have been reasonably expected at the time of the vow, it is not considered to be a truly new situation, and it can be used as a basis for dissolution. It is considered a new situation only if something actually changed, but if it becomes clear that the one who stated the vow had a mistaken impression of the situation at the time, it is a mistaken vow and is consequently dissolved. A vow that has been partially dissolved, either due to the one who stated the vow expressing regret or because the vow has been deemed a mistaken vow, is entirely dissolved. This is because all prohibitions expressed together are viewed as one vow. This is true if the person stated a broad vow, or if he linked the individual prohibitions together. If he stated each individual prohibition as a separate vow, the dissolution of one prohibition does not affect the other prohibitions, and they remain in force. In connection with this topic, several stories are told illustrating the lengths to which the Sages would go in order to help women who had been forbidden to their husbands as the result of a vow.

INTRO

Also when a woman takes a vow to the Lord, and binds herself with a bond, being in her father’s house, in her youth, and her father hears her vow, or her bond by which she has bound her soul, and her father holds his peace at her, then all her vows shall be ratified, and every bond by which she has bound her soul shall be ratified. But if her father disallows her on the day he hears, none of her vows, or of her bonds by which she has bound her soul, shall be ratified, and the Lord will forgive her, because her father disallowed her. And if she be to a husband, and her vows are upon her, or the clear utterance of her lips by which she has bound her soul, and her husband hears it, on the day that he hears it, and holds his peace at her, then her vows shall be ratified, and her bonds by which she has bound her soul shall be ratified. But if her husband disallows her on the day that he hears it, and he nullifies her vow which is upon her, and the clear utterance of her lips by which she has bound her soul, then the Lord will forgive her. Numbers 30:4–9

Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may ratify it, or her husband may nullify it. But if her husband altogether holds his peace at her from day to day, then he causes all her vows to be ratified, or all her bonds, which are upon her, he has ratified them, because he held his peace at her on the day that he heard them. But if he shall make them null and void after he has heard them, then he shall bear her iniquity. Numbers 30:14–16

This chapter explains some of the halakhot pertaining to a situation where a father or husband nullifies a woman’s vows. The discussion focuses primarily on borderline situations where it is necessary to clarify who has the authority to nullify the vow or at what point the nullification takes effect. The first topic in the chapter is the status of a betrothed young woman, who is under both her father’s authority and the authority of her betrothed. The Sages derived from the verses in the Torah that address the nullification of vows that a betrothed young woman’s vows are nullified only if both her father and her husband nullify them. Many questions arise from this situation, such as: What is the relationship between the nullifications of these two partners, and what is the halakha if one of them dies? Also, how is this halakha fulfilled when the young woman was betrothed several times, e.g., after she was divorced or widowed during the betrothal period? Another question is about the status of a yevama waiting for her yavam to perform levirate marriage: Is she considered a betrothed woman, as she is about to marry the yavam, or is she not so considered, since she has not actually undergone betrothal? Another group of questions centers upon the time period for nullification, which is to be done “on the day that he hears it” (Numbers 30:9). What is the exact definition of this phrase? May one nullify vows on Shabbat? Can a man nullify his wife’s vows in advance or only after she has taken them? Additionally, is one allowed to appoint an agent for nullifying vows?

מתני׳ נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה – אָבִיהָ וּבַעְלָהּ מְפִירִין נְדָרֶיהָ.

With regard to a betrothed young woman, her father and her husband together nullify her vows.