Nedarim 147

Chapter 147

א <big>מתני׳</big> שומרת יבם בין ליבם אחד בין לשני יבמין ר"א אומר יפר ר' יהושע אומר לאחד אבל לא לשנים ר"ע אומר לא לאחד ולא לשנים

1 MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN WAITS FOR A YABAM,1 WHETHER FOR ONE OR FOR TWO,2

ב אמר ר"א מה אם אשה שקנה הוא לעצמו הרי הוא מיפר נדריה אשה שהקנו לו מן השמים אינו דין שיפר נדריה

2 — R. ELIEZER RULED: HE [THE YABAM] CAN ANNUL [HER VOWS]. R. JOSHUA SAID: [ONLY IF SHE WAITS] FOR ONE, BUT NOT FOR TWO. R. AKIBA SAID; NEITHER FOR ONE NOR FOR TWO. R. ELIEZER ARGUED: IF A MAN CAN ANNUL THE VOWS OF A WOMAN WHOM HE ACQUIRED HIMSELF, HOW MUCH THE MORE CAN HE ANNUL THOSE OF A WOMAN GIVEN TO HIM BY GOD!3 SAID R. AKIBA TO HIM; IT IS NOT SO; IF YOU SPEAK OF A WOMAN WHOM HE ACQUIRES HIMSELF, THAT IS BECAUSE OTHERS HAVE NO RIGHTS IN HER; WILL YOU SAY [THE SAME] OF A WOMAN GRANTED TO HIM BY GOD, IN WHOM OTHERS TOO HAVE RIGHTS!4

ג אמר לו ר"ע לא אם אמרת באשה שקנה הוא לעצמו שאין לאחרים בה רשות תאמר באשה שהקנו לו מן השמים שיש לאחרים בה רשות

3 R. JOSHUA SAID TO HIM: AKIBA, YOUR WORDS APPLY TO TWO YEBAMIM; BUT WHAT WILL YOU ANSWER IF THERE IS ONLY ONE YABAM? HE REPLIED, THE YEBAMAH IS NOT AS COMPLETELY UNITED TO THE YABAM5 AS AN ARUSAH IS TO HER [BETROTHED] HUSBAND.6

ד א"ל ר' יהושע עקיבא דבריך בשני יבמין מה אתה משיב על יבם אחד אמר לו אין היבמה גמורה ליבם כשם שהארוסה גמורה לאישה

4 GEMARA. It is well according to R. Akiba, for he maintains that the bond [wherewith she is bound to the yabam] involves no legal consequences;7 also according to R. Joshua, who maintains that the tie is a real one.8

ה <big>גמ׳</big> בשלמא ר"ע סבר אין זיקה ור"י סבר יש זיקה אלא ר"א מאי טעמיה אי יש זיקה אין ברירה

5 But what is R. Eliezer's reason? Even if the tie is a real one, selection is not retrospective?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Bererah, a term denoting retrospective validity of a subsequent selection. CF. supra Mishnah 45b, v. Glos. Thus, here, when she vows, it is not clear which yabam will eventually marry her. [Unlike, however, elsewhere in the Talmud where this principle is debated and gives rise to difference of opinion, its application here would not be retro-active, as we are not considering whether the annulment by one yabam before marriage becomes effective after marriage, but whether it takes effect immediately. And in regard to this it is taken as axiomatic that there is no bererah, as in the case of two yebamim it cannot be stated with certainty which of the two will be her husband (cf. Adereth. S. Kiddushin). The term bererah is accordingly used here in a loose sense and in fact does not occur in the parallel passage, Yeb. 29b; v. a.l.] ');">9 — R. Ammi answered: [The circumstances are] e.g., that he [the yabam] made a [betrothal] declaration,10

ו אמר ר' אמי כגון שעשה בה מאמר ורבי אליעזר סבר לה כב"ש דאמרי מאמר קונה קנין גמור

6 R. Eliezer ruling with Beth Shammai that a declaration completely acquires.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., by means of this declaration she is his wife in all legal respects; hence that yabam can annul her vows. — The view of Beth Hillel is that only cohabitation effects this. ');">11 But R. Joshua says thus: That applies only to one yabam, but not to two yebamin; for can there be such a case that though when his brother comes he can prohibit her to him by cohabitation or divorce, and yet he [the first] can annul!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., even in Beth Shammai's view a declaration is a legal betrothal only if there is but one yabam, but not if there are two. Because even after the declaration, if the other cohabited with her or divorced her, she is forbidden to the first. ');">12

ז ורבי יהושע אומר לך ה"מ בחד יבם אבל בשני יבמין לא מי איכא מידי דכי אתי אחוהי אסר עליה בביאה או בגיטא ומפר ור"ע סבר אין זיקה

7 Whilst R. Akiba maintains that the bond carries with it no legal consequences. Now, according to R. Eleazar,13 who maintained that in the opinion of Beth Shammai a declaration is binding only in that it renders her co-wife14

ח ולר' אליעזר דאמר מאמר לב"ש אין קונה אלא לדחות בצרה מאי איכא למימר

8 ineligible,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., to reject the co-wife'. In the following case; A, B and C, are three brothers, A and B being married to X and Y, two sisters. If A dies childless and C makes a declaration to X (but does not consummate the marriage), and then B dies childless too, Beth Shammai rule that X, A's widow, remains C's wife; hence Y, B's wife and the would-be co-wife of X, is ineligible to him, since one cannot take in marriage a yebamah who is also his wife's sister. Thus we see that Beth Shammai rule that the declaration made by C is Biblically valid as betrothal, for otherwise he would be regarded as having become the yabam of two sisters simultaneously, in which case a different law applies. Thereon R. Eleazar observed, only in this respect did Beth Shammai hold a declaration to be Biblically binding; but should he subsequently desire to free her, a divorce is not sufficient (as it would be had the marriage been consummated), but halizah too is needed. ');">15 what can be said?16

ט הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שעמד בדין ואיתחייב לה מזונות וכדרב פנחס משמיה דרבא דאמר כל הנודרת על דעת בעלה היא נודרת

9 — The reference here is to one who had come before Court and been ordered to support her;17 and [the law] is in accordance with the dictum of R. Phineas in Raba's name: Every woman who vows, vows conditionally upon her husband's assent.

Previous Chapter Next Chapter