Nedarim 149

Chapter 149

א תניא כוותיה דר' אמי דקתני בין שעשה בה מאמר ובין שלא עשה בה מאמר
1 does this Baraitha support R. Ammi? — Because it states, 'whether he made her a declaration or not.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which proves that the former is the case here, as otherwise this is irrelevant. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
ב א"נ מרישא דקתני משנכנסה לרשותו נגמרה לו ואי דלא קדיש מאי נגמרה לו תפשוט מיניה כשעשה בה מאמר
2 Alternately, [it follows] from the first clause, which States, 'then when she does come under his authority, she is surely completely his': but if he did not betroth her, how is she completely his? Hence it follows that he had made a declaration to her.
ג מאי וכשאר דברים כן נדרים דקתני אמר רבא הכי קתני אי אתה מודה שאין חייבין סקילה כנערה המאורסה
3 What is meant by 'and just as it is in reference to other matters, so it is in reference to vows'? — Said Raba, It means this: Do you not admit that one is not stoned for [violating] her, as in the case of a betrothed maiden?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Even if a declaration was made, her seducer is not stoned: this proves that she is not yet his wife, and therefore the same is true of vows. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ד אמר רב אשי מתני' נמי דיקא אין יבמה גמורה לאישה כשם שארוסה גמורה לאישה
4 R. Ashi said, The Mishnah too supports [this interpretation]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [That R. Akiba based his argument on the penalty for violation, and consequently that the Mishnah deals with the case where a declaration was made, (cf. Rashi).] ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
ה <big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> האומר לאשתו כל הנדרים שתדורי מכאן עד שאבא ממקום פלוני הרי הן קיימין לא אמר כלום הרי הן מופרין ר' אליעזר אמר מופר וחכ"א אינו מופר אמר ר"א אם הפר נדרים שבאו לכלל איסור לא יפר נדרים שלא באו לכלל איסור
5 THE YEBAMAH IS NOT AS COMPLETELY UNITED TO HER [BETROTHED] HUSBAND AS AN ARUSAH TO HER [BETROTHED] HUSBAND.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Since he is designated as her husband, this shows that we deal with a case where he made a declaration (Rashi); v. supra p. 233, n. 1.] And the reference can only be to the penalty for violation. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ו אמרו לו הרי הוא אומר (במדבר ל, יד) אישה יקימנו ואישה יפרנו את שבא לכלל הקם בא לכלל הפר לא בא לכלל הקם לא בא לכלל הפר
6 <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF A MAN SAYS TO HIS WIFE, 'ALL VOWS WHICH YOU MAY VOW FROM NOW UNTIL I RETURN FROM SUCH AND SUCH A PLACE ARE CONFIRMED,' THE STATEMENT IS VALUELESS; [IF HE SAID] 'BEHOLD, THEY ARE ANNULLED,' — R. ELIEZER RULES, THEY ARE ANNULLED; THE SAGES MAINTAINED, THEY ARE NOT ANNULLED. SAID R. ELIEZER: IF HE CAN ANNUL VOWS WHICH HAVE ALREADY HAD THE FORCE OF A PROHIBITION,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., after they are made. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
ז <big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> איבעיא להו לר"א מיחל חלין ובטלין או דלמא לא חלין כלל למאי נפקא מינה
7 SURELY HE CAN ANNUL THOSE WHICH HAVE NOT HAD THE FORCE OF PROHIBITION! THEY SAID TO HIM: BEHOLD, IT IS SAID, HER HUSBAND MAY ESTABLISH IT, AND HER HUSBAND MAY ANNUL IT:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXX, 14. ');"><sup>6</sup></span> THAT WHICH HAS ENTERED THE CATEGORY OF CONFIRMATION, HAS ENTERED THE CATEGORY OF ANNULMENT;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having been made, it can be confirmed, and hence annulled too. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> BUT THAT WHICH HAS NOT ENTERED THE CATEGORY OF CONFIRMATION, HAS NOT ENTERED THE CATEGORY OF ANNULMENT. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. The scholars propounded: In R. Eliezer's view, do they take effect and [then] become annulled, or do they take no effect at all? What is the practical difference?
Previous ChapterNext Chapter