Nedarim 150

Chapter 150

א כגון דאתפיס אחרינא בהדין נדרא אי אמרת חלין הויא תפיסותא אי אמרת לא חלין לא איכא מששא
1 — E.g., if another man makes a vow dependent on this.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'attached to them'. I.e., if the wife vowed, 'Behold, I will be a nazirite'; and another person exclaimed, 'And I likewise'. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> Now, if you say that [the wife's vows] take effect, the dependence is a real one;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the second vow is valid. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב מאי ת"ש אמר רבי אליעזר אם הפר נדרים שבאו לכלל איסור לא יפר נדרים שלא באו לכלל איסור שמע מינה לא חלין
2 but if you say that they take no effect, there is no substantiality in it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the vow made dependent upon the wife's vow is invalid. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> What [is the law]? — Come and hear: SAID R. ELIEZER, IF HE CAN ANNUL VOWS WHICH HAVE ALREADY HAD THE FORCE OF A PROHIBITION, SURELY HE CAN ANNUL VOWS WHICH HAVE NOT HAD THE FORCE OF PROHIBITION! This proves that they take no effect at all. — [No.] Is it then stated, which do not have the force etc.: WHICH HAVE NOT HAD THE FORCE OF PROHIBITION is taught, [meaning], which have not yet had the force of a prohibition.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yet they may take effect only, however, to be immediately made void. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג מי קתני שאינן באין שלא באו קתני עדיין לא באו
3 Come and hear: R. Eliezer said to them. If where a man cannot annul his own vows, once he has vowed,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., every person excepting a married woman. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> he can nevertheless annul his own vows before making them;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By an anticipatory declaration of annulment; v. supra 23b. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ד ת"ש אמר להן ר"א ומה במקום שאין מיפר נדרי עצמו משנדר מיפר נדרי עצמו עד שלא ידור מקום שמפר נדרי אשתו משתדור אינו דין שיפר נדרי אשתו עד שלא תדור
4 then where he can annul his wife's vows after she vowed, how much the more should he be able to annul them before she vows! Now, surely this means that his wife's [vows] are like his: just as his vows take no effect at all,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If preceded by a declaration of annulment; for if they did take effect, only a Rabbi could grant absolution. Moreover, the anticipatory annulment, forgotten at the time of actual vowing, renders it a vow made in error, which ab initio is no vow. Cf. supra 23b. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> so his wife's vows too would take no effect at all! — No: each is governed by its own laws.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though one is deduced from the other, it is not necessary to assume similarity in all respects. An anticipatory annulment of one's own vows prevents them from taking effect at all, whilst if applied to his wife's, they may take effect and become void. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ה מאי לאו דאשתו דומיא דיליה מה [הוא] דלא חיילין אף אשתו נמי דלא חיילין לא הא כדאיתא והא כדאיתא
5 Come and hear: They answered R. Eliezer: If a mikweh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A ritual bath, by immersion in which unclean persons or things are purified. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> though it raises the unclean front their uncleanness, cannot nevertheless save the clean from becoming unclean;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one cannot take a ritual bath to be kept clean, should he subsequently come into contact with defiling matter. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ו ת"ש אמרו לו לר"א ומה מקוה שמעלה את הטמאין מטומאתן אין מציל על הטהורים מליטמא אדם שאין מעלה את הטמאין מטומאתן אינו דין הוא שלא יציל על הטהורין מליטמא
6 then a man, who cannot raise the unclean from their uncleanness,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi; if a man swallowed an unclean ring and then took a ritual bath, the ring, since it is within him, is not purified, but remains defiled after excretion. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> how much the more can he not save the clean from becoming unclean.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he swallows a clean ring, and then comes in contact with the dead, the ring ought to become unclean, whereas the law is that it remains clean (Ran), v. Hul. 71a. — So also, though a husband can annul a vow when made, he cannot before. So cur. edd. and Rashi. Asheri and Ran have a simpler and more effective reading: They replied to R. Eliezer, Let the mikweh prove it, which frees the unclean from their uncleanness, yet cannot prevent the clean from becoming unclean. So also, a husband may annul his wife's vow after it has become binding, but not before. ');"><sup>12</sup></span>
ז שמע מינה לא חיילין
7 This proves that they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the wife's vows annulled in anticipation. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> take no effect at all.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since they draw an analogy from a mikweh, which cannot prevent a clean man from becoming unclean, it follows that in R. Eliezer's view the husband's annulment prevents the vow from taking effect at all. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>