Nedarim 157

Chapter 157

אשהשתיקהShhshtykhמקיימתMkyymtואיןVynשתיקהShtykhמבטלתMvtltקייםKyymבלבוVlvvקייםKyymהפרHfrבלבוVlvvאינוYnvמופרMvfrקייםKyymאיןYnיכולYkhvlלהפרLhfrהפרHfrאיןYnיכולYkhvlלקייםLkyymקתניKtnyשהשתיקהShhshtykhמקיימתMkyymtמאיMyלאוLvבשותקVshvtkעלLמנתMntלמיקטLmykt
1since silence confirms, but does not annul;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which is viewed as greater stringency. ');"><sup>1</sup></span>
בלאLבשותקVshvtkעלLמנתMntלקייםLkyymהיינוHyynvקייםKyymבלבוVlvvקייםKyymאלאLבשותקVshvtkסתםStm
2and if he confirms in his heart, he has confirmed it, [whereas] if he annuls in his heart, it is not annulled; [moreover], if he confirmed, he cannot annul, and if he annulled, he cannot confirm.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is not stated as an aspect of greater stringency in one or the other, but merely teaches a law. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
גאשכחןShkhkhnחומרKhvmrבהקםVhkmמבהפרMvhfrבהפרVhfrמבהקםMvhkmמנאMnלןLnאר"יRy"נשאליןNshlynעלLההקםHhkmואיןVynנשאליןNshlynעלLההפרHhfr
3Now, this teaches that silence confirms. Surely it means silence in order to provoke? — No; [it means] that he was silent in order to confirm. If so, it is identical with 'if he confirms in his heart?' — But it means that he was silent with no specified intention.
דמתיבMtyvרבRvכהנאKhhn(במדבר(vmdvrל,L,טו)Tv)ואםVmהחרשHkhrshיחרישYkhryshלהLhאישהYshhוגו'Vgv'בשותקVshvtkעלLמנתMntלמיקטLmyktהכתובHkhtvvמדברMdvrאתהThאומרVmrבשותקVshvtkעלLמנתMntלמיקטLmyktאוVאינוYnvאלאLבשותקVshvtkעלLמנתMntלקייםLkyym
4Now we have seen that confirmation is more stringent than annulment; where do we find that annulment is more [stringent] than confirmation? — Said R. Johanan: One may seek absolution from confirmation, but not from annulment.
הכשהואKhshhvאומרVmr(במדבר(vmdvrל,L,טו)Tv)כיKhyהחרישHkhryshלהLhהריHryבשותקVshvtkעלLמנתMntלקייםLkyymהכתובHkhtvvמדברMdvrהאHמהMhאניNyמקייםMkyymאםMהחרשHkhrshיחרישYkhryshלהLhאישהYshhבשותקVshvtkעלLמנתMntלמיקטLmyktהכתובHkhtvvמדברMdvrתיובתאTyvvt
5R. Kahana objected: But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXX, 15. ');"><sup>3</sup></span>
וולוקיםVlvkymהאHבשותקVshvtkעלLמנתMntלקייםLkyymהאHבשותקVshvtkסתםStmקראיKryיתיריYtyryכתיביKhtyvy
6Scripture refers to silence in order to vex. You say, in order to vex. Perhaps this is not so, the reference being to silence with intention to confirm? Now, when it is said, because he held his peace at her,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
זמתיבMtyvרבאRvנדרהNdrhעםMחשכהKhshkhhמפרMfrלהLhעדDשלאShlחשכהKhshkhhשאםShmלאLהפרHfrוחשכהVkhshkhhאינוYnvיכולYkhvlלהפרLhfrאמאיMyלהויLhvyכשותקKhshvtkעלLמנתMntלמיקטLmyktתיובתאTyvvt
7Scripture already refers to silence in order to confirm; hence, to what can I apply the phrase, 'but if the husband altogether hold his peace at her? To silence in order to vex. That is indeed a refutation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Of R. Hanina. ');"><sup>5</sup></span>
חמתיבMtyvרבRvאשיShyיודעYvdאניNyשישShyshנדריםNdrymאבלVlאיניYnyיודעYvdשישShyshמפיריןMfyrynיפרYfrיודעYvdאניNyשישShyshמפיריןMfyrynאבלVlאיניYnyיודעYvdשזהShzhנדרNdrר"מRm"אומרVmrלאLיפרYfrוחכמיםVkhkhmymאומריםVmrymיפרYfr
8But let one [verse] be applied to silence in order to confirm, and the other to silence without specified intentions? — Additional verses are written.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The idea of silence is expressed three times in that verse, But if her husband altogether keep silence — expressed in Heb. by [H], which is a double expression, and, because he has kept silence — a third time; therefore every form of silence is meant. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
טואמאיVmyליהויLyhvyכשותקKhshvtkעלLמנתMntלמיקטLmyktתיובתאTyvvt
9Raba objected: IF SHE VOWED JUST BEFORE NIGHTFALL, HE CAN ANNUL ONLY UNTIL NIGHTFALL: FOR IF NIGHT FELL AND HE HAD NOT ANNULLED IT, HE CAN NO LONGER DO SO: but why? Let it [at least] be counted as though he were silent in order to provoke her! This is a refutation.
י<br><br><big><strong>הדרן<br><br><big><strong>hdrnעלךLkhנערהNrhהמאורסה</strong></big><br><br>Hmvrsh</strong></big><br><br>
10R. Ashi objected: [If the husband declares,] 'I know that there were vows, but did not know that they could be annulled,' he may annul them [now].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because only when he knows his authority is the day regarded as 'the day on which he heard it.' ');"><sup>7</sup></span>
יאמתני׳Mtny׳<big><strong>ואלו</strong></big><big><strong>vlv</strong></big>נדריםNdrymשהואShhvמפרMfrדבריםDvrymשישShyshבהןVhnענויNvyנפשNfshאםMארחץRkhtsואםVmלאLארחץRkhtsאםMאתקשטTkshtואםVmלאLאתקשטTksht
11'I knew that they could be annulled, but did not know that this is a vow,'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi: of a binding nature; Ran such as the husband may annul, (v. next Mishnah). ');"><sup>8</sup></span> R. Meir ruled: He cannot annul [now];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since he knew that the husband could annul vows, the day that he first learnt of his wife's vow is the day that he heard it. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> whilst the Sages maintain: He can annul. But why [not, according to R. Meir]; let it [at least] be as though he were silent in order to provoke! This is a refutation. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. NOW THESE ARE THE VOWS WHICH HE<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The husband. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> CAN ANNUL: VOWS WHICH INVOLVE SELF-DENIAL.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Num. XXX, 13. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> [E.G.,]. 'IF I BATHE,' OR, 'IF I DO NOT BATHE,' 'IF I ADORN MYSELF,' OR, 'IF I DO NOT ADORN MYSELF.'
Previous ChapterNext Chapter