Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

1) SILENCE IN ORDER TO ANNUL

(a) Stringencies of annulment: Silence affirms a vow, it cannot annul it;

1. Also: If he thought in his heart to affirm, it is affirmed; if he thought in his heart to annul, it is not annulled.

(b) If he affirmed, he cannot annul; if he annulled, he cannot affirm (this is not a stringency of either).
(c) (Summation of question): The Beraisa teaches, silence affirms - isn't it the case, he was silent to vex her?
(d) Answer #1: No - he was silent with intention to affirm.

1. Objection If so, that is the same case as being silent with intent to affirm!

(e) Answer #2: Rather, he was silent without any specific intent.
(f) Question: The Beraisa said, there is a stringency of annulled over affirmation - what is it?
(g) Answer (R. Yochanan): One may permit (nullify) affirmation, but not annulment.
(h) Question #3 (Rav Kahana - Beraisa): "If her husband will be silent (her vow is affirmed)" - this speaks of silence with intent to vex.

1. Suggestion: Perhaps it speaks of silence with intent to affirm!
2. Rejection: That is taught later in the verse - "For he was silent"; the beginning must speak of silence with intent to vex.
3. This refutes R. Chanina.
4. Question: Why don't we say, the beginning of the verse speaks of silence without specific intent, and the end speaks of silence with intent to affirm!
5. Answer: The double language (of silence) at the beginning of the verse teaches a 3rd case, i.e. silence with intent to vex.

(i) Question #4 (Rava - Mishnah): If she vowed shortly before nightfall, he can only annul until nightfall; if he did not annul before nightfall, he can no longer annul.

1. This is as silence with intent to vex (since he wanted to annul)!

(j) Question #5 (Rav Ashi - Beraisa): A man says 'I knew about vows, but I did not know that they can be annulled' - he can annul (on the day he learned about annulment);

1. 'I knew about annulment, but I did not know that this is a vow' - R. Meir says, he cannot annul; Chachamim say, he can annul.
2. This is as silence with intent to vex (since he wanted to annul)!

2) WHICH VOWS MAY BE ANNULLED

(a) (Mishnah): These vows may be annulled: vows in which she afflicts herself - 'If I will wash, or not'; 'If I will adorn myself, or not'.

(b) R. Yosi: These are not vows of affliction - rather, these: 'Fruits of the world are forbidden to me' - he can annul;

1. 'Fruits of this province are forbidden to me' - (he cannot annul, rather) he brings her fruit of a different province;
2. 'Fruits of this grocer are forbidden to me' - he cannot annul; if he gets all his fruits from that grocer, he can annul; this is R. Yosi's opinion.

(c) (Gemara) Question: Is it really true that he can only annul vows of affliction?!

1. (Beraisa): "Between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter" - this teaches that a husband can annul vows that affect relations with his wife.

(d) Answer #1: He can also annul vows that affect relations with her; the Mishnah only said vows of affliction, for these he annuls permanently;

1. Vows that affect relations with her, they are only annulled during their marriage; if he divorces her, the vows take effect.
2. Objection (Mishnah - R. Yochanan Ben Nuri): He should annul, in case he will divorce her, and will not be able to remarry her.

i. We see, if he annuls, the annulment works even after he divorces her!

(e) Answer #2: Rather, either type of vow, he can annul permanently; the Mishnah only said vows of affliction, for these he annuls no matter who she is married to;

1. Vows that affect relations with her, they are only annulled while she is married to him; if she marries someone else, they take effect.
2. The Mishnah reads thusly: These vows he can annul, no matter who she is married to - vows of affliction.

(a) (Mishnah): 'If I will wash...'
(b) Question: How did she vow?

1. Suggestion: She said 'Fruits of the world are forbidden to me if I wash'.
2. Rejection #1: If so, why can he annul? She can avoid washing, and she can eat!
3. Rejection #2: If so, R. Yosi would agree, this is a vow of affliction - perhaps she will wash, and she will be forbidden to eat fruits!