|  |  | Previous Folio / Nedarim Directory / Tractate List / Navigate Site # Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Nedarim ### Folio 76a Then consider the second clause: They [the Rabbis] said to R. Eliezer: If an unclean utensil is immersed in order to purify it, shall a clean utensil be immersed, so that on [subsequently] becoming defiled it shall [simultaneously] become clean!1 This proves that they do take effect.2 — I will tell you: The Rabbis were not clear as to R. Eliezer's standpoint. Hence they said thus to him: What is your opinion? If you maintain that they [the vows] take effect, but are annulled, you are refuted by [the analogy of] a utensil; whilst if you do not hold that they take effect, the mikweh is your refutation. Come and hear: R. Eliezer said to them: If defiled seeds are rendered clean by being sown in the soil, how much more so if [already] sown and rooted [in the soil]!3 This proves that they do not take effect at all. Now, do not the Rabbis admit the validity of [such] an ad majus conclusion? Surely it was taught: I might think that a man can sell his daughter when a na'arah:4 — But you can argue a minori: if she who was already sold goes free,5 is it not logical that if not sold yet, she cannot be sold [now]!6 To Part b Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Surely not. Since they compare it to the prior immersion of a utensil to render it clean after it has become defiled. That they certainly cannot be defiled. Thus also vows: if a vow can be annulled when already in force, surely the annulment can operate to prevent it from coming into force! The reference is to Ex. XXI, 7. On attaining the na'arah stage. V. Kid. 4a. This reasoning is exactly analogous to R. Eliezer's. The Talmud interposes that no verse is required. Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference ### Nedarim 76b — Yes: elsewhere they do draw an ad majus conclusion, but here it is different, because Scripture writes, Her husband may confirm it, and her husband may annul it:1 [teaching], that which has entered the category of confirmation, has entered the category of annulment; but that which has not entered the category of confirmation, has not entered the category of annulment. MISHNAH. [THE PERIOD ALLOWED FOR] THE ANNULMENT OF VOWS IS THE WHOLE DAY:2 THIS MAY RESULT IN GREATER STRINGENCY OR GREATER LENIENCY.3 THUS, IF SHE VOWED ON THE NIGHT OF THE SABBATH, HE CAN ANNUL ON THE NIGHT OF THE SABBATH AND ON THE SABBATH DAY UNTIL NIGHTFALL. IF SHE VOWED JUST BEFORE NIGHTFALL,4 HE CAN ANNUL ONLY UNTIL NIGHTFALL: FOR IF NIGHT FELL AND HE HAD NOT ANNULLED IT, HE CAN NO LONGER ANNUL IT. GEMARA. It was taught: [The period allowed for] the annulment of vows is the whole day. R. Jose son of R. Judah and R. Eliezer son of R. Simeon maintained: Twenty-four hours.5 What is the reason of the first Tanna? — Scripture saith, [But if her husband disallowed her] on the day that he heard it.6 And what is the reason of the Rabbis? — Because it is written, [But if her husband altogether holds his peace at her] from day to day.7 But on the view of the first Tanna, surely it is written, 'from day to day'? — That is necessary. For were [only] 'on the day that he heard it' [written], I would say, only by day,8 but not by night; therefore it is written, 'from day to day'.9 Now, according to him who cites 'from day to day', is it not written, 'on the day that he heard it'? — That is necessary. For were only 'from day to day' written, I would think that he can annul her vows from [e.g.,] the first day of one week to the first day of the following;10 therefore it is written, 'on the day that he heard it'. R. Simon b. Pazzi said in the name of R. Joshua b. Levi: The halachah is not in accordance with that pair.11 Levi wished to give a practical decision in accordance with these Tannaim; whereupon Rab said to him, Thus said my dear relative,12 The halachah is not in accordance with that pair. Hiyya b. Rab used to shoot arrows and at the same time examine [a person] desirous of absolution;13 Rabbah b. R. Huna would [repeatedly] sit down and stand up.14 - To Next Folio - Original footnotes renumbered. See Structure of the Talmud Files Num. XXX, 14. In which the husband or father learns of the vow. 'Stringency' and 'leniency' are not quite relevant in this connection, the meaning being that by thus fixing a calendar day, i.e., a night and a day, the period for annulment may be shorter or longer, as the case might be. At the close of the Sabbath. Lit., 'from time to time', from the hour the vow is made until the same hour the following day. Num. XXX, 9. By 'day' a calendar day is understood: V. n. 6. Num. XXX. 15: v. p. 239, n. 8: the same is implied in 'from day to day.' I.e., he can annul the vow. Which naturally includes the night. So interpreting the phrase. Viz., R. Jose b. R. Judah and R. Eliezer b. R. Simeon. Sc. Hiyya b. Rab, his uncle. Hiyya b. Rab just having been mentioned, another thing is stated about him, viz., that he took absolution very lightly, granting it even whilst engaged in other pursuits. In the earnestness of his examination, he could not keep in his place. [Cf. supra 23a. Ran: 'would keep seated or standing', not taking the matter too seriously.] Tractate List / Glossary / / Bible Reference |  |  |