Torah Community Connections

Week 73 - Friday - 20 April 2001

NEDARIM: CHAPTER 11: MISHNAH 8

If a person is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit concerning his son-in-law, and he wants to give money to his daughter, he may say to her, "This money is given you as a gift, provided that your husband will not have rights over it, only what you take and place in your mouth."

Kehati

This mishnah does not deal with the issues of this chapter; but with one who is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from his fellow. We have already learned (4:3, above) that if a person is prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from his fellow, the other may give food to his wife, and this does not constitute prohibited benefit. He may give her, however, only food, but not money, for the husband acquires the money by the law of usufruct from the property of his wife. This mishnah discusses one who is prohibited by a vow and wants to give money to the wife of the person prohibited by a vow, when the donor is her father. The mishnah teaches how he may give her the money, without this gift constituting benefit which is prohibited to the person prohibited by a vow.

If a person is prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit concerning his son-in-law [me-hatano] - Tosefot Yom Tov reads this as me-hotano, from his father-in-law; the version in the mishnah in the Gemara text reads, "If a person prohibits by vow benefit to his son-in-law," while another version reads, "If a person prohibits by vow his son-in-law from deriving benefit from him" (Tosafot, Kidd. 23b); in any event, it means that the son-in-law is prohibited by vow from deriving benefit, and he - the father-in-law (the person prohibiting by vow), wants to give money to his daughter - who is the wife of the person prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit, he may say to her, "This money is given you as a gift, provided that your husband will not have rights over it - i.e., he gives her the money as a gift on condition that her husband (the person who is prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from him) will not have rights to this money; and he adds in his words: only what you take and place in your mouth" - this gift will be hers only for what she puts in her mouth, i.e., from that time she will eat the food which she will purchase with this money.

The Gemara explains that this mishnah is according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, who holds that "the hand of the wife is as the hand of her husband" - the wife cannot acquire property without her husband having rights over it; therefore the first condition made by the person prohibited by vow "provided that your husband will not have rights over it," is not sufficient, and he must add "only what you place in your mouth" or according to another version, "only what you place in (or "into") your mouth."

NEDARIM: CHAPTER 11: MISHNAH 9

"But the vow of a widow or of a divorced woman... shall stand against her" (Num. 30:10), how so? If she said, "I will be a Nazirite after thirty days" - although she married within thirty days, he may not revoke. If she took a vow and she was under the authority of the husband - he may revoke. How so? If she said, "I will be a Nazirite after thirty" - although she became widowed or was divorced within the thirty, it is revoked. If she took a vow on the same day, was divorced on the same day, he took her back on the same day - he may not revoke. This is the general rule: if she entered her own authority for one hour, he may not revoke.

Kehati

The verse, "But the vow of a widow or a divorced woman, with whatever she bound her soul, shall stand against her" (Num. 30:10) cannot be interpreted literally, for if it is quite clear that since she is neither under the authority of a father nor a husband, her vows undoubtedly are confirmed, and there was no need for the verse to state this. Hence our mishnah teaches that this verse teaches that if the widow or the divorced woman married while her vows are binding upon her, and even if they only take effect after she married, when she was already under the authority of her husband, since she took the vows before she entered his domain, the husband may not revoke them, for the husband may not revoke prior vows, as we already mentioned (10:3, above). If, however, a woman took a vow when she was under the authority of the husband, even if her vows only take effect after she left her husband's authority (when she becomes a widow or is divorced), if the husband revoked them (on the day he heard them) while she is under his authority, then they are revoked, for regarding the revocation of vows, the decisive factor is the time of the vow, and not the time the vow takes effect, regardless of whether this is stringent or lenient.

"But the vow of a widow or of a divorced woman ... shall stand against her" (Num. 30:10), how so - regarding what matter did the Torah have to teach us that the vows of a widow and a divorced woman are confirmed? If she - the widow or the divorced woman, said, "I will be a Nazirite after thirty days" -she accepted upon herself to become a Nazirite thirty days after the day she took her vow, although she married within thirty days - and as a result the vow takes effect when she is under the authority of her husband, he - the husband, may not revoke - this vow of hers, for at the time she took the vow she was not under his authority, and the husband may not revoke prior vows.

But - If she - the wife, took a vow and - when - she was under the authority of the husband, he may revoke - her vow; even if the vow takes effect only after she leaves his authority, his revocation is valid.

How so? If she said, "I will be a Nazirite after thirty - days," and her husband revoked her vow, although she became widowed or was divorced within the thirty - days, and the vow took effect when she already was under her own authority, it is revoked - for she was under his authority at the time she took her vow and he revoked her vow.

If she took a vow on the same day - that she married, and - was divorced - by her husband - on the same day, and - he took her back on the same day, he may not revoke - although she had taken the vow when she was under his authority, at the time of the first marriage, and the day of his hearing had not yet passed, nevertheless, since she was divorced after she took the vow, and she left his domain before the revocation, the husband may no longer revoke.

This is the general rule: if she entered her own authority for one hour - by divorce, he may not revoke - for the husband may not annul prior vows. The Gemara explains that "This is the general rule" includes if the father gave over his daughter to the agents of the husband (i.e., the groom), and she took a vow, was divorced, and once again became betrothed on the same day, her vow may not be revoked, neither by the father nor by the husband: since the father gave her over to the agents of the husband, the father no longer has authority over her, and since she was divorced between the vow and the revocation, the husband may not annul prior vows.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives