Torah Community Connections

Week 73 - Wednesday - 18 April 2001

NEDARIM: CHAPTER 11: MISHNAH 4

"Konam my work to Father," and "to your father," and "to my brother," and "to your brother" - he may not revoke. "My work to you" - he does not need to revoke. Rabbi Akiva says, He revokes, lest she do more than is due. Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says, He revokes, lest he divorce her and she will then be prohibited to him.

Kehati

This mishnah continues with the topic of revocation by the husband. It discusses a wife who prohibited her handiwork to her father, or her father-in-law, or other relatives; and similarly, if she prohibited by vow her husband from deriving benefit from her handiwork.

A wife who says to her husband, "Konam my work to Father" - she took a vow that all her handiwork should be prohibited as a sacrifice to her father, i.e., he should be prohibited from eating or deriving benefit from her handiwork, and - or, she said, "Konam my handiwork - to your father" - she prohibited by vow her husband's father from benefiting from her handiwork, and "to my brother" and "to your brother" - or she took such a vow and prohibited her handiwork to her brother or to her husband's brother, he - the husband, may not revoke - these vows, since they contain neither self-denial for the wife nor matters of mutual relationship.

If she said to her husband, "Konam - My work to you" - she took a vow to prohibit her husband from deriving benefit from her handiwork, he does not need to revoke - for her vow is not valid, since her handiwork is obligated to him, and she may not prohibit it to him.

Rabbi Akiva says, He revokes - the husband has to revoke this vow, lest she do more than is due - lest she produce more than the Sages obligated, as it is taught, "And how much is her output? She must spin for him five selas weight of warp in Judea..." (Ket. 5:9), and this excess does not belong to him, and the vow is effective; and the husband may revoke this vow because of mutual relationship, for it is impossible to be precise and not benefit from the excess. The First Tanna, however, contends that also the excess belongs to the husband and she may not prohibit it to him.

Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri says, even regarding the normal handiwork - He revokes - the husband must revoke this vow (Tosafot), lest he divorce her- and the rights of the husband to her handiwork would be terminated, and the vow will then take effect, and she will then be prohibited to him - to remarry him, since her handiwork was prohibited to him, and it is impossible for him to avoid her doing any work which a wife does for her husband (see Ket. 5:5); he therefore must revoke her vow, and his revocation is effective because of mutual relationship.

According to another interpretation, Rabbi Yohanan ben Nuri also disagrees with Rabbi Akiva, and holds that even the excess of her handiwork belongs to her husband; therefore, he does not have to revoke the vow because of the excess, but has to revoke the vow only because of the normal handiwork, lest he divorce her, as we explained (Rabbeinu Nissim, Tiferet Yisrael, et al). The Gemara explains that this refers to a case in which she said, "May my hands be sanctified to their Maker" (i.e., to the Holy One, blessed be He, Who made them). In such a case, the vow will take effect after the divorce, because the hands exist, and consecration can take effect. If' however, she did not say this, then we hold that a person may not consecrate something which does not exist. According to another interpretation, the Gemara does not refer only to the case in which she said, "May my hands be sanctified to their Maker," but if she said, "Konam my handiwork that I work for you," since she mentioned hands, it is as if she had said, "May my hands be sanctified" (see Tosefot Yom Tov). The law is in accordance with Rabbi Yohanan ben Nun.

The reasoning of the Tanna Kamma, who disagrees with R. Yohanan ben Nuri, is interpreted by Rabbeinu Nissim: either because he does not hold that the revocation will be effective when she will be divorced, or because he holds that since the vow itself is not effective now, it will not be effective after the divorce either.

NEDARIM: CHAPTER 11: MISHNAH 5

If his wife made a vow and he thought that his daughter had made a vow; if his daughter made a vow, and he thought that his wife had made a vow; if she took a Nazirite vow, and he thought she had made a vow about Korban; if she made a vow about Korban, and he thought that she had taken a Nazirite vow; if she made a vow from figs, and he thought that she had made a vow from grapes; if she made a vow from grapes, and he thought that she had made a vow from figs - then he must revoke again.

Kehati

There are three components to a vow: the prohibitor, the prohibition, and the prohibited item, i.e., the person prohibiting by vow, the expression of the vow, and the item prohibited by the vow. This mishnah teaches that if the husband erroneously revoked the vow regarding one of these three components, his revocation is not effective, for an erroneous revocation is not valid.

If his wife made a vow and - when he heard the vow, he thought that - it was - his daughter - who - had made the vow - and he revoked the vow for his daughter; or - if his daughter made a vow, and he thought that his wife had made a vow - and he revoked the vow for his wife. This constitutes an error regarding the person taking the vow;

If she took a Nazirite vow - and was prohibited grapes, and he thought she had made a vow about a Korban - i.e., that she prohibited herself from grapes with a regular vow (for the essence of a vow is that a person prohibits to himself something as a sacrifice), and he revoked her vow; or - if she made a vow about Korban, and he thought that she had taken a Nazirite vow - and he revoked her nezirut. This constitutes an error regarding the expression and essence of the vow; if she made a vow - to prohibit herself - from figs, and he thought that she had made a vow from grapes - and he revoked regarding grapes; or - if she made a vow from grapes, and he thought that she had made a vow from figs - and he revoked regarding the figs. This constitutes an error regarding the object prohibited by the vow; then he revokes again - since his revocation was erroneous, and an erroneous revocation is not valid, as it is written, "But if her husband disallows her in the day that he hears it, then he shall revoke her vow" (Num. 30:9), and it is written, "And her father hears her vow" (Num. 30:5), and also, "But if her father disallows her" (Num. 30:6) - implying that the revocation is effective only if the revoker referred to her who took the vow, and knows her vow, i.e., that he is certain who made the vow, how she made the vow, and from what she prohibited herself by the vow. If he revoked erroneously, and later became aware of his error, he must revoke again. And not only if he realizes his error on the same day; but this applies even if he realized his error some time later, for "the day of his hearing" means when he hears the accurate details of the vow (Ritba, Hameiri). Nimukei Yosef explains that the reason why an erroneous revocation is not valid is "because had he known the main points of her vow, he might not have revoked."

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives