Study Nedarim folio 72A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
תא שמע: אימתי אמרו ״מת הבעל, נתרוקנה רשות לאב״ — בזמן שלא שמע הבעל, או שמע והפר, או שמע ושתק ומת בו ביום. ואי אמרת גירושין כשתיקה דמו, ליתני נמי ״או שמע וגירש״! מדלא תני הכי — שמע מינה גירושין כהקמה דמו.
Come and hear a resolution of the dilemma from the following baraita: When did they say that if the husband died the authority to nullify a young woman’s vows reverts to the father? When the husband did not hear the vow; or he heard the vow and nullified it; or heard it, and was silent, and died on that day. And if you say that divorce is like silence, let the tanna of the baraita also teach with regard to the husband: Or he heard the vow and divorced her. From the fact that he did not teach this case, learn from the baraita that divorce is like ratification.
אימא סיפא: אבל אם שמע וקיים, או שמע ושתק ומת ביום של אחריו — אין יכול להפר. ואי אמרת גירושין כהקמה דמו, ליתני ״ואם שמע וגירש״! אלא מדלא קתני הכי, שמע מינה: גירושין כשתיקה דמו.
The Talmud rejects the proof from the baraita: State the latter clause of the baraita: But if he heard it and ratified it; or he heard it, and was silent, and died on the following day, then the father cannot nullify the vow. But according to this clause, if you say that divorce is like ratification, let the tanna of the baraita also teach: And if he heard the vow and divorced her. Rather, from the fact that the baraita does not teach this, learn from the baraita that divorce is like silence.
אלא מהא ליכא למשמע מיניה. אי רישא דוקא — נסיב סיפא משום רישא. אי סיפא דוקא — נסיב רישא משום סיפא.
Rather, one cannot learn anything from this baraita about the effect of divorce on her vows. The Talmud explains that the discrepancy between the two clauses is stylistic and can be explained either way: If the cases in the first clause are chosen precisely, allowing for the inference that divorce is like ratification, then one must say that the tanna formulates the last clause of the baraita as he does because of the first clause, i.e., in the same style, although it does not add anything. If the cases in the last clause are chosen precisely, allowing for the inference that divorce is like silence, then one must say that the tanna formulates the first clause of the baraita as he does because of the last clause, i.e., in the same style, although it does not add anything.