The rabbis use much of amud (a) to clarify the rabbis' discussions in daf 78. Ratification is implied through a husband's silence. He is required to speak up that same day, before sunset, if he intends to nullify his wife's vow. Her vow can be dissolved after that day only by a halachic authority and not by her husband. If a husband is often silent, it is assumed that he is ratifying all of his wife's vows. If a husband is silent for any of three reasons: for ratification, with no reason given, or to annoy his wife, his silence is taken to mean that he is ratifying her vows. A halachic authority cannot reinstate a vow after it has been nullified because only a person her/himself can take on a vow. Like in other areas of Jewish law, what we think is not as important as what we do; what we say out loud.
We learn more about refutations in a note by Steinsaltz:
- Eitivei: when an amora objects to the opinion of another amora citing a tannaitic source
- Meitiv: when an amora raises an objection against an unattributed amoraic opinion citing a tannaitic source
- Meitivei: when the Gemara raises an objection citing a tannaitic source
- Teyuveta: when an amoric statement is conclusively refuted because of a tannaitic source that contradicts the amora (this refutation ends the discussion)
Perek XI begins with a new Mishna. It states that a husband can nullify his wife's vows that involve her affliction, like vows where she says, "If I bathe..." or "if I do not bathe..."; "If I adorn myself..." or if I do not adorn myself...". Rabbi Yosei does not consider these examples to be vows of affliction. Instead, he believes that his wife must say something like, "the produce of the entire world is konam for me as if it were an offering". But if she limited her vow to the produce of this country, she is not afflicted for she can eat foods from other countries. Or, for example, if she says "the produce of the is storekeeper is konam for me", he cannot nullify her vow. But if she can only sustain herself through the produce of that storekeeper, her vow can be nullified because she will be afflicted.
We understand that a wife's vows that affect the relationship between a husband and wife are also open to nullification. Formally this refers to hindering sexual relations. However, the rabbis considered this limitation to refer to damaging any part of their relationship. Some rabbis believed that a father is able to nullify his daughter's vows because their relationship is suggested in the reference to the non-sexual relationship between husband and wife. The Rambam believes that only the relationship between husband and wife are at play.
The Sages suggest that a wife's nullified vows that create affliction for her are nullified for all time. However, her nullified vows that created tension between her and her husband are in effect again once she leaves her husband's authority through divorce. The Sages are challenged on this point and then agree that all nullifications are permanent except for those that involve tension between the husband and wife. If her vow does not involve her husband and does not involve her own affliction, the nullification will end when the marriage ends.
Our daf ends with the beginning of a discussion about bathing as part of affliction. Among other points, the rabbis note that refusing to bathe is considered to be causing disfigurement which is a form of affliction. We'll see where this discussion goes.
Again, the ownership of women is a complicated legal arena. Women are people, but like slaves, minors, and those who are disabled in some other way, women's autonomy and authority is not legally recognized. It seems as if the rabbis are more concerned with what will happen to a woman's second husband than what will happen to that woman if her vows are allowed to be honoured.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment