Husband Nullifying Wife's Oath

Home Forums Bais Medrash Husband Nullifying Wife's Oath

Viewing 44 posts - 1 through 44 (of 44 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #602667

    farrocks
    Member

    What is the logic of the legal basis that a husband can halachicly nullify a vow or promise made by his wife?

    #863876

    2qwerty
    Participant

    Probably because most vows will mean that she will spend either time or money on it and husband as the baal might not approve of it.

    #863877

    avhaben
    Participant

    He can nullify it as soon as he finds out that she made the shvua. But he has to do it right away. A father can also nullify his unmarried daughter’s shvua.

    They can do it since she is in his reshus.

    #863879

    Toi
    Participant

    Cuz its a possuk in the torah.

    #863880

    midwesterner
    Participant

    Amar R’ Pinchas, kol hanoderes al daas baalah hi noderes.

    #863881

    This is explicitly mentioned in the Torah at the beginning of Parshas mattois as noted by Toi. It is important to note however that a Husband/Father can only nullify oaths uttered by his wife if the oath is something which directly impacts himself ie ???? ????? or if it is an oath which is classified as ???? ????? ???. Anything else does not fall under the remit of a husband’s anullment, but requires the Bittul of a ??? or a Beis Din

    #863882

    yitzchokm
    Participant

    Toi’s correct. That’s the legal bases.

    #863883

    Naysberg
    Member

    So if someone promises something, if her husband doesn’t like it he can declare her promise null and void?

    #863884

    Sam2
    Participant

    Dontknowitall: I think a father can revoke anything. A husband has limits. I think. I could definitely be wrong on this though.

    #863885

    farrocks
    Member

    DKIA: The difference between a beis din annulling it and a husband annulling it, is the beis din annulment is for a) a valid reason b) at her request c) at any time, a husband annulment is for a) any reason b) at his own discretion c) when he first learns of the vow.

    #863886

    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    Toi might actually be incorrect. It is a Svara. The reason the Torah has to say it, says Tosafos in Nidah 46b, is for the concept of Kiyum — that once he says he accepts it, he can’t nullify it anymore.

    Another reason, suggests Tosafos, is that it is really the other way around: Since the Torah says that he can nullify it, therefore she is Noderes AL Daas Baalah. Once this Svara — which is based on the Pasuk — exists, it extends farther than the original Halacha. Even if the marriage is not Mide’oraisa, once she thinks the Halacha applies, it applies.

    #863887

    Toi
    Participant

    speaking of nedarim- can anyone satisfactorally explain the gemara on pay zatin amud aleph in nedarim which touches on the subject of toch kidday dibbur. the gemara is muchach its not a chazaradike’ din, and the pashtus would be that in some form, the maaseh hasnt yet finished, but kiddushin etc. are different because its a chalois, not stam a maaseh. any thoughts?

    #863888

    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    The Ran there suggests that by Kedushin the guy takes his own word more serious, and therefore it is final. Rashi there does seem to imply that there is an inherent difference. Otherwise, the Ran and Rosh express their wonder at the inconsistency.

    I wonder, though, why the Machlokes of Reb Meir and Reb Yosi, regarding Tafus Lashon Rishon or Achron, is not brought up. Also the Machlokes Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel in Nazir. Where does all this come to play? (Now I have how to keep myself busy)

    #863889

    Toi
    Participant

    Halevi- I bavorned the rishonim before- if the gemara shtels tzu kriya to toch kiday dibbur it would be muchach that its not a daasdik’ din.

    #863890

    Sam2
    Participant

    HaLeiVi: Because those cases are not a Chazara. That’s Mochiach Sofo Al Tchilaso what he had meant to say.

    #863891

    snjn
    Member

    mods: Do you not see that farrocks is another name for Joseph? Note the pattern: start a hypothetical topic about a law in the Torah that is not much used today, always on the topic of women being subservient to men. His comments are written as facts, not opinions, and again, always about women and how they are factually and definitely lower. Only Joseph, with all his aliases consistently follows this pattern.

    #863892

    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    Sam, but Reb Meir, that says Adam Nitfas Betchilas Dvaro, holds that the problem is that you want to be Chozer and you can’t. Even his Bar Plugta (hey, what a great screen name!) agrees that you cannot be Chozer. He only explains the words to include the latter.

    #863893

    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    Toi, that’s right. It looks like it has to do with it being considered the same split second rather than a sign of what his real Daas is.

    It’s interesting that the obvious Chiluk is not mentioned. In the case of Kriah and a mistaken Hafara, there is no action against the true and final intention, whereas in Kedushin and Geirushin he wants to undo what he just did. However, it seems that the reason the Rishonim don’t say that is because that would have large ramifications that aren’t necessarily true.

    #863894

    Sam2
    Participant

    HaLeiVi: True. Rav Schachter explained this once. I don’t remember what he said. I think it was in a Shiur 4 or 5 years ago.

    #863895

    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    I just realized what might be Pshat. By the Korban and Nezirus he wants to be Chozer on his Kabala. That can’t be done. Here, on the other hand, he is redirecting his words to another person.

    #863896

    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    A good example is Hilchos Brachos. If you made a Mezonos instead of Ha’etz you can change it Toch K’dei Dibur. But in the case of a Bracha Livatala, if you realized that you shouldn’t have made that Bracha in the first place, you can’t rescind it, even Toch K’dei Dibur.

    #863897

    Sam2
    Participant

    HaLeiVi: That might just be technical though. Toch K’dei Dibbur can change what you said, but it can’t remove it completely. So if you have nothing legitimate to change your Bracha to, then you’re stuck.

    #863898

    more_2
    Member

    I nullify my wife’s oaths all the time. She just makes more of them..;)

    #863899

    sushee
    Member

    If your wife signs a contract and the husband doesn’t like it when he hears about it, he can back out??

    #863900

    HaLeiVi
    Participant

    Exactly, Sam. The same is true in the Nimshal. Once he made himself a Nazir he can’t back off and twist his words to mean a Neder. By Hafara, though, he did it for his wife and switched it to his daughter.

    #863901

    Chacham
    Participant

    Can the baal be mevatel the nidrei hekdash of the wife?

    #863902

    Sam2
    Participant

    Chacham: I feel like no. He can’t get rid of it L’mafreah so if she made something Hekdesh it stays Hekdesh. Mah She’ein Kein by a Hatarah because that is Oker the Neder Lemafreah. This feels too Pashut though. It has to be that a Gemara or Rishon said that first.

    #863903

    Chacham
    Participant

    sam2-I have a simple raya farkert from the ran in the begining of nedarim which says the chilukim between nidrei hekdesh and nidrei issur, but does not mention a chiluk if the husband can be mattir. however, just like you said it seems to simple.

    #863904

    cheftze
    Member

    What chilukim, if any, is there between the nedarim a man can be mevatel from his wife or from his daughter? And does the daughter have to be under 12 or can she be older as long as she isn’t married? And is being mevatel a wife or daughters neder halacha l’maisa bzman hazeh as mentioned in Shulchan Aruch?

    #863905

    nitpicker
    Participant

    to cheftze

    yes there are chilukim between father’s powers and husband’s.

    no a fathers power to nulify does not continue past certain age

    yes this is halacha bizman hazeh

    no, CR isn’t the right place to use in place of lor or seforim.

    yes I have been unspecific. on purpose.

    #863907

    2qwerty
    Participant

    He can’t get rid of it L’mafreah so if she made something Hekdesh it stays Hekdesh.

    I would agree with that but the question is can she even make something Hekdesh without his consent/knowledge?

    #863908

    Sam2
    Participant

    2qwerty: If it’s hers why not? If it’s his she can probably be Mekadesh something small but not something big, but maybe there is what to discuss on that.

    #863909

    nitpicker
    Participant

    “she can probably be Mekadesh”

    I am sure you meant Makdish

    #863910

    Sam2
    Participant

    Nitpicker: Yes. I meant Makdish.

    #863911

    cheftze
    Member

    If someone’s wife signed a 2 year contract for home water delivery, if the husband feels its too expensive or doesn’t like the brand, al pi din he can cancel the contract when he first learns of it?

    #863912

    Sam2
    Participant

    Cheftze: That has nothing to do with a Neder. That has to do with business and it would depend if that’s the type of thing that a woman would sign without her husband’s consent in whatever society/community they’re in.

    #863913

    cheftze
    Member

    Sam2: If its a type of thing that a wife doesn’t generally sign without his consent, what is the halachic basis allowing him to cancel it?

    #863914

    Sam2
    Participant

    Cheftze: In that case, it would have never been Chal (unless the woman had her own money for this) because the Halachah is that a woman can’t make a big business deal without her husband (and “big” is determined by whatever’s normal for the wife to do in this case). Since the woman can’t make the deal, it would be the same as signing a contract with a child or a monkey. It just doesn’t mean anything because the woman has no Reshus over the money she’s making the deal with.

    #863915

    cheftze
    Member

    Thank you, Sam. Do you perchance know specifically which halacha describes the law you just described?

    #863916

    Sam2
    Participant

    Cheftze: It’s a Gemara brought down in Choshen Mishpat. I don’t recall exactly where. Maybe I’ll look for it later when I have time.

    #863917

    Toi
    Participant

    sam2- fakhert- women cant make any deal or transaction at all. the chachamim exempted a case of small value like tzedaka in order to preserve the relationship.

    #863918

    cheftze
    Member

    Toi – I believe a very small value is allowed because she can assume that if it is a very small value he would allow it.

    #863919

    Toi
    Participant

    thats what i said.

    #863920

    Sam2
    Participant

    Toi: Right. I was talking L’Maskana, not how we got there. At the end of the day a large thing doesn’t work and a small thing does. And it’s because we assume he’s not Makpid on her spending a small amount.

Viewing 44 posts - 1 through 44 (of 44 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.