March 27, 2012 4:33 am at 4:33 am #602667
What is the logic of the legal basis that a husband can halachicly nullify a vow or promise made by his wife?March 27, 2012 4:49 am at 4:49 am #863876
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.March 27, 2012 5:02 am at 5:02 am #863877
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.March 27, 2012 11:23 am at 11:23 am #863879
Cuz its a possuk in the torah.March 27, 2012 1:38 pm at 1:38 pm #863880
Amar R’ Pinchas, kol hanoderes al daas baalah hi noderes.March 27, 2012 1:52 pm at 1:52 pm #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 DinMarch 27, 2012 2:11 pm at 2:11 pm #863882
Toi’s correct. That’s the legal bases.March 27, 2012 2:16 pm at 2:16 pm #863883
So if someone promises something, if her husband doesn’t like it he can declare her promise null and void?March 27, 2012 2:30 pm at 2:30 pm #863884
Dontknowitall: I think a father can revoke anything. A husband has limits. I think. I could definitely be wrong on this though.March 27, 2012 2:41 pm at 2:41 pm #863885
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.March 27, 2012 2:41 pm at 2:41 pm #863886
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.March 27, 2012 8:28 pm at 8:28 pm #863887
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?March 27, 2012 10:24 pm at 10:24 pm #863888
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)March 27, 2012 10:59 pm at 10:59 pm #863889
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.March 27, 2012 11:12 pm at 11:12 pm #863890
HaLeiVi: Because those cases are not a Chazara. That’s Mochiach Sofo Al Tchilaso what he had meant to say.March 28, 2012 12:05 am at 12:05 am #863891
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.March 28, 2012 12:54 am at 12:54 am #863892
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.March 28, 2012 12:58 am at 12:58 am #863893
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.March 28, 2012 1:12 am at 1:12 am #863894
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.March 28, 2012 5:22 am at 5:22 am #863895
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.March 28, 2012 4:22 pm at 4:22 pm #863896
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.March 28, 2012 5:06 pm at 5:06 pm #863897
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.March 28, 2012 8:40 pm at 8:40 pm #863898
I nullify my wife’s oaths all the time. She just makes more of them..;)March 28, 2012 9:26 pm at 9:26 pm #863899
If your wife signs a contract and the husband doesn’t like it when he hears about it, he can back out??March 28, 2012 10:10 pm at 10:10 pm #863900
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.March 28, 2012 11:51 pm at 11:51 pm #863901
Can the baal be mevatel the nidrei hekdash of the wife?March 29, 2012 2:16 am at 2:16 am #863902
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.March 29, 2012 2:29 am at 2:29 am #863903
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.March 29, 2012 2:40 am at 2:40 am #863904
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?March 29, 2012 2:58 am at 2:58 am #863905
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.March 29, 2012 4:19 am at 4:19 am #863907
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?March 29, 2012 4:56 am at 4:56 am #863908
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.March 29, 2012 7:11 pm at 7:11 pm #863909
“she can probably be Mekadesh”
I am sure you meant MakdishMarch 29, 2012 10:58 pm at 10:58 pm #863910
Nitpicker: Yes. I meant Makdish.March 30, 2012 2:18 am at 2:18 am #863911
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?March 30, 2012 5:17 am at 5:17 am #863912
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.March 30, 2012 12:33 pm at 12:33 pm #863913
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?March 30, 2012 2:14 pm at 2:14 pm #863914
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.March 30, 2012 2:51 pm at 2:51 pm #863915
Thank you, Sam. Do you perchance know specifically which halacha describes the law you just described?March 30, 2012 3:44 pm at 3:44 pm #863916
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.March 31, 2012 12:13 am at 12:13 am #863917
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.April 1, 2012 1:25 am at 1:25 am #863918
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.April 1, 2012 3:27 am at 3:27 am #863919
thats what i said.April 1, 2012 4:02 am at 4:02 am #863920
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.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.