(76a:1)אימא סיפא אמרו לו לר"א אם מטבילין כלי טמא ליטהר יטבילו כלי לכשיטמא ליטהר שמע מינה חיילין
(76a:1)The Gemara rejects this conclusion and refers back to the baraita. Say the latter clause of that baraita: They said to Rabbi Eliezer: If one immerses an impure vessel to purify it, shall one immerse a vessel in advance so that when it will become impure it will then be purified? Learn from this clause of the baraita that according to Rabbi Eliezer, vows nullified preemptively take effect momentarily and are then immediately nullified. The Rabbis’ objection is that according to Rabbi Eliezer, prior immersion should purify an item that momentarily became impure.
(76a:2)אמרי רבנן לא קיימי להון בטעמיה דר"א והכי קאמרי ליה מאי סבירא לך אי סבירא לך דחיילין ובטלין תהוי כלי תיובתך אי לא סבירא לך דחיילין תהוי מקוה תיובתך
(76a:2)The Gemara rejects this conclusion: One could say that the Rabbis could not determine the reasoning of Rabbi Eliezer, and this is what they said to him: What do you hold? If you hold that preemptively nullified vows take effect momentarily and are then nullified, then the example of a vessel will be your refutation, i.e., will serve to refute your opinion. If you do not hold that they take effect, but rather that they do not take effect at all, then the example of a ritual bath will be your refutation.
(76a:3)ת"ש אמר להם ר"א ומה זרעים טמאים כיון שזרען בקרקע טהורין זרועין ועומדים לא כל שכן ש"מ לא חיילין
(76a:3)Come and hear: Rabbi Eliezer said to them: And just as ritually impure seeds, once one has sown them in the ground, become pure, then with regard to those which are already sown and then come into contact with impurity, should they not all the more so be pure? Similarly, vows that have been preemptively nullified should be nullified, since a husband can nullify vows after they have been taken. Learn from this baraita that according to Rabbi Eliezer preemptively nullified vows do not take effect at all, just as seeds that were already sown do not become impure at all.
(76a:4)ורבנן לא דרשי ק"ו והא תניא יכול ימכור אדם את בתו כשהיא נערה אמרת ק"ו מכורה כבר יוצאה אינה מכורה אינו דין שלא תימכר
(76a:4)The Gemara comments: And the Rabbis, do they not teach halakhot based upon an a fortiori inference of this sort? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: Can a person sell his daughter as a maidservant when she is a young woman? You can say an a fortiori inference to show that he cannot: A maidservant who was already sold goes free upon becoming a young woman; with regard to one who has not been sold, is it not logical that she cannot be sold once she already is a young woman? This baraita shows that the Rabbis do utilize similar a fortiori inferences.
(76b:1)אין בעלמא דרשי ק"ו ושאני הכא דאמר קרא (במדבר ל, יד) אישה יקימנו ואישה יפרנו את שבא לכלל הקם בא לכלל הפר את שלא בא לכלל הקם לא בא לכלל הפר
(76b:1)The Gemara answers: Yes, generally they do teach halakhot based upon an a fortiori inference of this type, but here it is different, as the verse states: “Her husband may ratify it, or her husband may nullify it” (Numbers 30:14). The Rabbis interpret this to mean: That which has become eligible for ratification, i.e., a vow that she has already taken, has become eligible for nullification. However, that which has not become eligible for ratification, i.e., a vow she has not yet taken, has not become eligible for nullification.
(76b:2)מתני׳ הפרת נדרים כל היום יש בדבר להקל ולהחמיר
(76b:2)MISHNA: The nullification of vows can be performed all day on the day on which the vow was heard. There is in this matter both a leniency, extending the nullification period, and a stricture, curtailing that period.
(76b:3)כיצד נדרה בלילי שבת יפר בלילי שבת וביום השבת עד שתחשך נדרה עם חשכה מפר עד שלא תחשך שאם חשכה ולא הפר אינו יכול להפר
(76b:3)How so? If a woman took a vow on Shabbat evening, her father or husband can nullify the vow on Shabbat evening, and on Shabbat day until dark. This is an example of extending the nullification period. However, if she took a vow with nightfall approaching, her father or husband can nullify the vow only until nightfall, since, if it became dark and he had not yet nullified her vow, he cannot nullify it anymore. This is an example of a curtailed nullification period.
(76b:4)גמ׳ תניא הפרת נדרים כל היום רבי יוסי בר' יהודה ור"א בר' שמעון אמרו מעת לעת מאי טעמא דתנא קמא אמר קרא (במדבר ל, ו) ביום שמעו
(76b:4)GEMARA: It is taught in a baraita: The nullification of vows can be performed all day on the day on which the vow was heard. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said: A vow can be nullified for a twenty-four-hour period from the time it was heard. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of the first tanna? The Gemara answers: Since the verse states: “But if her husband make them null and void on the day that he hears them” (Numbers 30:13), he derives that the husband can nullify his wife’s vow only until the end of the day on which he hears the vow.
(76b:5)ורבנן מאי טעמייהו דכתיב (במדבר ל, טו) מיום אל יום
(76b:5)The Gemara asks: And with regard to the Rabbis, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, what is their reason? The Gemara answers: It is written: “From day to day” (Numbers 30:15), which indicates that a vow can be nullified from a particular hour on one day until the same hour on the following day.
(76b:6)ולת"ק הא כתיב מיום אל יום איצטריך דאי ביום שמעו הוה אמינא ביממא אין בליליא לא כתיב מיום אל יום
(76b:6)The Gemara asks: And according to the first tanna, isn’t it written: “From day to day”? The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary, as if it had said only “on the day that he hears them,” I would say that during the day, yes, he can nullify vows, but at night he is not able to. Therefore, it is written: “From day to day,” to teach that nullification can be performed even between one day and the next, i.e., night.
(76b:7)ולמ"ד מיום אל יום הא כתיב ביום שמעו איצטריך דאי כתיב מיום אל יום הוה אמינא מחד בשבא לחד בשבא ליפר לה כתיב ביום שמעו
(76b:7)The Gemara asks: And according to the one who said that “from day to day” indicates a twenty-four-hour period for nullification, isn’t it written: “On the day that he hears them?” The Gemara explains here, too: That verse was necessary, as if it had written only “from day to day,” I would say that he can nullify a vow for her until the same day in the following week, i.e., he can nullify her vow during the entire period from one Sunday to the next Sunday. Therefore, it is written: “On the day that he hears them” to teach that nullification is limited to a period of a single day of twenty-four hours.
(76b:8)א"ר שמעון בן פזי אריב"ל אין הלכה כאותו הזוג לוי סבר למיעבד כהני תנאי א"ל רב הכי אמר חביבי אין הלכה כאותו הזוג
(76b:8)Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: The halakha is not in accordance with that pair [zug], Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, who hold that one has an entire twenty-four-hour period to nullify vows. Rather, one can nullify only on that day, as stated in the mishna. The Gemara relates: Levi thought to act in accordance with the opinion of those two tanna’im. Rav said to him: So said my uncle [ḥavivi], Rabbi Ḥiyya: The halakha is not in accordance with that pair.
(76b:9)חייא בר רב שדי גירא ובדיק רבה ב"ר הונא יתיב וקאים
(76b:9)The Gemara relates that when a case of dissolving a vow was brought before Ḥiyya bar Rav, he would shoot an arrow [gira] and examine the vow at the same time. In other words, he would not examine the case in great depth, but would immediately dissolve it. Similarly, Rabba bar Rav Huna would sit to review the vow and stand immediately, without conducting a comprehensive examination.
