- This topic has 43 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
What is the logic of the legal basis that a husband can halachicly nullify a vow or promise made by his wife?
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.
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.
Cuz its a possuk in the torah.
Amar R’ Pinchas, kol hanoderes al daas baalah hi noderes.
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
Toi’s correct. That’s the legal bases.
So if someone promises something, if her husband doesn’t like it he can declare her promise null and void?
Dontknowitall: I think a father can revoke anything. A husband has limits. I think. I could definitely be wrong on this though.
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.
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?
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)
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.
HaLeiVi: Because those cases are not a Chazara. That’s Mochiach Sofo Al Tchilaso what he had meant to say.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I nullify my wife’s oaths all the time. She just makes more of them..;)
If your wife signs a contract and the husband doesn’t like it when he hears about it, he can back out??
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.
Can the baal be mevatel the nidrei hekdash of the wife?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
“she can probably be Mekadesh”
I am sure you meant Makdish
Nitpicker: Yes. I meant Makdish.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Thank you, Sam. Do you perchance know specifically which halacha describes the law you just described?
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.
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.
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.
thats what i said.
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.