## Gittin Daf 35b

###### Gittin 35b:1
[Gittin 35b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/35b:1)

וְשַׁמְנוּם בַּחֲמִשָּׁה מָנֶה; לִכְשֶׁתָּבֹא לְיֶדְכֶם הַגְבּוּהָ אֶת הַשְּׁאָר״. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: הָהוּא, גֵּט יְבָמִין הֲוָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And we appraised them,** and found that their value **is five hundred dinars. When she comes to you** with this document, **collect the rest** of the payment **for her** from her husband’s property in Babylonia. This demonstrates that it is also sufficient for a divorcée to take a vow. **Rav Ashi said: That** bill of divorce **was a levirate bill of divorce** that she received from the brother of her deceased husband and not a standard bill of divorce. She therefore took a vow, and not an oath, in the manner of all widows, as she was demanding payment of her marriage contract from the property of her deceased husband.


###### Gittin 35b:2
[Gittin 35b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/35b:2)

הִתְקִין רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁתְּהֵא נוֹדֶרֶת כּוּ׳: אָמַר רַב הוּנָא, לֹא שָׁנוּ אֶלָּא בְּשֶׁלֹּא נִיסֵּת, אֲבָל נִיסֵּת – אֵין מַדִּירִין אוֹתָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The mishna taught: **Rabban Gamliel the Elder instituted that she should take,** for the benefit of the orphans, **any vow** that the orphans wished to administer to her. **Rav Huna says: They taught** this *halakha* **only** in a case where **she did not marry** again; **however,** if **she married** again, **they do not administer a vow to her.**


###### Gittin 35b:3
[Gittin 35b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/35b:3)

נִיסֵּת מַאי טַעְמָא – דְּמֵיפַר לַהּ בַּעַל; כִּי לֹא נִיסֵּת נָמֵי, לְכִי מִנַּסְבָא מֵיפַר לַהּ בַּעַל! אֵין הַבַּעַל מֵיפֵר בְּקוֹדְמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises a difficulty: **What is the reason** that a widow who **married** again may not take a vow in order to collect? It is because of a concern that perhaps she is lying and is not concerned about the vow that she took, as she relies on the fact **that her husband will nullify** her vow. If so, **when she is not married** one should **also** be concerned that she may rely on the fact **that when she will marry** again, **her husband will nullify** her vow. The Gemara answers: The *halakha* is that **the husband does not** have the ability **to nullify with regard to** vows his wife took **prior** to their marriage.


###### Gittin 35b:4
[Gittin 35b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/35b:4)

וְנֵיחוּשׁ דִּלְמָא אָזְלָה לְגַבֵּי חָכָם וְשָׁרֵי לַהּ! קָסָבַר צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵט אֶת הַנֶּדֶר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But let us be concerned that perhaps** she in fact received payment of her marriage contract, and she relies on the fact that **she will go to a halakhic authority and he will dissolve** the vow **for her.** The Gemara answers: Rav Huna **holds** that one who wishes to have a vow dissolved **must detail the vow** before the halakhic authority who dissolves it. There is no concern that the halakhic authority, knowing that she vowed in order to collect the payment of the marriage contract, will dissolve it.


###### Gittin 35b:5
[Gittin 35b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/35b:5)

רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ נִיסֵּת. נִיסֵּת, וַדַּאי מֵיפַר לַהּ בַּעַל! דְּמַדְּרִינַן לַהּ בָּרַבִּים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Naḥman** disagreed with Rav Huna and **said: Even** if **she married** again, the orphans can have the court administer a vow to the widow. The Gemara asks: If **she married,** then her **husband will certainly nullify** this vow. The Gemara answers **that we,** the court, **administer the vow in public,** and therefore her husband cannot nullify the vow.


###### Gittin 35b:6
[Gittin 35b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/35b:6)

מֵיתִיבִי: נִיסֵּת – גּוֹבָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ אִם נָדְרָה. מַאי, לָאו נָדְרָה הַשְׁתָּא? לָא, דִּנְדַרָה מֵעִיקָּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Gemara raises an objection** to the opinion of Rav Huna from a *baraita*: In a case where **she married** again, **she collects** payment of **her marriage contract if she has taken a vow. What, is it not** the case that **she takes a vow now,** after she has remarried? The Gemara answers: **No,** it is possible to explain that it is referring to **when she took a vow initially,** before remarrying.


###### Gittin 35b:7
[Gittin 35b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/35b:7)

וְהָתַנְיָא: נִיסֵּת – נוֹדֶרֶת וְגוֹבָה כְּתוּבָּתָהּ! תַּנָּאֵי הִיא, דְּאִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: נֶדֶר שֶׁהוּדַּר בָּרַבִּים – יֵשׁ לוֹ הֲפָרָה; וְאִיכָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: אֵין לוֹ הֲפָרָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara raises another difficulty for Rav Huna: **But isn’t it taught** explicitly in a *baraita*: If **she married** again, **she takes a vow and collects** payment of **her marriage contract.** Here, it is clear that she takes the vow after remarrying. The Gemara answers: **This is** a dispute between ***tanna’im*, as there is one who says: A vow that was taken in public has** the possibility of **nullification** by the husband, and therefore, even if the widow takes the vow in public, her husband can nullify it. As a result, she can collect payment of her marriage contract only if she takes a vow before she remarries. **And there is one who says:** A vow that was taken in public **does not have** the possibility of **nullification.** Therefore, even after the widow remarries, she is still able to take a vow and collect payment, as she takes the vow in public.


###### Gittin 35b:8
[Gittin 35b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/35b:8)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵט אֶת הַנֶּדֶר, אוֹ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ? רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר: אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ; רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר: צָרִיךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ Since Rav Huna’s statement included the fact that one who requests that a halakhic authority dissolve his vow must detail the vow, the Gemara mentions that **a dilemma was raised before** the Sages: Does one who comes to a halakhic authority and requests that he dissolve his vow **need to detail the vow, or does he not need** to do so? **Rav Naḥman says: He does not need** to detail the vow. **Rav Pappa says: He needs** to detail the vow.


###### Gittin 35b:9
[Gittin 35b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/35b:9)

רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ – דְּאִי אָמְרַתְּ צָרִיךְ, זִימְנִין דְּגָיֵיז לֵיהּ לְדִיבּוּרֵיהּ, וְחָכָם מַאי דְּשָׁמַע מֵיפַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains each one’s reasoning: **Rav Naḥman says** that **he does not need** to detail the vow, **as if you say** that **he needs** to do so, **sometimes** the person who took the vow **will cut short his statement** and not provide all of the details of the vow, **and the halakhic authority dissolves** only **what he hears** and does not dissolve the vow in its entirety. Nevertheless, the one who took the vow will act as though the vow has been dissolved entirely. Therefore, it is preferable that he just report that he took a vow, and the halakhic authority will dissolve it entirely, whatever it is.


###### Gittin 35b:10
[Gittin 35b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/35b:10)

רַב פָּפָּא אָמַר צָרִיךְ – מִשּׁוּם מִילְּתָא דְּאִיסּוּרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rav Pappa says** that **he needs** to detail the vow, **because** the vow might concern **a matter that** is **prohibited,** such as the case of the mishna here where it is essential that the vow not be dissolved, as the purpose of the vow is to ensure that the widow will not lie. In such a case, if the halakhic authority is not aware of the circumstances that prompted the widow to take the vow, he could mistakenly dissolve it.


###### Gittin 35b:11
[Gittin 35b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Gittin/r/35b:11)

תְּנַן: הַנּוֹשֵׂא נָשִׁים בַּעֲבֵירָה – פָּסוּל, עַד שֶׁיִּדּוֹר הֲנָאָה. וְתָנֵי עֲלַהּ: נוֹדֵר וְעוֹבֵד, יוֹרֵד וּמְגָרֵשׁ. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְפָרֵט אֶת הַנֶּדֶר, לֵיחוּשׁ דִּילְמָא אָזֵיל לְגַבֵּי חָכָם וְשָׁרֵי לֵיהּ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara attempts to bring a proof that one must detail the vow: **We learned** in a mishna (*Bekhorot* 45b): A priest **who marries women in transgression** of a prohibition is **disqualified** from taking part in the Temple service **until he takes a vow** not to derive **benefit** from his wives, thereby requiring him to divorce them. **And it is taught with regard to this: He takes a vow and** immediately **serves** in the Temple. **He** then **descends** from the service **and divorces** his wives. **And if you say** that **he does not need to detail the vow,** then **let us be concerned lest he go to a halakhic authority and** the halakhic authority **dissolve** the vow **for him.** He would then remain married to the women who are prohibited to him, and serve in the Temple despite being disqualified from doing so.