If the husband/father ratified the vow by saying, “it will be ratified today,” does that mean he means to nullify it for tomorrow? And if that is in fact the case, can he ratify for the day and then nullify for tomorrow? If that is not possible, as perhaps once ratified, it cannot be nullified, then if he says “It is nullified to you for tomorrow” did that mean ‘I am ratifying it today and nullifying tomorrow’ which is not valid or since he did not use any language of ratification, the nullification works? If it does not work, as it was ratified for the first day, which is the critical day, what if one ratified it only for an hour, would it be assumed that he meant that he was nullifying it after that and if so, would the nullification be able to work in that case as it is still the day he heard the vow? The Gemara tries to answer the last question from a Mishna in Nazir but the answer is rejected. The next Mishna compares the power of the father and fiance/husband when it comes to nullifying vows. If the husband dies, the father exclusively can nullify the vow, but if the father dies, the fiance cannot nullify vows that were made before his death. But when it comes to age, the husband is in a stronger position as he can nullify even once she is a bogeret and the father cannot. From what verse do we learn that the fiance doesn’t get exclusive rights to nullify previous vows if the father dies? From what verse do we learn that the father does get exclusive rights to nullify previous vows if the fiance dies? What exactly is the case the Mishna is referring to where the husband can nullify exclusively if she is a bogeret? It is not a case where he betrothed her when she was not yet a bogeret and then she became a bogeret as the Gemara derives from a logical comparison of laws. But if the case is when he betrothed her when she was already a bogeret, that appears already in an upcoming Mishna? Two possible explanations are brought to explain why both Mishnayot are needed even though they teach the same halakha.
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on his 1st yahrzeit. As an educator, principal of Yeshiva of Flatbush, and community rabbi, he inspired thousands with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah.
Nedarim 70
אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר הָא לָא אֲמַר לַהּ, אֲמַר לַהּ ״מוּפָר לִיכִי לְמָחָר״, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: לִמְחַר לָא מָצֵי מֵיפַר, דְּהָא קַיְּימֵיהּ לְנִדְרַיהּ הַיּוֹם, אוֹ דִלְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּלָא אֲמַר לַהּ ״קַיָּים לִיכִי הַיּוֹם״, כִּי קָאָמַר לַהּ ״מוּפָר לִיכִי לְמָחָר״, מֵהַיּוֹם קָאָמַר.
If you say that since he did not explicitly say to her that the vow is nullified, this means that it remains in force, then if he said to her: It is nullified for you tomorrow, what is the halakha? Do we say that on the following day he cannot nullify it, as he has already ratified the vow today, in that he did not nullify it “on the day that he hears it” (Numbers 30:8)? Or perhaps, since he did not explicitly say to her: It is ratified for you today, then when he says to her: It is nullified for you tomorrow, he is actually saying that the nullification begins from today, so that the vow is nullified.
וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, כֵּיוָן דְּקִיְּימוֹ הַיּוֹם — לִמְחַר כְּמַאן דְּאִיתֵיהּ דָּמֵי, אֲמַר לַהּ ״קַיָּים לִיכִי שָׁעָה״, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כְּמַאן דַּאֲמַר לַהּ ״מוּפָר לִיכִי לְאַחַר שָׁעָה״ דָּמֵי, אוֹ דִלְמָא: הָא לָא אֲמַר לָהּ?
And if you say: Nevertheless, since he ratified it today, as he said that it is nullified only tomorrow, on the following day it is considered already in force and he cannot nullify it, then if he said to her: It is ratified for you for an hour, what is the halakha? Do we say that it is like one who said to her: It is nullified for you after an hour has passed? Or perhaps, since he did not say this to her explicitly, it is not nullified?
אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר הָא לָא אֲמַר לַהּ, מִיהוּ אֲמַר לַהּ, מַאי? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּקִיְּימוֹ קִיְּימוֹ, אוֹ דִלְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּכוּלֵּיהּ יוֹמָא בַּר הֲקָמָה וּבַר הֲפָרָה הוּא, כִּי אָמַר ״מוּפָר לִיכִי לְאַחַר שָׁעָה״ מַהְנֵי?
If you say that since he did not say so to her explicitly, therefore the vow is not nullified after an hour, still, if he explicitly said to her that it is nullified after an hour, what is the halakha? Do we say that since he has ratified this vow, in that he explicitly withheld nullification for an hour, he has ratified it and can no longer nullify it? Or, perhaps since the entire day is valid for ratification and valid for nullification, when he says: It is nullified for you after an hour, it is effective.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״הֲרֵינִי נְזִירָה״, וְשָׁמַע בַּעְלָהּ וְאָמַר ״וַאֲנִי״ — אֵין יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. וְאַמַּאי? נֵימָא ״וַאֲנִי״ דְּאָמַר הוּא עַל נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּהָוֵי נָזִיר, אֲבָל ״הֲרֵינִי נְזִירָה״ דִּילַהּ, דְּשָׁעָה אַחַת קַיְּימָא, לְאַחַר שָׁעָה אִי בָּעֵי — לֵיפַר, אַמַּאי אֵין יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁקִּיְּימוֹ — קִיְּימוֹ? לָא, קָסָבַר: כֹּל ״וַאֲנִי״ — כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר ״קַיָּים לִיכִי לְעוֹלָם״ דָּמֵי.
The Gemara cites a mishna (Nazir 20b) to resolve this last question: Come and hear: If a woman said: I am hereby a nazirite, and her husband heard her vow and said: And I, meaning that he intends to become a nazirite as well, he can no longer nullify his wife’s vow. And why not? Let us say that the words: And I, that he said referred to himself, that he should be a nazirite. But her vow of: I am hereby a nazirite, exists for one hour, i.e., the time until the husband took his own vow based on hers. After an hour, if he wants to nullify it, why can he not nullify it? Is it not because once he has ratified it by basing his vow on hers, even for one hour, he has ratified it permanently and can no longer nullify it? The Gemara rejects this suggestion. No, that is not the explanation. The tanna of that mishna holds that anyone who says the words: And I, in response to his wife’s vow, is like one who says: It is ratified for you forever. All the aforementioned questions are therefore left unresolved.
מַתְנִי׳ מֵת הָאָב — לֹא נִתְרוֹקְנָה רְשׁוּת לַבַּעַל. מֵת הַבַּעַל — נִתְרוֹקְנָה רְשׁוּת לָאָב. בָּזֶה יִפָּה כֹּחַ הָאָב מִכֹּחַ הַבַּעַל.
MISHNA: If the father of a betrothed young woman dies, his authority does not revert to the husband, and the husband cannot nullify the young woman’s vows by himself. However, if the husband dies, his authority reverts to the father, who can now nullify her vows on his own. In this matter, the power of the father is enhanced relative to the power of the husband.
בְּדָבָר אַחֵר יִפָּה כֹּחַ הַבַּעַל מִכֹּחַ הָאָב: שֶׁהַבַּעַל מֵפֵר בִּבְגָר, וְהָאָב אֵינוֹ מֵפֵר בִּבְגָר.
In another matter, the power of the husband is enhanced relative to the power of the father, as the husband nullifies vows during the woman’s adulthood, once they are fully married, whereas the father does not nullify her vows during her adulthood.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא — דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״בִּנְעֻרֶיהָ בֵּית אָבִיהָ״.
GEMARA: What is the reason, i.e., what is the source for the fact that the authority over the young woman’s vows does not revert to the husband if her father dies? The source is that the verse states: “Being in her youth, in her father’s house” (Numbers 30:17). As long as she is a young woman “in her youth,” she is considered to be “in her father’s house” and under his jurisdiction, even if she is betrothed. Even if her father passes away, she is still considered to be in his house, and her betrothed does not assume authority over her vows.
מֵת הַבַּעַל נִתְרוֹקְנָה רְשׁוּת לָאָב מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבָּה: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וְאִם הָיוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ וּנְדָרֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ״ —
The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that if the husband died his authority reverts to the father? Rabba said: We derive it from the fact that the verse states: “And if she be [hayo tihyeh] to a husband, and her vows are upon her” (Numbers 30:7). The phrase hayo tihyeh is a doubled usage of the verb to be. The Gemara understands this as referring to two different instances of being betrothed to a man, e.g., the woman’s first betrothed dies and then she is betrothed to another man.
מַקִּישׁ קוֹדְמֵי הֲוָיָה שְׁנִיָּה לְקוֹדְמֵי הֲוָיָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. מָה קוֹדְמֵי הֲוָיָה רִאשׁוֹנָה — אָב מֵיפַר לְחוֹדֵיהּ, אַף קוֹדְמֵי הֲוָיָה שְׁנִיָּה — אָב מֵיפַר לְחוֹדֵיהּ.
This verse juxtaposes the vows preceding her second instance of being betrothed, i.e., those that she took after her first husband’s death but before her second betrothal, to those vows preceding her first instance of being betrothed. Just as with regard to the vows preceding her first instance of being betrothed, her father nullifies them on his own, so too, with regard to those vows preceding her second instance of being betrothed, her father nullifies them on his own.
אֵימָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּנְדָרִים שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאוּ לָאָרוּס. אֲבָל בִּנְדָרִים שֶׁנִּרְאוּ לָאָרוּס — לָא מָצֵי מֵיפַר אָב!
The Gemara asks: Say that this halakha that the father nullifies vows on his own after the death of the betrothed applies only to vows that were not disclosed to the betrothed, i.e., those that he did not have the opportunity to either ratify or nullify, but with regard to vows that were disclosed to the betrothed, the father cannot nullify them on his own.
אִי בִּנְדָרִים שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאוּ לָאָרוּס — מִ״בִּנְעֻרֶיהָ בֵּית אָבִיהָ״ נָפְקָא.
The Gemara answers: If the verse is referring only to vows that were not disclosed to the betrothed, it would be unnecessary to teach that halakha, as that is derived from the words “being in her youth, in her father’s house” (Numbers 30:17). As long as the young woman is in her father’s house, even after the death of her betrothed, her father has the authority to nullify her vows.
בָּזֶה יִפָּה כֹּחַ הָאָב מִכֹּחַ הַבַּעַל כּוּ׳. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי?
§ The mishna states: In this matter, the power of the father is enhanced relative to the power of the husband. In another matter, the power of the husband is enhanced relative to the power of the father, as the husband nullifies vows during the woman’s adulthood, whereas the father does not nullify vows during her adulthood. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances under which a husband can nullify his adult wife’s vows?
אִילֵּימָא שֶׁקִּידְּשָׁהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא נַעֲרָה, וּבָגְרָה. מִכְּדֵי מִיתָה מוֹצִיאָה, וּבַגְרוּת מוֹצִיאָה מֵרְשׁוּת אָב. מָה מִיתָה — לֹא נִתְרוֹקְנָה רְשׁוּת לַבַּעַל, אַף בַּגְרוּת — לֹא נִתְרוֹקְנָה רְשׁוּת לַבַּעַל!
If we say that the mishna is referring to a case where he betrothed her when she was a young woman, and she took a vow, and then she reached majority, that cannot be the halakha: After all, both the death of her father removes her from the father’s authority and attaining her majority removes her from the father’s authority, so the halakha in the two cases should be the same. Just as with the death of the father, his authority does not revert to the husband and the woman’s betrothed cannot nullify her vows on his own, so too, upon attaining majority the authority the father possessed when she was a young woman does not revert to the husband.
אֶלָּא שֶׁקִּידְּשָׁהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא בּוֹגֶרֶת — הָא תְּנֵינָא חֲדָא זִימְנָא: הַבּוֹגֶרֶת שֶׁשָּׁהֲתָה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ?
Rather, it is referring to a case in which he betrothed her when she was a grown woman, and then she took a vow. The Gemara asks: Didn’t we already learn that on another occasion, in a later mishna that states (73b): With regard to a grown woman who waited twelve months after her betrothal and then requested that her betrothed marry her, Rabbi Eliezer says: Since her husband is already obligated to provide for her sustenance, as he is obligated to have married her by then, he can nullify her vows by himself, as if he were fully married to her.
הָא גוּפָא קַשְׁיָא: אָמְרַתְּ הַבּוֹגֶרֶת שֶׁשָּׁהֲתָה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, בְּבוֹגֶרֶת לְמָה לִי שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ? בּוֹגֶרֶת בִּשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם סַגִּי לַהּ! תָּנֵי: בּוֹגֶרֶת, וְשֶׁשָּׁהֲתָה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ.
The Gemara explains the cited mishna: This cited mishna is itself difficult: You said that a grown woman who waited twelve months is entitled to support. With regard to a grown woman, why do I need a twelve-month waiting period before her betrothed is obligated to marry her? For a grown woman, thirty days suffice for her to prepare what she needs for her marriage after she is betrothed. The Gemara answers: The mishna should be revised. Teach the mishna: A grown woman who waited thirty days and a young woman who waited twelve months.
מִכׇּל מָקוֹם קַשְׁיָא! אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָכָא דַּוְקָא, וּבוֹגֶרֶת קָתָנֵי הָתָם מִשּׁוּם דְּבָעֵי אִיפְּלוֹגֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara returns to the question: In any case, the fact that the mishna here teaches a halakha that is addressed in a different mishna is difficult. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the mishna here is actually the primary source of this halakha, and the reference to a grown woman is taught there because it wants to present how Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בּוֹגֶרֶת דַּוְקָא. וְאַיְּידֵי דְּנָסֵיב רֵישָׁא ״בָּזֶה״ — נָסֵיב סֵיפָא נָמֵי ״בָּזֶה״.
Alternatively, if you wish, say that the mishna that begins: A grown woman, is actually the source for this halakha. The mishna here repeats the halakha incidentally, since it needs to cite the first clause: In this matter the power of the father is enhanced relative to the power of the husband, therefore the mishna cites the latter clause as well, by writing: In this other matter, the power of the husband is enhanced relative to the power of the father.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Inspired by Hadran’s first Siyum ha Shas L’Nashim two years ago, I began daf yomi right after for the next cycle. As to this extraordinary journey together with Hadran..as TS Eliot wrote “We must not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we began and to know the place for the first time.
Jerusalem, Israel
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
New York, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Huntington, United States
Nedarim 70
אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר הָא לָא אֲמַר לַהּ, אֲמַר לַהּ ״מוּפָר לִיכִי לְמָחָר״, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: לִמְחַר לָא מָצֵי מֵיפַר, דְּהָא קַיְּימֵיהּ לְנִדְרַיהּ הַיּוֹם, אוֹ דִלְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּלָא אֲמַר לַהּ ״קַיָּים לִיכִי הַיּוֹם״, כִּי קָאָמַר לַהּ ״מוּפָר לִיכִי לְמָחָר״, מֵהַיּוֹם קָאָמַר.
If you say that since he did not explicitly say to her that the vow is nullified, this means that it remains in force, then if he said to her: It is nullified for you tomorrow, what is the halakha? Do we say that on the following day he cannot nullify it, as he has already ratified the vow today, in that he did not nullify it “on the day that he hears it” (Numbers 30:8)? Or perhaps, since he did not explicitly say to her: It is ratified for you today, then when he says to her: It is nullified for you tomorrow, he is actually saying that the nullification begins from today, so that the vow is nullified.
וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר אֲפִילּוּ הָכִי, כֵּיוָן דְּקִיְּימוֹ הַיּוֹם — לִמְחַר כְּמַאן דְּאִיתֵיהּ דָּמֵי, אֲמַר לַהּ ״קַיָּים לִיכִי שָׁעָה״, מַהוּ? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כְּמַאן דַּאֲמַר לַהּ ״מוּפָר לִיכִי לְאַחַר שָׁעָה״ דָּמֵי, אוֹ דִלְמָא: הָא לָא אֲמַר לָהּ?
And if you say: Nevertheless, since he ratified it today, as he said that it is nullified only tomorrow, on the following day it is considered already in force and he cannot nullify it, then if he said to her: It is ratified for you for an hour, what is the halakha? Do we say that it is like one who said to her: It is nullified for you after an hour has passed? Or perhaps, since he did not say this to her explicitly, it is not nullified?
אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר הָא לָא אֲמַר לַהּ, מִיהוּ אֲמַר לַהּ, מַאי? מִי אָמְרִינַן: כֵּיוָן דְּקִיְּימוֹ קִיְּימוֹ, אוֹ דִלְמָא: כֵּיוָן דְּכוּלֵּיהּ יוֹמָא בַּר הֲקָמָה וּבַר הֲפָרָה הוּא, כִּי אָמַר ״מוּפָר לִיכִי לְאַחַר שָׁעָה״ מַהְנֵי?
If you say that since he did not say so to her explicitly, therefore the vow is not nullified after an hour, still, if he explicitly said to her that it is nullified after an hour, what is the halakha? Do we say that since he has ratified this vow, in that he explicitly withheld nullification for an hour, he has ratified it and can no longer nullify it? Or, perhaps since the entire day is valid for ratification and valid for nullification, when he says: It is nullified for you after an hour, it is effective.
תָּא שְׁמַע: ״הֲרֵינִי נְזִירָה״, וְשָׁמַע בַּעְלָהּ וְאָמַר ״וַאֲנִי״ — אֵין יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. וְאַמַּאי? נֵימָא ״וַאֲנִי״ דְּאָמַר הוּא עַל נַפְשֵׁיהּ דְּהָוֵי נָזִיר, אֲבָל ״הֲרֵינִי נְזִירָה״ דִּילַהּ, דְּשָׁעָה אַחַת קַיְּימָא, לְאַחַר שָׁעָה אִי בָּעֵי — לֵיפַר, אַמַּאי אֵין יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר? לָאו מִשּׁוּם דְּכֵיוָן שֶׁקִּיְּימוֹ — קִיְּימוֹ? לָא, קָסָבַר: כֹּל ״וַאֲנִי״ — כְּמַאן דְּאָמַר ״קַיָּים לִיכִי לְעוֹלָם״ דָּמֵי.
The Gemara cites a mishna (Nazir 20b) to resolve this last question: Come and hear: If a woman said: I am hereby a nazirite, and her husband heard her vow and said: And I, meaning that he intends to become a nazirite as well, he can no longer nullify his wife’s vow. And why not? Let us say that the words: And I, that he said referred to himself, that he should be a nazirite. But her vow of: I am hereby a nazirite, exists for one hour, i.e., the time until the husband took his own vow based on hers. After an hour, if he wants to nullify it, why can he not nullify it? Is it not because once he has ratified it by basing his vow on hers, even for one hour, he has ratified it permanently and can no longer nullify it? The Gemara rejects this suggestion. No, that is not the explanation. The tanna of that mishna holds that anyone who says the words: And I, in response to his wife’s vow, is like one who says: It is ratified for you forever. All the aforementioned questions are therefore left unresolved.
מַתְנִי׳ מֵת הָאָב — לֹא נִתְרוֹקְנָה רְשׁוּת לַבַּעַל. מֵת הַבַּעַל — נִתְרוֹקְנָה רְשׁוּת לָאָב. בָּזֶה יִפָּה כֹּחַ הָאָב מִכֹּחַ הַבַּעַל.
MISHNA: If the father of a betrothed young woman dies, his authority does not revert to the husband, and the husband cannot nullify the young woman’s vows by himself. However, if the husband dies, his authority reverts to the father, who can now nullify her vows on his own. In this matter, the power of the father is enhanced relative to the power of the husband.
בְּדָבָר אַחֵר יִפָּה כֹּחַ הַבַּעַל מִכֹּחַ הָאָב: שֶׁהַבַּעַל מֵפֵר בִּבְגָר, וְהָאָב אֵינוֹ מֵפֵר בִּבְגָר.
In another matter, the power of the husband is enhanced relative to the power of the father, as the husband nullifies vows during the woman’s adulthood, once they are fully married, whereas the father does not nullify her vows during her adulthood.
גְּמָ׳ מַאי טַעְמָא — דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״בִּנְעֻרֶיהָ בֵּית אָבִיהָ״.
GEMARA: What is the reason, i.e., what is the source for the fact that the authority over the young woman’s vows does not revert to the husband if her father dies? The source is that the verse states: “Being in her youth, in her father’s house” (Numbers 30:17). As long as she is a young woman “in her youth,” she is considered to be “in her father’s house” and under his jurisdiction, even if she is betrothed. Even if her father passes away, she is still considered to be in his house, and her betrothed does not assume authority over her vows.
מֵת הַבַּעַל נִתְרוֹקְנָה רְשׁוּת לָאָב מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבָּה: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״וְאִם הָיוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ וּנְדָרֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ״ —
The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that if the husband died his authority reverts to the father? Rabba said: We derive it from the fact that the verse states: “And if she be [hayo tihyeh] to a husband, and her vows are upon her” (Numbers 30:7). The phrase hayo tihyeh is a doubled usage of the verb to be. The Gemara understands this as referring to two different instances of being betrothed to a man, e.g., the woman’s first betrothed dies and then she is betrothed to another man.
מַקִּישׁ קוֹדְמֵי הֲוָיָה שְׁנִיָּה לְקוֹדְמֵי הֲוָיָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. מָה קוֹדְמֵי הֲוָיָה רִאשׁוֹנָה — אָב מֵיפַר לְחוֹדֵיהּ, אַף קוֹדְמֵי הֲוָיָה שְׁנִיָּה — אָב מֵיפַר לְחוֹדֵיהּ.
This verse juxtaposes the vows preceding her second instance of being betrothed, i.e., those that she took after her first husband’s death but before her second betrothal, to those vows preceding her first instance of being betrothed. Just as with regard to the vows preceding her first instance of being betrothed, her father nullifies them on his own, so too, with regard to those vows preceding her second instance of being betrothed, her father nullifies them on his own.
אֵימָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי בִּנְדָרִים שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאוּ לָאָרוּס. אֲבָל בִּנְדָרִים שֶׁנִּרְאוּ לָאָרוּס — לָא מָצֵי מֵיפַר אָב!
The Gemara asks: Say that this halakha that the father nullifies vows on his own after the death of the betrothed applies only to vows that were not disclosed to the betrothed, i.e., those that he did not have the opportunity to either ratify or nullify, but with regard to vows that were disclosed to the betrothed, the father cannot nullify them on his own.
אִי בִּנְדָרִים שֶׁלֹּא נִרְאוּ לָאָרוּס — מִ״בִּנְעֻרֶיהָ בֵּית אָבִיהָ״ נָפְקָא.
The Gemara answers: If the verse is referring only to vows that were not disclosed to the betrothed, it would be unnecessary to teach that halakha, as that is derived from the words “being in her youth, in her father’s house” (Numbers 30:17). As long as the young woman is in her father’s house, even after the death of her betrothed, her father has the authority to nullify her vows.
בָּזֶה יִפָּה כֹּחַ הָאָב מִכֹּחַ הַבַּעַל כּוּ׳. הֵיכִי דָּמֵי?
§ The mishna states: In this matter, the power of the father is enhanced relative to the power of the husband. In another matter, the power of the husband is enhanced relative to the power of the father, as the husband nullifies vows during the woman’s adulthood, whereas the father does not nullify vows during her adulthood. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances under which a husband can nullify his adult wife’s vows?
אִילֵּימָא שֶׁקִּידְּשָׁהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא נַעֲרָה, וּבָגְרָה. מִכְּדֵי מִיתָה מוֹצִיאָה, וּבַגְרוּת מוֹצִיאָה מֵרְשׁוּת אָב. מָה מִיתָה — לֹא נִתְרוֹקְנָה רְשׁוּת לַבַּעַל, אַף בַּגְרוּת — לֹא נִתְרוֹקְנָה רְשׁוּת לַבַּעַל!
If we say that the mishna is referring to a case where he betrothed her when she was a young woman, and she took a vow, and then she reached majority, that cannot be the halakha: After all, both the death of her father removes her from the father’s authority and attaining her majority removes her from the father’s authority, so the halakha in the two cases should be the same. Just as with the death of the father, his authority does not revert to the husband and the woman’s betrothed cannot nullify her vows on his own, so too, upon attaining majority the authority the father possessed when she was a young woman does not revert to the husband.
אֶלָּא שֶׁקִּידְּשָׁהּ כְּשֶׁהִיא בּוֹגֶרֶת — הָא תְּנֵינָא חֲדָא זִימְנָא: הַבּוֹגֶרֶת שֶׁשָּׁהֲתָה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ?
Rather, it is referring to a case in which he betrothed her when she was a grown woman, and then she took a vow. The Gemara asks: Didn’t we already learn that on another occasion, in a later mishna that states (73b): With regard to a grown woman who waited twelve months after her betrothal and then requested that her betrothed marry her, Rabbi Eliezer says: Since her husband is already obligated to provide for her sustenance, as he is obligated to have married her by then, he can nullify her vows by himself, as if he were fully married to her.
הָא גוּפָא קַשְׁיָא: אָמְרַתְּ הַבּוֹגֶרֶת שֶׁשָּׁהֲתָה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, בְּבוֹגֶרֶת לְמָה לִי שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ? בּוֹגֶרֶת בִּשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם סַגִּי לַהּ! תָּנֵי: בּוֹגֶרֶת, וְשֶׁשָּׁהֲתָה שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ.
The Gemara explains the cited mishna: This cited mishna is itself difficult: You said that a grown woman who waited twelve months is entitled to support. With regard to a grown woman, why do I need a twelve-month waiting period before her betrothed is obligated to marry her? For a grown woman, thirty days suffice for her to prepare what she needs for her marriage after she is betrothed. The Gemara answers: The mishna should be revised. Teach the mishna: A grown woman who waited thirty days and a young woman who waited twelve months.
מִכׇּל מָקוֹם קַשְׁיָא! אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: הָכָא דַּוְקָא, וּבוֹגֶרֶת קָתָנֵי הָתָם מִשּׁוּם דְּבָעֵי אִיפְּלוֹגֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבָּנַן.
The Gemara returns to the question: In any case, the fact that the mishna here teaches a halakha that is addressed in a different mishna is difficult. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the mishna here is actually the primary source of this halakha, and the reference to a grown woman is taught there because it wants to present how Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: בּוֹגֶרֶת דַּוְקָא. וְאַיְּידֵי דְּנָסֵיב רֵישָׁא ״בָּזֶה״ — נָסֵיב סֵיפָא נָמֵי ״בָּזֶה״.
Alternatively, if you wish, say that the mishna that begins: A grown woman, is actually the source for this halakha. The mishna here repeats the halakha incidentally, since it needs to cite the first clause: In this matter the power of the father is enhanced relative to the power of the husband, therefore the mishna cites the latter clause as well, by writing: In this other matter, the power of the husband is enhanced relative to the power of the father.
