Nedarim 73

הכא נמי דאמר ליה לכי שמענא מיפר לה לכי שמע ליפר לה הוא סבר דלמא מטרידנא

The Gemara rejects this conclusion as well: Here too, it is a case in which the husband says to the steward: When I hear the vow, then it will be nullified for her. The Gemara asks: Let him nullify the vows for her when he actually hears them. Why do so earlier? The Gemara answers: He reasons: Perhaps I will be preoccupied at that moment and will forget to nullify them. The questions pertaining to nullification of vows without hearing them is left unresolved.

בעי רמי בר חמא חרש מהו שיפר לאשתו אם תמצא לומר בעל מיפר בלא שמיעה משום דבר מישמע הוא אבל חרש דלאו בר מישמע הוא היינו דרבי זירא

§ Rami bar Ḥama asks: With regard to a deaf man, what is the halakha with regard to his nullifying vows for his wife? If you say that a husband who is not deaf can nullify a vow without hearing it, then perhaps this is because he is capable of hearing. But with regard to a deaf man, who is not capable of hearing, perhaps this is an application of the principle derived from the statement of Rabbi Zeira.

דאמר רבי זירא כל הראוי לבילה אין בילה מעכבת בו וכל שאין ראוי לבילה בילה מעכבת בו

As Rabbi Zeira said: For any amount of flour suitable for mingling with oil in a meal-offering, mingling is not indispensable for it. Even though it is a mitzva to mingle the flour and oil ab initio, if they were not mingled, the meal-offering is still valid. But for any amount of flour not suitable for mingling, mingling is indispensable for it, and such a meal-offering is invalid. The principle is: Ab initio requirements prevent the fulfillment of a mitzva in situations where they are not merely absent but impossible. In this case, the deaf man does not merely not hear the vow, it is impossible for him to do so.

או דלמא ושמע אישה לא מעכב אמר רבא תא שמע ושמע אישה פרט לאשת חרש שמע מינה

Or perhaps the phrase “and her husband hears it” (Numbers 30:8) does not mean that hearing is indispensable to the nullification of a vow, so that even a deaf man can nullify his wife’s vows. Rava said: Come and hear a baraita interpreting that verse: “And her husband hears it”; this excludes the wife of a deaf man. The Gemara concludes: Learn from this baraita that a deaf man cannot nullify his wife’s vows.

איבעיא להו בעל מהו שיפר לשתי נשיו בבת אחת אותה דוקא או לאו דוקא

§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Concerning a husband, what is the halakha with regard to nullifying vows for his two wives simultaneously? Do the words “but if her husband disallows her on the day that he hears it, and he nullifies her vow which is upon her” (Numbers 30:9), stated in the singular, refer specifically to one wife? Or, perhaps it does not refer specifically to one wife, and a husband can nullify the vows of more than one wife simultaneously.

אמר רבינא תא שמע אין משקין שתי סוטות כאחת מפני שלבה גס בחבירתה

Ravina said: Come and hear a baraita: In the sota ritual, performed by women suspected by their husbands of having committed adultery, two sota women are not given to drink the bitter waters as one. This is because the heart of each becomes emboldened [gas] in the presence of the other woman, and if one is guilty she will lack the humility to confess.

רבי יהודה אומר לא מן השם הוא זה אלא משום שנאמר והשקה אותה לבדה

Rabbi Yehuda says: This is not for that reason [lo min hashem hu zeh], but because it is stated: “And he shall make her drink” (Numbers 5:27), which indicates her by herself. Similarly, the words “disallows her” (Numbers 30:9) should be read as referring specifically to a single woman, indicating that a man cannot nullify the vows of two wives simultaneously.

מתני׳ בוגרת ששהתה שנים עשר חדש ואלמנה שלשים יום רבי אליעזר אומר הואיל ובעלה חייב במזונותיה יפר וחכמים אומרים אין הבעל מיפר עד שתכנס לרשותו

mishna With regard to a grown woman who waited twelve months after her betrothal and the time arrived for her betrothed to marry her, or a widow who waited thirty days and the time arrived for her betrothed to 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. But the Rabbis say: The husband does not nullify her vows on his own until she enters his jurisdiction.

גמ׳ אמר רבה רבי אליעזר ומשנה ראשונה אמרו דבר אחד דתנן נותנין לבתולה שנים עשר חדש לפרנס עצמה הגיע שנים עשר חדש אוכלת משלו ואוכלת בתרומה אבל היבם אינו מאכיל בתרומה

GEMARA: Rabba says: Rabbi Eliezer and the initial version of the mishna said the same thing, as we learned in a mishna (Ketubot 57a): A virgin is given twelve months from the time of her betrothal to prepare herself, i.e., to prepare her trousseau. If the end of the twelve-month period arrived, even if he has not married her, she partakes of his food, i.e., he is obligated to provide for her. And if she was betrothed to a priest, she partakes of teruma like a priest’s wife. However, a man, i.e., a priest, whose married brother died childless [yavam], does not enable the woman awaiting levirate marriage to him to partake of teruma until they are actually married.

עשתה ששה חדשים בפני הבעל וששה חדשים בפני היבם ואפילו כולן בפני הבעל חסר יום אחד או כולן בפני היבם חסר יום אחד אינה אוכלת בתרומה זו משנה ראשונה בית דין של אחריהם אמרו אין האשה אוכלת בתרומה עד שתכנס לחופה

If the woman completed six months of awaiting marriage under the aegis of the husband, and he died, and then she completed six months under the aegis of the yavam; or even if she completed all of those months under the aegis of the husband, less one day; or all of them under the aegis of the yavam less one day, she may not partake of teruma. This is the initial version of the mishna. However, a court that convened after them, in a later generation, said: The woman may not partake of teruma until she enters the marriage canopy, thereby finalizing the marriage. Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion that her husband can nullify her vows after the completion of the period allotted after the betrothal follows the initial version, which requires the husband to support her from that point forward.

אמר ליה אביי דלמא לא היא עד כאן לא קא אשמעינן משנה ראשונה אלא למיכל בתרומה דרבנן אבל נדרים דאורייתא אימא לא

Abaye said to him: Perhaps it is not so. The initial version of the mishna teaches us only about the permissibility of her partaking of teruma whose status is by rabbinic law, but with regard to vows, whose prohibitions have the force of Torah law, say that her betrothed cannot nullify them.

ועד כאן לא שמעת ליה לרבי אליעזר אלא גבי נדרים כדרב פנחס משמיה דרבא דאמר כל הנודרת על דעת בעלה היא נודרת אבל תרומה אפילו מדרבנן נמי לא אכלה

And perhaps you did not hear Rabbi Eliezer state his opinion that a betrothed woman is regarded as married only with regard to vows. Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer holds like that which Rav Pineḥas said in the name of Rava, who said: Any woman who takes a vow, takes a vow contingent upon the consent of her husband, since he provides her sustenance. Perhaps Rabbi Eliezer grants her betrothed authority over her vows only because she vows with his consent in mind, since he is now obligated to provide for her. But with regard to teruma, Rabbi Eliezer might hold that even if it is teruma by rabbinic law, she may not partake of it.