נדרים סח

נדרים סח

דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: ״בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ בֵּין אָב לְבִתּוֹ״, מִכָּאן לְנַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה שֶׁאָבִיהָ וּבַעְלָהּ מְפִירִין נְדָרֶיהָ. וּלְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, ״אִם הָיוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ?

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a different source for the halakha in the mishna: The Torah states with regard to vows: “These are the statutes, which the Lord commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter, being in her youth, in her father’s house” (Numbers 30:17). From here it is derived with regard to a betrothed young woman that her father and her husband nullify her vows. The Gemara asks: And according to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, what does he do with the words “and if she be to a husband” (Numbers 30:7)?

מוֹקֵים לְאִידַּךְ דְּרָבָא. וְרָבָא, הַאי דְּתָנֵי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לוֹמַר שֶׁהַבַּעַל מֵיפֵר נְדָרִים שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ.

The Gemara answers: According to him, he establishes it to teach the other statement of Rava: If her betrothed died without ratifying the vow, her father can nullify it on his own. The Gemara then asks: And Rava, who derives the halakha that the father and the betrothed of the young woman together nullify her vows from the phrase “and if she be to a husband” (Numbers 30:7), what does he do with this verse that the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught as the source for the father and the betrothed nullifying the young woman’s vows? The Gemara answers: He requires that phrase: “Between a man and his wife” (Numbers 30:17), in order to say that the husband can nullify only vows that are between him and her, i.e., vows that negatively impact their marital relationship, but he cannot nullify any other type of vow.

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בַּעַל מִיגָּז גָּיֵיז, אוֹ מִקְלָישׁ קָלֵישׁ? הֵיכָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן: כְּגוֹן דִּנְדַרָה מִתְּרֵין זֵיתִין וּשְׁמַע אָרוּס וְהֵיפֵר לַהּ, וַאֲכַלְתִּנּוּן.

§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a husband nullifies his betrothed’s vow, does he sever his share of the vow or does he weaken the force of the entire vow? The Gemara clarifies: Under which circumstances do we raise the dilemma, i.e., what is the practical difference between these two possibilities? In a case where she vowed not to derive benefit from two olives, and her betrothed heard and nullified the vow for her, and she ate those two olives before her father nullified the vow, there is a practical difference.

אִי אָמְרִינַן מִיגָּז גָּיֵיז — לָקְיָיא. אִי אָמְרִינַן מִקְלָישׁ קָלֵישׁ — אִיסּוּרָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא. מַאי?

If we say that he severs his share of the vow, nullifying half of the prohibition, then one of the olives remains completely forbidden, and she is flogged for violating her vow. If we say that he weakens its force, she is not liable to be flogged, as eating the olives is now merely a prohibition that she has violated. If so, what is the ruling with regard to this question?

תָּא שְׁמַע: אֵימָתַי אָמְרוּ מֵת הַבַּעַל נִתְרוֹקְנָה רְשׁוּת לָאָב — בִּזְמַן שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמַע הַבַּעַל קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּמוּת, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמַע וְשָׁתַק, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמַע וְהֵפֵר וּמֵת בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם. זוֹ הִיא שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: מֵת הַבַּעַל נִתְרוֹקְנָה רְשׁוּת לָאָב.

The Gemara now cites a lengthy baraita, ultimately stating a proof to answer the previous question. Come and hear a baraita that will resolve the dilemma: When did they say that if the husband of a betrothed young woman dies, the authority to nullify her vows reverts to the father, who can then nullify her vows on his own? This occurs in a case when the husband had not heard her vow before he died; or in a case where he heard and was silent; or where he heard and nullified it and died on the same day. This is what we learned in the mishna, concerning a case of this kind (70a): If the husband dies, the authority to nullify vows reverts to the father.

אֲבָל אִם שָׁמַע וְקִיֵּים, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמַע וְשָׁתַק וּמֵת בַּיּוֹם שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו — אֵין יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר.

But if it is a case where the husband of a betrothed young woman heard and ratified the vow, or where he heard, and was silent, and died on the following day, in which case his silence is considered ratification of the vow, then the father cannot nullify the vow.

שָׁמַע אָבִיהָ וְהֵפֵר לָהּ, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק בַּעַל לִשְׁמוֹעַ עַד שֶׁמֵּת הָאָב — זוֹ הִיא שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: מֵת הָאָב, לֹא נִתְרוֹקְנָה רְשׁוּת לַבַּעַל. שָׁמַע בַּעְלָהּ וְהֵפֵר לָהּ, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק הָאָב לִשְׁמוֹעַ עַד שֶׁמֵּת הַבַּעַל — זוֹ הִיא שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: מֵת הַבַּעַל, נִתְרוֹקְנָה רְשׁוּת לָאָב.

If her father heard or was made aware of the vow and nullified it for her but the husband did not manage to hear of the vow before the father died, this is what we learned in the same mishna (70a): If the father dies, the authority over her vows does not revert to the husband, i.e., a young woman’s betrothed cannot nullify her vows alone, without the father. If her husband heard the vow and nullified it for her, and the father did not manage to hear of the vow before the husband died, this is what we learned in the mishna: If the husband dies, the authority reverts to the father.

שָׁמַע בַּעְלָהּ וְהֵפֵר לָהּ, וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק הָאָב לִשְׁמוֹעַ עַד שֶׁמֵּת — אֵין הַבַּעַל יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר, שֶׁאֵין הַבַּעַל מֵיפֵר אֶלָּא בְּשׁוּתָּפוּת.

If her husband heard and nullified the vow for her, and the father did not manage to hear of the vow before he died, the husband cannot nullify it, although she no longer has a father, as the husband can nullify vows only in partnership with the father.