Nedarim 68a — the Talmud in English

The school of Rabbi Ishmael taught:

the source for the law of the betrothed maiden is from the verse

“between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter.

In her youth, the house of her father.”

And the meaning of the verse is that it is speaking of a betrothed maiden. And from the fact that the verse juxtaposes a father to a husband, one learns—

From here: with regard to a betrothed maiden, her father and her husband nullify her vows.

And we raise an objection:

And according to the school of Rabbi Ishmael,

the verse

“And if she shall be married to a man”—

what does he do with it!?

For Rabbi Ishmael learns the law of the betrothed maiden from “between a man and his wife.” If so, the verse “And if she shall be married to a man” is superfluous!

And we answer: Rabbi Ishmael

establishes it,

sets up the verse “And if she shall be married to a man”—

for the other teaching of Rava [for another exposition that Rava expounds], below, on page 70a, that if the betrothed husband dies, the father alone can nullify her vows.

And we raise an objection:

And

according to

Rava

above, who learns the law of the betrothed maiden from the verse “And if she shall be married to a man,” if so,

this

verse, “between a man and his wife,”

which the school of Rabbi Ishmael taught

in order to learn the law of the betrothed maiden from it—

what does he do with it?

For this verse is superfluous, since the law of the betrothed maiden is already learned from “And if she shall be married to a man”!

And we answer:

It is needed for him

to say that

the husband nullifies

also

vows between him and her.

And not only vows of self-affliction.

For vows of self-affliction are written explicitly in the verse; therefore, the expression “between a man and his wife” comes to teach about nullification of vows between him and her.

It was asked of them—

The Gemara is uncertain regarding the definition of the partnership of the father and the husband in nullifying the vows of a betrothed maiden:

Is the definition that, since a vow of a betrothed maiden can be nullified by two partners, the father and the husband, it is as though the vow was divided from the outset into two parts, and each one of them nullifies his part?

And therefore, when only the betrothed husband nullified his part,

and the father did not nullify, it is as though the

husband cuts [cuts] the vow, and half of the vow that is in the husband’s part is entirely void, whereas its other half, which is in the father’s part, remains as strong as it was at the beginning.

[cuts] the vow: The half of the vow belonging to the husband is completely annulled, while the other half, belonging to the father, remains as strong as it was initially.

Or

the vow is not considered divided into two, but rather it is one entire vow; only the nullification of one of the partners acts upon the vow, so that it

becomes weakened [weakened], the entire vow. And after the husband’s nullification, before the father nullified, this is a “weakened vow.”

And the Gemara explains the uncertainty:

Where does it matter to us

[where is the practical difference] whether the husband cuts or becomes weakened?

For example, she vowed concerning two olives,

that she vowed to derive no benefit from eating food in the measure of two olives [and according to the Ran, two known olives],

and

the betrothed husband heard

her vow,

and nullified it for her,

while the father had still not nullified his part,

and

the woman

ate them,

those two olives from which she had vowed not to derive benefit.

If we say

that the husband

cuts

his part, and only half the vow is void, while its other half was not nullified at all—

she is liable for lashes

[is lashed], since she ate something entirely forbidden by the vow. For there is here half a vow of the measure of an olive that was not nullified. [According to the Rosh. But according to the Ran, there is here one complete olive that was nullified and one complete olive that was not nullified, but it is not known which is the olive that was nullified and which is the olive that was not nullified].

she is liable to lashes

[she is lashed], because she ate something completely forbidden by the vow. For there is here half a vow measuring one olive that was not annulled. [According to the Rosh. According to the Ran, there is one whole olive whose vow was annulled and one whole olive whose vow was not annulled, but it is not known which olive was the one whose vow was annulled and which was the one whose vow was not annulled.]

But

if we say

that the husband

weakens,

then the prohibition of the entire vow has been weakened, and

it is merely a prohibition,

and this is not the complete prohibition of a vow, and she is not liable for lashes for eating the two olives.

Come and hear,

let us resolve the uncertainty from the words of the beraita—

For we learned in the Mishna below, 70a, concerning a betrothed maiden whose father and husband nullify her vows in partnership: if the husband dies, his authority is “emptied out” and passes to the father, and the father can then nullify alone the vows that she vowed while she was betrothed.

But if the father dies, the father’s authority is not “emptied out,” nor does it pass to the husband. And the betrothed husband cannot nullify her vows alone.

And concerning this Mishna we learned in a beraita:

1.

When did they say

that if

the husband dies, his authority is emptied out

of the betrothed husband

to the father,

and the father can nullify alone the vows that she vowed during the period of betrothal? Only

when the husband did not hear

the vow

before he died, or he heard and nullified, or he heard and remained silent and died on the same day that he heard,

before he had time to nullify or uphold it.

And this is what we learned

in the Mishna:

The husband died; the authority of the betrothed husband was emptied out to the father.