Nedarim 70a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara adds another uncertainty: If you should say:

if it is said that his confirmation for today prevents him from having the possibility of annulling tomorrow, and it is also said that the wording of annulment for tomorrow was not included in his words, since

he did not say to her

so explicitly—there is still a question:

If he said to her: “It is annulled for you tomorrow,”

and he did not say, “It is confirmed for you today”

—what is [the ruling]?

Do we say

that his intention was to confirm it for her today, and consequently

he is unable to annul it tomorrow,

because

he thereby confirmed her vow today,

and confirmation for today prevents the possibility of annulment for tomorrow, since the possibility of annulment exists only on that same day?

Or perhaps, since he did not say to her

explicitly, “

It is confirmed for you today,”

when he says to her “

It is annulled for you tomorrow,”

his words are to be interpreted as meaning that

from today

it shall be annulled—

that is what he says.

And the Gemara adds another question:

And if you should say, even so,

even if it is said that his intention was to confirm it for today—and

since he confirmed it today

the annulment for tomorrow does not take effect,

because the confirmation is considered also

for

tomorrow

—

it is considered as though it exists,

and prevents the annulment from taking effect.

There is still a question concerning a case in which he

said to her: “It is confirmed for you for one hour”—

what is [the ruling]?

And the Gemara’s intention in this question is according to the side that confirmation for one hour does not prevent annulment after that hour:

Do we say

that by saying, “It is confirmed for you for one hour,” -

it is considered as though he said to her: “It is annulled for you after

one

hour”?

Or perhaps, he did not say to her

explicitly that it is annulled after one hour, and this is not included in his words.

And the Gemara raises one question upon another:

Even

if you should say

that the wording of annulment is not included in his words, since

he did not say to her

explicitly that it is annulled for her after one hour—

however,

there is still a question concerning a case in which he confirmed it for her for this hour, and

said to her

explicitly that he annuls it after the hour.

What [is the ruling]?

Do we say, since he confirmed it

during the first hour, it is

confirmed.

And the annulment after the hour is ineffective, just as we concluded concerning annulment for tomorrow?

Or perhaps,

the law of annulment after an hour differs from the law of annulment tomorrow,

since the entire day is “fit for confirmation” and “fit for annulment,” [A0066]]for it is possible to confirm or annul throughout that entire day; therefore

when he says, “It is annulled for you after an hour,” it is effective.

Since that entire day is the time for annulment.

Come and hear

from that which is taught in a beraita in tractate [Nazir 20b]:

A woman who said, “

I am a nazirite,” and her husband heard and said, “And I”—

again

he is unable

the husband

to annul

his wife’s vow of naziriteship, because by saying “And I,” he is considered to agree with her naziriteship and join it, and this is confirmation of the naziriteship.

And the Gemara infers from the beraita:

But why?

Why is the husband unable to annul her vow of naziriteship after he said, “And I”?

Let us say,

why should we not say: “

And I,” he said

the husband—

it is

only

with regard to himself that he becomes a nazirite.

For he accepts naziriteship upon himself for thirty days, like a nazirite.

But

with regard to his saying,

“I am a nazirite,” hers,

that the woman vowed to be a nazirite,

the husband’s intention was that only

one hour

alone

is confirmed,

her vow of naziriteship would be confirmed, since that hour is sufficient for him to associate his naziriteship with hers, for he said, “And I, like you,” which is a form of association.

And

however,

after one hour—

if he wishes,

he can

annul it!

Why is he unable to annul it?—

No,

rather, necessarily, the reason that he is unable to annul it is

because

annulment does not take effect after confirmation for one hour,

since he confirmed it

for one hour—

it is confirmed!

And the Gemara rejects the proof from this beraita:

No!

The tannai in tractate Nazir

holds

that

every

place where the husband says

“And I,”

it is

considered as though he said,

as though he had said: “

It is confirmed for you forever,” it is considered.

Therefore there is no proof from there for our discussion. Since in our case he confirmed it for one hour only, it is possible to say that annulment after the hour will be effective.

Mishna:

An engaged young woman who vowed, and

the father died—

the father’s authority was not transferred

over the vow

to the husband,

and the husband cannot annul the father’s portion.

But if

the husband died—

his authority was transferred to the father,

and the father can annul the husband’s portion.

And the Mishna concludes:

In

this

matter the father’s power is superior to the husband’s power.

For the father can annul the husband’s portion after the husband’s death, whereas the husband cannot annul the father’s portion after the father’s death.

And the tannai adds another law:

In another matter the husband’s power is superior to the father’s power: the husband alone annuls when she reaches adulthood.

And in the Gemara it will be explained what is meant by “adulthood.”

And the father does not annul when she reaches adulthood.

Gemara:

And we inquire concerning it:

What is the reason

that if the father died, the authority was not transferred to the husband? And we answer: because

the verse says, “

In her youth, in her father’s house”—

And it implies that even when the father has died, she is still considered to be “in her father’s house.” Therefore the husband cannot annul by himself.

We learned in the Mishna:

the husband died—

the authority was transferred to the father.

And we inquire concerning it:

From where do we know

this law?

Rabba said: For the verse says, “And if she shall surely become a man’s, and her vows are upon her.”

From the fact that Scripture said “she shall surely become,” it implies that the verse is speaking of two acts of becoming. That is, she became betrothed a second time, after the death of her first husband.