Nedarim 70a (ע.) — the Talmud in English

If you should say:

if we say that upholding the vow for today prevents him from annulling it tomorrow, and we also say that the wording does not include an annulment for tomorrow, since

he did not say to her

so explicitly, there is still room for doubt:

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

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

—what is the halakha?

Do we say

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

he cannot annul it tomorrow,

because

he upheld her vow today,

and upholding it for today prevents its annulment tomorrow, since annulment is possible only on that same day?

Or perhaps, since he did not say to her

explicitly, “

It is upheld for you today,”

when he said to her “

It is annulled for you tomorrow,”

his words should be interpreted as meaning that

from today

it shall be annulled,

is what he said.

The Gemara adds another doubt:

And if you should say, even so,

even if we say that his intention was to uphold it for today, and

since he upheld it today

the annulment for tomorrow does not take effect,

because the upholding is considered also

with

regard

to tomorrow—

it is as though it exists,

and prevents the annulment from taking effect.

There is still room for doubt in a case where

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

what is the halakha?

[The Gemara’s doubt here concerns the possibility that upholding for a single hour does not prevent annulment after that hour.]

Do we say

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

it is 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 was annulled after one hour, and that is not included in his wording.

The Gemara raises one doubt 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 was annulled for her after one hour,

however,

there is still room for doubt in a case where he upheld it for this hour and

said to her

explicitly that he would annul it after the hour.

What is the halakha?

Do we say that since he upheld it

during the first hour,

he upheld it,

and the annulment after the hour is ineffective, just as we concluded with regard to annulment for tomorrow?

Or perhaps

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

since the entire day is capable of upholding and capable of annulment [that is, since it is possible to uphold or annul throughout the entire day]; therefore,

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

The reason is that the entire day is the time designated for annulment.

Come and hear

from that which is taught in a beraita in tractate

: A woman who said, “

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

then

he can no longer

the husband

annul

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

The Gemara infers from the beraita:

But why?

Why can the husband not annul her vow of naziriteship after saying, “And I”?

Let us say,

why should we not say that when he said,

“And I,” he said

the husband—

it is

specifically

with regard to himself that he becomes a nazirite.

That is, he accepts naziriteship upon himself for thirty days, as a nazirite ordinarily does.

But

with regard to his saying

“I am a nazirite,” hers,

that is, the woman vowed to be a nazirite,

the husband’s intention was that only

one hour

alone

would be upheld,

and her vow of naziriteship would remain in force, since that hour is sufficient for him to associate his naziriteship with hers, as he said, “And I, like you,” which constitutes association with another’s vow.

And

however,

after the hour—

if he wishes,

he would be able

to annul it!

Why can he not annul it?—

No,

rather, necessarily, the reason he cannot annul it is

because

annulment does not take effect after upholding it for one hour,

since he upheld it

for one hour—

he upheld it!

The Gemara rejects the proof from this beraita:

No!

The tanna of tractate Nazir

holds

that

every

time the husband says, “

And I,”

it is

as though he said,

“

It is upheld for you forever,” is what it is considered.

Therefore, there is no proof from there for our discussion. In our case, he upheld it for only one hour, and it is possible that annulment after the hour is effective.

Mishna:

An betrothed young woman who took a vow, and

her father died—

the father’s authority over the vow is not transferred

to the husband,

and the husband

cannot annul the father’s share.

But if

the husband died—

his authority is transferred to the father,

and the father can annul the husband’s share.

The Mishna concludes:

In

this

the father’s power is greater than the husband’s power.

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

The tanna adds another law:

In another matter, the husband’s power is greater than the father’s power: The husband alone can annul upon her reaching maturity.

The Gemara will explain what is meant by “upon reaching maturity.”

But the father cannot annul upon her reaching maturity.

Gemara:

We raise a question concerning this:

What is the reason

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

the verse says, “

While she is in her youth, in her father’s house”—

This indicates that even when her father has died, she is still considered to be “in her father’s house.” Therefore, the husband cannot annul the vow alone.

We learned in the Mishna:

If the husband died—

authority is transferred to the father.

We raise a question concerning this:

From where do we know

this law?

Rabba said:

For the verse says: “And if she shall be married to a man, and her vows are upon her.” The fact that the verse says “she shall be married,” in the future tense, indicates that the verse is referring to two acts of marriage—that is, she became betrothed a second time, after the death of her first husband.