Nedarim 70b (ע:) — the Talmud in English

And

juxtaposes

the verse

the vows preceding the second betrothal with the vows preceding the first betrothal

The vows that preceded the second betrothal were compared to the vows that preceded the first betrothal].

Just as

the vows that are

prior to the first betrothal—

the father may annul

them

alone,

since she made those vows while she was still unbetrothed—

so too

the vows that are

prior to the second betrothal—

the father may annul them alone.

We thus learn that after the husband’s death she returns to her father’s authority, and the father can annul the vows by himself.

And we challenge this:

But perhaps these matters apply only—

perhaps we should say that this verse, which teaches that the father can return and annul the vows after the husband’s death, refers only to

vows that

she made after the husband’s death, and

which were not brought to the husband’s attention

during his lifetime. For these vows resemble the vows preceding the first betrothal, which were not brought to the husband’s attention at all.

But vows that

she made while she was still betrothed, and

which were brought to the husband’s attention

during his lifetime,

the father cannot annul

them; the father cannot return and annul them by himself.

And we answer:

This cannot be said. For

if

the verse refers

to vows that were not brought to the husband’s attention,

then this can be derived from the verse

“During her youth, in her father’s house”!

From there it can be learned that throughout her youth, when she is neither married nor betrothed, she is under her father’s authority, and her father annuls her vows.

It is therefore necessary to say that the verse “And if she shall be married to a man” also refers to vows that she made during her husband’s lifetime.

We learned in the Mishna:

In this regard, the father’s authority is greater than the husband’s authority.

In another matter, the husband’s authority is greater than the father’s authority: The husband can annul vows when she reaches bogeret status, whereas the father cannot annul vows when she reaches bogeret status.

And we inquire:

What are the circumstances

in which the husband can annul vows when she reaches bogeret status?

If you say

that this is a case

where he betrothed her when she was a na'ara, and she reached bogeret status

during the period of betrothal, and this is the law that the husband can annul vows when she reaches bogeret status—

this cannot be the explanation. For—

Since

indeed,

the death

of the father

removes

the daughter

from the authority

of the

father,

for once the father dies, his authority over his daughter lapses, and he cannot bequeath it to his sons.

And

likewise,

reaching bogeret status

by the girl

removes

the daughter

from the authority

of the

father,

as it is written: “During her youth, in her father’s house”—during her youth, but not once she has reached bogeret status.

The two laws should be compared:

Just as

with the

death

of the father,

the authority was not transferred

from the father

to the husband—

so too,

with

reaching bogeret status

by the girl, it is said that

the authority was not transferred

from the father

to the husband,

and the husband cannot annul the vows by himself after she reaches bogeret status.

Rather,

it must be explained in another manner.

Where he betrothed her when she had already reached bogeret status,

and the time that the Sages established for her marriage arrived. The Sages instituted that if the husband delayed and did not marry her at the appointed time, he is obligated to provide her sustenance, just as he is obligated to do so after the marriage. And since this time is considered like the period after marriage, the husband can then annul the vows by himself .

And we challenge this:

But we already learned

this law

once before, below—

as we learned on folio 73b:

A woman who has reached bogeret status and remained twelve months

after she became betrothed [this is the period that the Sages established for her marriage]—

Rabbi Eliezer says: Since her husband is obligated to provide her sustenance, he can annul the vows by himself, without the father’s partnership.

And since we learned this law concerning a woman who has reached bogeret status after the time for marriage in the Mishna below, why was it necessary for the tanna to state it in our Mishna as well?

And since this Mishna was brought here, the Gemara explains this Mishna:

This itself is difficult:

You said: “A woman who has reached bogeret status and remained twelve months.”

In the case of a woman who has reached bogeret status—

why do I need

a period of

twelve months

before she marries?

But

in the case of a woman who has reached bogeret status—

thirty days suffice

for her! Since, in the case of a woman who has reached bogeret status, the Sages established only thirty days as the period before marriage!?

Rather,

teach

the Mishna in this corrected form:

A woman who has reached bogeret status, and

a na'ara

who remained twelve months.

Indeed, in the case of a woman who has reached bogeret status, the husband can annul the vows already after thirty days.

And now the Gemara returns to the previous challenge:

In any event, this remains difficult:

Why was it necessary for the tanna to state this law concerning a woman who has reached bogeret status? This law was already taught in the Mishna below.

The Gemara offers two answers:

If you wish, say: Here it is specifically,

the principal novelty is in our Mishna,

and the woman who has reached bogeret status

that

is taught there

in the Mishna below is mentioned incidentally,

because he needed to distinguish,

to explain the dispute between

Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis

there; he also mentioned the period applicable to a woman who has reached bogeret status.

If you wish, say

[it is possible to say]:

That

the woman who has reached bogeret status specifically

[the principal novelty of this law is in the Mishna below, concerning a woman who has reached bogeret status], and this law was written in our Mishna because

since the tanna stated in the first clause “In this regard,” he also stated the latter clause in this regard

[since the tanna stated in the first clause that in this regard the father’s authority is greater than the husband’s authority, he also stated that in the case of a woman who has reached bogeret status, the husband’s authority is greater than the father’s authority]: