Nedarim 70b — the Talmud in English

And

juxtaposes

the verse

the vows preceding the second betrothal to the vows preceding the first betrothal [

the vows that preceded the second betrothal were juxtaposed with the vows that preceded the first betrothal].

What

the vows that are

preceding the first betrothal—

the father annuls

them

by himself,

for she vowed them while she was still not betrothed—

so too

the vows that are

preceding the second betrothal—

the father annuls by himself.

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

And we object:

And say: these words—

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

vows that

she vowed after the death of the husband, and

were not seen by the betrothed

during his lifetime. For these vows resemble the vows preceding the first betrothal, which were not seen by the betrothed at all.

But vows that

she vowed while she was still betrothed, and

were seen by the betrothed

during his lifetime,

the father cannot annul,

the father cannot return and annul by himself.

And we resolve:

It cannot be said so. For

if,

if the verse refers

to vows that were not seen by the betrothed,

then this is derived from the verse

“In her youth, in her father’s house, is derived!”

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

And necessarily, the verse “And if she shall be married to a man” refers also to vows that she vowed during her husband’s lifetime.

We learned in the Mishna:

In this, the authority of the father is greater than the authority of the husband.

In another matter, the authority of the husband is greater than the authority of the father—for the husband annuls upon her attaining adulthood, while the father does not annul upon her attaining adulthood.

And we inquire concerning it:

What are the circumstances

in which the husband annuls upon her attaining adulthood?

If you say,

in a case

where he betrothed her when she was a minor, and she attained adulthood

during the period of betrothal, and this is the law that the husband annuls upon her attaining adulthood.

It cannot be explained so. For—

Now, since

it is so,

the death

of the father

removes

the daughter

from the authority

of the

father,

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

And

also

the attainment of adulthood

by the minor girl

removes

the daughter

from the authority

of the

father,

as it is written, “In her youth, in her father’s house.” In her youth, but not in her adulthood.

And the two laws should be compared:

Just as

with the

death

of the father

the authority was not emptied

of the father

for the husband—

so too

with

the attainment of adulthood

by the minor girl, it is said that

the authority was not emptied

of the father

for the husband,

and the husband cannot annul by himself after she has attained adulthood.

Rather,

it must be explained in another matter.

Where he betrothed her when she was already an adult,

and the time that the Sages established for her to marry arrived. And the Sages enacted 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 provide it after the marriage. And since this time is considered like the time after marriage, the husband can then annul by himself .

And we object:

But we already learned

this law

once, below—

for we learned on folio 73b:

An adult woman who remained twelve months

after she became betrothed [and this is the time that the Sages established for her to marry]—

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

And since we learned this law of an adult woman after the time of marriage in the Mishna below, why did the tan(n)ai need to state this also in our Mishna?

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

This itself is difficult:

You said: An adult woman who remained twelve months.

With an adult woman—

why do I need

a period of

twelve months

in order for her to marry?

But

with an adult woman—

thirty days suffice,

that is sufficient for her! Since, with an adult woman, the Sages established only thirty days for her marriage period!?

Rather,

teach

it is necessary to amend the reading of the Mishna as follows:

An adult woman, and

a minor girl

who remained twelve months.

Indeed, with an adult woman, already after thirty days the husband can annul.

And now the Gemara returns to the previous objection:

In any event, it is difficult

why the tan(n)ai needed to state this law of an adult woman. After all, this law was taught in the Mishna below.

And the Gemara answers with two answers:

If you wish, say: here specifically,

the principal novelty is here, in our Mishna,

and the adult woman

that

is taught there,

in the Mishna below, is incidental,

because he needed to state the dispute,

to explain the dispute of

Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis

there, he also mentioned the period of the adult woman.

If you wish, say [

and it is possible to say]:

that

the adult woman specifically [

for the principal novelty of this law is below, in the Mishna of the adult woman], and in our Mishna this law was written because

since he took up this at the beginning, he also took up this at the end [

since the tan(n)ai wrote at the beginning, “In this, the authority of the father is greater than the authority of the husband,” he also wrote that with an adult woman the authority of the husband is greater than the authority of the father]: