Nedarim 72b — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

It is the way of Torah scholars to annul all her vows for their daughter before she is married to a husband, for then he can no longer annul her vows.

And therefore, when

his daughter was betrothed,

before his daughter had left his possession,

from his authority, before she was married to her husband,

he says to her:

All the vows that you vowed while in my house—

they are annulled!

And likewise

the

husband

acts with regard to the vows of his wife who is betrothed to him,

before she enters his possession,

before he marries her, while she is still betrothed to him,

he says to her: All the vows that you vowed before you entered my possession—

they are annulled.

Once

she enters his possession—he

cannot annul

her previous vows.

Gemara:

Rami bar Hama raised a question:

A husband—

what is [the law]: may he annul without hearing?

Can the husband annul even without hearing the vow?

And the explanation of the uncertainty is:

Is what is written in the verse,

“and her husband hears,”

in

particular, so that if he did not hear, he cannot annul?

Or is it not in particular,

but not in particular, and even if he did not hear, he can annul?

Or is it not in particular, and even if he did not hear, he can annul.

Rava said: ta shma

from our Mishna:

For we learned:

It is the way of Torah scholars

that

before his daughter leaves his possession

(from his authority),

he says to her: All the vows that you vowed while in my house are annulled.

And Rava proves:

But

still

he has not heard

the father has not heard the vow. And it should be proved from here that hearing is not required for annulling the vow.

And the Gemara rejects the proof:

It is when he hears that he annuls—

he cannot annul at this time; rather, when he hears the vow, he will return and annul it.

But the Gemara is astonished at the rejection:

If so, when he has not heard

[before he hears]—

why is it necessary for him to say

that all the vows that she vowed will be annulled? Does he not need to return and annul them after he hears?

And we answer:

This teaches us

our Mishna: that

it is the practice of a Torah scholar to repeatedly say—

that it is the way of a Torah scholar to repeatedly say to his daughter, “All the vows that you vowed will be annulled,” so that the daughter will remember that she vowed and tell him, and then he will be able to annul them.

Ta shma,

a proof

from the latter clause

of our Mishna:

And likewise, before she enters his possession, he says to her:

“All the vows that you vowed before you entered my possession are annulled.”

And it should be proved that the husband can annul even without hearing.

And we reject:

Here too,

the latter clause is speaking of a case

in which he said to her,

the husband:

“When I hear!”

so that the annulment will take effect only when I hear the vow.

And we resolve it from another place.

Ta shma

from that which we learned below [75a]:

One who says to his wife: “All the vows that you will vow until I return from such-and-such a place—they are upheld,”—

he has said nothing.

And if he said: “All the vows that you will vow until I return from such-and-such a place,”

they are annulled—

Rabbi Eliezer says: It is annulled.

And the Gemara proves:

But he has not heard

the husband; so how does the annulment take effect?

And it is proved that hearing is not required.

And we reject:

Here too, he said, “When I hear”—

so that the annulment will take effect when I hear the vow.

And we ask against this:

Why is it necessary

for the husband’s annulment

from now?

Does the annulment not take effect in any event only when he returns and hears the vow? If so, only

when he hears—he should

annul for her.

And we answer:

Because

he holds

the husband

“perhaps I will be occupied”

[perhaps I will be occupied] at

that time,

when I return, and I will not be free to annul her vows; therefore he annuls now, and the annulment will take effect when he hears the vow.

And we resolve it from another place.

Ta shma

from that which was taught [Nazir 12b]:

A husband

who says to the trustee

whom he appointed over his wife:

“All the vows that my wife vows from here

(from today)

until I return from such-and-such a place—

annul them.”

And

the trustee

annulled them for her.

Could it be that

these vows

are annulled?

The verse states: “Her husband shall uphold it, and her husband shall annul it” —

for it is specifically her husband who upholds and annuls her vows, but not his agent,

the words of Rabbi Yoshiyya.

Rabbi Yonatan said to him

to Rabbi Yoshiyya: Behold,

we find throughout the entire Torah

that

a person’s agent is like himself,

and therefore even the annulment of vows is effective through an agent.

And the entire dispute between Rabbi Yonatan and Rabbi Yoshiyya is only according to Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that one can annul before she vows. But according to the Sages, who hold that he cannot annul a vow before she vows it, whatever he himself cannot do, he cannot appoint an agent to do. Ran.

And the Gemara brings proof from this for our uncertainty:

According to Rabbi Yonatan, annulment through an agent is effective.

And even Rabbi Yoshiyya,

who holds that annulment through an agent is not effective,

said

this

only because it is a scriptural decree,

as we derive from the verse

“Her husband shall uphold it, and her husband shall annul it,”

that specifically a husband annuls, but not an agent.

But

without the verse, the law would be

that

for

everyone, a person’s agent is like himself,

and even an agent could annul.

If so, there is proof that it is not necessary to hear the vow. For if we say that hearing is required, then how can the agent annul?

But he has not heard it [the husband has still not heard the vow].

after all, the husband has not yet heard the vow].