Nedarim 72b (עב:) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

It is the practice of Torah scholars to annul all her vows for their daughter before she is married, at which point he can no longer annul her vows.

Therefore, when

his daughter was betrothed,

before his daughter left his domain,

his authority, before she married her husband,

he would say to her:

All 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 domain,

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

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

they are annulled.

Once

she enters his domain—

he cannot annul

her earlier vows.

Gemara:

Rami bar Ḥama raised a dilemma:

With regard to a husband—

what is the halakha: Can he annul a vow without hearing it?

Can the husband annul a vow even without hearing the vow?

And the explanation of the dilemma is:

Is what is written in the verse,

“And her husband hears,”

—

specifically required,

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

Or is it not specifically required,

and even if he did not hear it, he can annul it?

Rava said: Come and hear

from our Mishna:

As we learned:

It is the practice of Torah scholars

that

before his daughter left his domain (

his authority),

he would say to her: All vows that you vowed while in my house, they are annulled.

And Rava proves:

But

the father

has not yet heard

the vow. And it may be proved from here that hearing is not required for the annulment of a vow.

The Gemara rejects the proof:

It is when he hears it that he annuls it—

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

But the Gemara is perplexed by this rejection:

If so, when he has not heard it [

before he hears it]—

why must he say

that all the vows she vowed will be annulled? After all, he must return and annul them after he hears them!?

And we answer:

This teaches us

from our Mishna that

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

that it is the practice of a Torah scholar to repeatedly tell his daughter, “All the vows that you vowed will be annulled,” so that the daughter will remember that she made a vow and tell him about it, after which he will be able to annul it.

Come and hear

a proof

from the latter clause

of our Mishna:

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

“All vows that you vowed before you entered my domain, they are annulled.”

And it may be proved that a husband can annul a vow even without hearing it.

And we reject this:

Here too,

the latter clause is referring to a case

where he says to her,

the husband:

“When I hear it!”

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

And we resolve the dilemma from another source.

Come and hear

from that which we learned below [75a]:

If one says to his wife: All vows that you will vow until I return from a certain place, they are affirmed—

he has said nothing.

And if he says: All vows that you will vow until I return from a certain place,

they are annulled—

Rabbi Eliezer says: They are annulled.

And the Gemara proves:

But he has not heard

the vow. How, then, does the annulment take effect?

And this proves that hearing is not required.

And we reject this:

Here too, it is a case where he said, “When I hear it”—

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

And we challenge this:

Why do I need

the husband’s annulment

now?

After all, in any event the annulment will take effect only when he hears the vow again; if so, only

when he hears it—

let him annul it.

And we answer:

Because

he holds

the husband

that 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 them now, and the annulment will take effect when he hears the vow.

And we resolve the dilemma from another source.

Come and hear

from that which was taught in a beraita [Nazir 12b]:

A husband

who says to the trustee

whom he appointed over his wife:

“All vows that my wife vows from now (

today)

until I return from a certain place”—

annul them.

And

the trustee

annulled them for her.

Could

these vows

be annulled?

The verse states: “Her husband may affirm it, and her husband may annul it.” —

Only her husband may affirm and annul her vows, but not his agent,

the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.

Rabbi Yonatan said to him,

to Rabbi Yoshiya:

We find throughout the entire Torah

that

a person’s agent is equivalent to him,

and therefore the annulment of vows is also effective when performed through an agent.

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

And the Gemara brings a proof from this for our dilemma:

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

And even Rabbi Yoshiya,

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 may affirm it, and her husband may annul it,”

that specifically the husband can annul it, but not an agent.

However,

without the verse, the law would be

that

for

everyone, a person’s agent is equivalent to him,

and even an agent could annul the vow.

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

But he has not heard it [

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