Nedarim 73a — the Talmud in English

And we reject this:

Here too, where he said to him

the husband to the guardian:

When I hear it, I shall annul it for her—

that the annulment shall take effect when I hear the vow.

And we raise an objection against this:

When he hears it, let him annul it for her—

why did the husband appoint the guardian to annul it? For in any event, the annulment will not take effect until the husband himself hears the vow; and if so, when he hears it, the husband himself should annul it for her?

And we answer:

He reasoned

the husband reasoned in his heart]

perhaps I shall be occupied

perhaps I shall be occupied when I return] and shall not manage to annul the vows; therefore he said to the guardian that he should annul immediately, and the annulment should take effect when the husband hears the vows .

Rami bar Hama raised a question:

A deaf-mute—

what is the law as to his annulling for his wife?

And the sides of the uncertainty are:

Does the meaning of the words of Scripture, “and her husband hears,” indicate that even

if you should say

that

a husband annuls without hearing

and there is no need for him actually to hear, this is

because he is capable of hearing,

and the verse “and her husband hears” can be fulfilled in his case?

But a deaf-mute, who is not capable of hearing,

and “and her husband hears” cannot be fulfilled in his case,

this is analogous to the case of Rabbi Zeira [

this law resembles the law of Rabbi Zeira].

For Rabbi Zeira said:

A meal-offering, which is brought from fine flour mixed with oil, must be brought in a vessel and in a quantity suitable for mixing the fine flour with the oil in it.

And the Sages established a measure of sixty isarons of flour, for up to this measure the fine flour and the oil are mixed היטב, but beyond this they are not mixed היטב.

But it is not necessary actually to mix the oil and the fine flour for the meal-offering to be valid; it is sufficient to pour the oil into the vessel containing the fine flour, in such a manner that the flour and the oil are “fit for mixing.”

But if he places the flour and the oil in a quantity greater than sixty isarons, in which case the oil and the fine flour are not fit to be mixed together, this prevents the meal-offering from being valid. And so Rabbi Zeira said:

Anything that is fit for mixing,

mixing—then

does not

the

mixing

in practice

prevent its validity,

and it is not necessary actually to mix it.

But

however,

anything that is not fit for mixing [

such as when the meal-offering is more than sixty isarons and is not mixed properly with the oil],

then

the inability to perform the

mixing—

prevents its validity,

and the meal-offering is invalid.

And the same is true of the annulment by a deaf-mute husband: since he is not fit for hearing, the absence of the possibility of hearing prevents the annulment in his case, and he cannot annul without hearing.

Or perhaps

the law of

“and her husband hears,”

does not prevent

at all, and there is no need for him to be fit for hearing?

Rava said:

Come and hear

from that which is taught in a beraita:

“And her husband hears”—

to exclude the wife of a deaf-mute.

Infer from this,

the Torah explicitly excluded the wife of a deaf-mute, for her husband cannot annul her vow.

They raised a question before them:

A husband—what is the law as to his annulling for his two wives at one time?

Does that which is written in the Torah, “he shall prevent

her,”

mean

specifically,

her alone, and not his two wives together?

Or is it not specifically so 34 .

Ravina said [

and Ravina resolved it from a beraita]:

Come and hear: They do not make

the water of the Sota drink

to two Sotot at one time, because her heart is emboldened against her fellow—

and if one sees that her fellow is pure, her heart will become emboldened, and she will not confess that she indeed became impure.

Rabbi Judah says: This is not the reason [

the reason is not this].

Rather, because it is stated, “and he shall make her drink,”

and we expound: from the fact that it is written “and he shall make her drink” with the heh marked by a mappiq, it implies

her alone.

And if so, it follows that our uncertainty depends on the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Judah as to whether the expression “her” implies her alone, or not.