Nedarim 73a (עג.) — the Talmud in English

And we reject this:

Here too, he said to him

the husband said to the trustee:

When I hear it, I will annul it—

meaning, the annulment should take effect when I hear the vow.

And we raise an objection to this:

When he hears it, let him annul it—

why, then, did the husband appoint a trustee to annul it? 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 should annul it himself?

And we answer:

He thought

the husband thought to himself]

Perhaps I will be occupied

perhaps I will be occupied when I return] and will not have time to annul the vows. Therefore, he told the trustee to annul them immediately, and the annulment would take effect when the husband heard the vows. ,

Rami bar Hama raised a dilemma:

A deaf man—

what is the law concerning his annulling a vow for his wife?

And the sides of the dilemma are:

Does the meaning of the verse, “And her husband hears,” indicate that even

if you say that

a

husband can annul without hearing and need not actually hear it, this is

because he is

capable of hearing,

and the verse, “And her husband hears,” can be fulfilled with regard to him?

But a deaf man, who is not capable of hearing,

and with regard to whom “And her husband hears” cannot be fulfilled—

this is analogous to the case of Rabbi Zeira

this law resembles the law stated by Rabbi Zeira].

As 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.

The Sages established a measure of sixty issaron of flour, since up to this quantity the fine flour and oil can be mixed well, whereas beyond this quantity they cannot be mixed well.

However, it is not necessary to mix the oil and flour in practice for the meal-offering to be valid. It is sufficient to pour the oil into the vessel containing the flour, so that the flour and oil are “fit to be mixed.”

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

Anything fit to be mixed,

if the mixing—

is not

the

mixing

in practice,

does not prevent it,

and it is not necessary to mix it in practice.

But

anything that is

not fit to be mixed

for example, when the meal-offering is more than sixty issaron and cannot be mixed properly with the oil],

then

the inability to perform the

mixing—

prevents it,

and the meal-offering is invalid.

The same applies to the annulment by a deaf husband: Since he is not capable of hearing, the absence of the possibility of hearing prevents him from annulling the vow, and he cannot annul it without hearing.

Or perhaps the law of

“

And her husband hears,”

does not prevent

at all, and it is not necessary that he be capable of hearing?

Rava said:

Come and hear

from that which was taught in a beraita:

“And her husband hears”—

to exclude the wife of a deaf man.

Learn from this:

the Torah explicitly excluded the wife of a deaf man, so that her husband cannot annul her vow..

They raised a dilemma:

What is the law concerning a husband’s annulling vows for his two wives simultaneously?

Does the fact that the Torah states, “He shall restrain

her,” mean that it is

specifically

her alone,

and not his two wives together?

Or is it not specifically so 34 .

Ravina said [

and Ravina resolved the matter from a beraita]:

Come and hear: One does not give

the water of the Sota

to two sota women simultaneously, because her heart becomes haughty toward her fellow—

if one sees that the other has been found pure, her heart will become haughty, and she will not confess that she indeed became impure.

Rabbi Yehuda says: This is not the reason [

that is not the reason].

Rather, because it is stated, “And he shall give her to drink,”

and we interpret the fact that the verse says her with a pronounced heh as indicating

her alone.

If so, our dilemma depends on the dispute between the first tanna and Rabbi Yehuda: whether the expression “her” indicates her alone, or not.