Nedarim 73b (עג:) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

An adult maiden

who is betrothed, and likewise a betrothed maiden

who has remained twelve months.

And likewise a widow

who is betrothed

who has remained thirty days—

Rabbi Eliezer says: Since her husband is obligated to provide her sustenance

because the time that the Sages established for them to marry has already arrived—

he may annul

the husband alone

her vows,

without the partnership of the father, as though he had already married her.

And the Sages say: The husband may not annul—

until she enters his domain.

Gemara:

Rabba said: Rabbi Eliezer and the “First Mishna”—

stated the same ruling

[the same law].

As we learned

in tractate Ketubot [57a]:

A virgin is given

who is betrothed a period of

twelve months to provide for

her

herself.

Once twelve months have arrived

and they have not married—

she eats from his

[the husband’s property, as he is obligated to provide her sustenance].

And

if she is betrothed to a kohen—

she eats teruma

[as is the law of the wife of a kohen].

But

if her betrothed kohen dies, and she is awaiting yibbum [even if she has awaited yibbum for twelve months]—

the yavam does not feed

her

teruma.

If

she has completed

[there have elapsed for her]

six months in the presence of the husband

and afterward the husband died, and another

six months in the presence of the yavam

have elapsed—so it is found that she has already waited twelve months—

even if all of them

[all twelve months] elapsed

in the presence of the husband

and

one day is missing

from the twelve months,

or one day

if all of them elapsed in the presence of the yavam

and

one day is missing.

She does not eat teruma

[and she eats teruma only if she waited twelve complete months in the presence of the husband].

This is the First Mishna,

which maintains that the arrival of the time for marriage renders her like a married woman.

But,

the court of those who came after them said: A woman does not eat teruma until she enters the wedding canopy

and it is insufficient that he has already become obligated to provide her sustenance.

It therefore follows that Rabbi Eliezer, who says that she is considered married with regard to the annulment of vows from the time that the marriage time arrives, maintains the same position as the First Mishna: She is considered married with regard to the matter that her status is that of a kohen’s wife and she eats teruma from the time that the marriage time arrives.

Abaye said

to Rabba:

Perhaps that is not so

[perhaps there is no connection between Rabbi Eliezer’s statement and the First Mishna. Rabbi Eliezer’s statement does not prove the position of the First Mishna, and the First Mishna does not prove Rabbi Eliezer’s position].

For

the First Mishna has taught us only with regard to

the matter of

eating teruma,

which is merely a law

of rabbinic origin.

For by Torah law, even a woman betrothed to a kohen eats teruma; it was only the Sages who instituted that she may not eat teruma before she marries, due to the concern that she might feed the teruma to her brothers and sisters. And once the marriage time arrived and he became obligated to provide her sustenance, the Sages instituted that she be considered married with regard to this matter.

But

the annulment of

vows,

which is a law

of Torah origin, perhaps it does not

suffice for the arrival of the time [which is a rabbinic institution] to render her like a married woman with regard to this matter.

And

likewise,

you have not heard Rabbi Eliezer say

that from the time the marriage time arrives she is considered married

except with regard to

the annulment of

vows.

And there is a particular reason for this,

as Rav Pinhas said in the name of Rava.

As

Rav Pinhas said in the name of Rava: The reason that a husband may annul his wife’s vows is that

every

woman

who vows—

vows with her husband’s consent.

And if so, this reason applies even when the marriage time has arrived, because since he is obligated to provide her sustenance once the time arrives, she vows with his consent.

But

with regard to eating

teruma,

there is no reason that the fact that he provides for her when the marriage time arrives should render her like a married woman. Therefore,

even

though the prohibition against a woman betrothed to a kohen eating teruma is only

rabbinic, she nevertheless does not eat it.