Nedarim 73b — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

A bogeret

who is betrothed, and likewise a maiden who is betrothed,

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 for her

once the time that the Sages instituted for them to marry has already arrived—

he may annul

the husband alone

her vows,

without the father’s partnership, as though he had already married her as a wife.

And the Sages say: The husband may not annul—

until she enters his authority.

Gemara:

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

said one thing

[the same law].

As we learned

in tractate Ketubot [57a]:

They give a virgin

who is betrothed

twelve months to provide for

her

herself.

When twelve months have arrived

and they have not married—

she eats from his

[from the husband’s, for her support is incumbent upon him].

And

if she is betrothed to a

koen, she eats teruma

[according to the law of a koen’s wife].

But

if her koen betrothed husband dies, and she is awaiting yibum [even if she awaited yibum twelve months]—

the yavam does not feed

her

with teruma.

If

she completed

[there passed 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

were therefore completed for her, and it is found that she had already awaited twelve months,

even all of them

[the entire twelve months passed for her]

in the presence of the husband

and

one day was lacking

from the twelve months

[^36,

or all of them in the presence of the yavam

and

one day was lacking.

She does not eat teruma

[and only if she awaited twelve complete months in the presence of the husband does she then eat teruma].

This is the first Mishna,

which holds that the arrival of the time of marriage considers her like a married woman.

But

the court of those after them said: The woman does not eat teruma until she enters the bridal canopy,

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

And it follows that Rabbi Eliezer, who says that she is considered married with regard to the annulment of vows from the time that the time of marriage arrives, holds like the first Mishna: that she is considered married with regard to this matter, that her law is like that of a koen’s wife, and she eats teruma from the time that the time of marriage arrives.

Abaye said

to Rabba:

Perhaps it is not so

[perhaps there is no connection between the words of Rabbi Eliezer and the words of the first Mishna. For from the words of Rabbi Eliezer there is no proof supporting the first Mishna, and from the first Mishna there is no proof supporting Rabbi Eliezer’s view].

For

the first Mishna taught us only with regard to

the matter of

eating teruma,

for this is only a law

of the Rabbis.

For by Torah law, even a woman betrothed to a koen eats teruma, and only the Rabbis instituted that she does not eat teruma before she marries, because of the concern lest she feed her brothers and sisters from the teruma. And since the time of marriage has arrived, and her support is incumbent upon him, the Rabbis instituted that she be considered like a married woman with regard to this matter.

But

the annulment of

vows,

which is a law

of Torah, say that it is not so

that the arrival of the time [which is a rabbinic enactment] is effective to consider her like a married woman with regard to this matter.

And

likewise,

Rabbi Eliezer taught you only that

from the time that the time arrives she is considered married

with regard to

the annulment of

vows.

And there is a particular reason for this,

in accordance with what Rav Pinhas said in the name of Rava.

For he said

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

every

woman

who vows—

she vows with the דעת of her husband.

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

But

with regard to eating

teruma,

there is no reason that, because he provides for her when the time arrives, she should be considered like a married woman. And therefore,

even

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

rabbinic, she nevertheless does not eat.