Nedarim 89a — the Talmud in English

She made a vow while she was under the authority of the husband -

he may nullify it for her.

How so? She said

while she was married:

I am a Nazirite after thirty

days,

and her husband nullified it for her, then

even though she was widowed or divorced within thirty

days,

it is nullified.

For since at the time that she made the vow she was married, her husband could nullify it for her.

She made a vow on that very day, and was divorced on that very day,

and

he took her back on that very day -

he cannot nullify it.

For after she was divorced, the husband’s right with regard to the vow was nullified, and he does not acquire that right anew after their second marriage, and he can nullify for her only the vows that she will make from this point onward.

This is the general rule: anyone who went out into her own authority for even one hour, he cannot nullify!

Gemara:

It was taught in a beraita: A widow or divorcee who said, “I am a Nazirite when I marry,” and she married -

Rabbi Ishmael says: He may nullify -

for he holds that we follow the time of the vow’s taking effect.

And Rabbi Akiva says: He may not nullify -

for he holds that we follow the time of the making of the vow, and at that time she was not yet married.

(And the mnemonic is YLLY)

This is a sign for remembering the dispute, meaning: “He may nullify, he may not nullify; he may not nullify, he may nullify.”

A married woman who said, “I am a Nazirite when I am divorced,” and she was divorced,

Rabbi Ishmael says: He may not nullify -

since the time of the vow’s taking effect is decisive.

And Rabbi Akiva says: He may nullify -

since the time of the making of the vow is decisive.

Rabbi Ishmael said

to prove his words from the verses,

for it says, “And the vow of a widow and a divorcee,”

and we expound:

until the

the

vow

takes effect

at the time of widowhood and divorce.

But if the vow takes effect while she is married, the husband can nullify it.

Rabbi Akiva holds: For it says, “Everything that she prohibited upon herself,”

and we expound:

until the prohibition of the vow

that she imposes upon herself through a vow,

is at the time of widowhood and divorce,

but if she prohibited herself while she was married, her husband can nullify it for her even though the vow takes effect afterward.

Rav Ḥisda said: Our Mishna is Rabbi Akiva -

our Mishna is in accordance with the view of Rabbi Akiva.

Abaye said: You may even say that it is Rabbi Ishmael -

it is possible to say that Rabbi Ishmael too concedes in our Mishna that we follow the time of the making of the vow,

and the difference is that

in the Mishna she made herself dependent upon days -

for in our Mishna she made her vow dependent upon its taking effect only after thirty ordinary days,

but in the

beraita she made herself dependent upon marriage -

and in the beraita she made the vow dependent upon its taking effect only after she married or was divorced,

and therefore specifically in the beraita Rabbi Ishmael holds that we follow the time of the vow’s taking effect, since the vow cannot take effect in the authority in which she is found at the time of its making, for she stipulated and said that the vow should take effect only if she marries, or alternatively, is divorced; therefore the time of its taking effect is decisive.

But in the case of the Mishna, the taking effect of the vow is not dependent upon whose authority she is in, and it is possible that

her days were completed, but she was not divorced

that thirty days passed and she was not divorced; and likewise it is possible that

her days were completed, but she did not marry

that thirty days passed and she did not marry; and if so, it is possible that the vow should take effect in that same authority in which she was at the time of its making; therefore, in this case Rabbi Ishmael concedes that we follow the authority in which she was at the time of the making of the vow.

The Gemara explains the end of the Mishna’s words, where it is written, “This is the general rule,” and so forth;

the general rule of our Mishna is also written above, in the chapter “The Betrothed Maiden,” and the Gemara explains what the Mishnayot add through this general rule.

“This is the general rule,” which it teaches concerning the betrothed maiden

the general rule written above in the chapter “The Betrothed Maiden,” was written in order

to bring in;

the father went with the husband’s agents, or the father’s agents went with the husband’s agents, in the case of a betrothed maiden,

that is: a betrothed maiden, whose husband’s agents came to take her to her husband’s house, and the father or his agents went with them,

for her father and her husband nullify her vows -

the woman has not yet gone out of her father’s authority; rather, her father and her husband nullify her vows, since the father and his agents are still accompanying her.

“This is the general rule,” which it teaches concerning “And These Are Vows”

the general rule written in the chapter “And These Are Vows,” was written in order

to bring in;

the father handed her over to the husband’s agents, or the father’s agents handed her over to the husband’s agents

that is: if the father had already handed his daughter over to the husband’s agents, or the father’s agents had already handed her over into the hands of the husband’s agents,

for the husband does not nullify earlier vows -

from this point onward she is considered entirely under her husband’s authority, and the husband can nullify only the vows that she will make from this point onward; but vows that she had already made he cannot nullify, for he does not nullify earlier vows,

and the father too cannot nullify, for she has gone out of his authority.

Mishna:

There are nine maidens whose vows remain in force,

and it is impossible to nullify them for them, and these are: 1.

a mature woman, and she is an orphan -

she made a vow when she was mature, and she is an orphan, who is not under her father’s authority, such as when she married and afterward was widowed, for she had already gone out of her father’s authority.

2.

a maiden who matured, and she is an orphan -

she made a vow while she was a maiden, and afterward matured, and she is an orphan, who is not under her father’s authority, as in the first case.