Nedarim 135

דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא (במדבר ל, יז) בין איש לאשתו בין אב לבתו מכאן לנערה המאורסה שאביה ובעלה מפירין נדריה ולתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל אם היו תהיה לאיש מאי עביד ליה

The School of R. Ishmael taught: [These are the statutes which the Lord commanded Moses] between a man and his wife, between the father and his daughter, [being yet in her youth in her father's house]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXX, 17. ');">¹</span> this teaches that in the case of a betrothed maiden both her father and her husband annul her vows.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The verse is interpreted as referring to one and the same woman; hence it states that her father and her husband have authority over her, and that is possible only in the case of a betrothed maiden. ');">²</span>

מוקים לאידך דרבא ורבא האי דתני דבי רבי ישמעאל מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה לומר שהבעל מיפר נדרים שבינו לבינה

Now, according to the Tanna of the School of Ishmael, what is the purpose of 'and if she be to an husband'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which was utilized on 67a for this teaching. ');">³</span> — He utilizes it for Rabbah's other dictum.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. 70a. ');">⁴</span>

איבעיא להו בעל מיגז גייז או מקליש קליש היכא קא מיבעיא לן כגון דנדרה מתרין זיתין ושמע ארוס והיפר לה ואכלתנון

Now, how does Raba utilize the verse adduced by the Tanna of the School of Ishmael?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he deduces this from 'and if she be etc'. ');">⁵</span> — It is necessary to teach that the husband can annul vows which concern himself and his wife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deduced from 'between a man and his wife', i.e., only such vows as concern them and their mutual relationship. ');">⁶</span>

אי אמרי' מיגז גייז לקייא אי אמרינן מקליש קליש איסורא בעלמא הוא מאי

The scholars propounded: Does the husband cut [the vow] or weaken [it]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Does he completely nullify half the vow, leaving the other half for the father, or does he weaken the whole vow, whilst actually nullifying nothing of it? [The same question applies equally to the father (Ran).] ');">⁷</span> How does this problem arise? E.g., If she [the betrothed maiden] vowed not to eat the size of two olives [of anything],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Nothing whatsoever may be eaten of that which is forbidden, but the size of an olive is the smallest quantity for which punishment is imposed. ');">⁸</span>

תא שמע אימתי אמרו מת הבעל נתרוקנה רשות לאב בזמן שלא שמע הבעל קודם שימות או ששמע ושתק או ששמע והפר ומת בו ביום זו היא ששנינו מת הבעל נתרוקנה רשות לאב

and the arus heard of it and annulled the vow, and she ate them. Now, if we say that he cuts the vow apart, she is flagellated; but if he weakens it, it is merely forbidden.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If he cuts the vow in two, then the size of one olive remains forbidden in its full stringency, and therefore she is flagellated for the violation of her vow. But if he weakens the whole of the vow, though leaving it all forbidden, the prohibition is not so stringent that punishment should be imposed. ');">⁹</span> What [is the law]? — Come and hear: When was it said that if the husband died, his authority passes over<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'emptied out'. ');">¹⁰</span> to the father? In the case where the husband did not hear [the vow] before he died, or heard and annulled it, or heard it and was silent,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So emended by BaH. ');">¹¹</span> and died on the same day: this is what we learnt: If the husband died, his authority passes over to the father;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In all these cases the husband had no actually confirmed the vow; therefore the father is left with the full authority to annul it. ');">¹²</span>