Nedarim 139

את"ל הא לא אמר לה אמר לה מופר ליכי למחר מהו מי אמרינן למחר לא מצי מיפר דהא קיימיה לנדריה היום או דלמא כיון דלא אמר לה קיים ליכי היום כי קאמר לה מופר ליכי למחר מהיום קאמר

Now, if you say, he did not in fact declare thus, what if he declares, 'It be confirmed unto thee to-morrow';<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without first asserting, 'It be disallowed thee to-day'. ');">¹</span>

ואם תמצא לומר אפילו הכי כיון דקיימו היום למחר כמאן דאיתיה דמי (א"ל) קיים ליכי שעה מהו מי אמרינן כמאן דאמר לה מופר ליכי לאחר שעה דמי או דלמא הא לא אמר לה

do we rule, he is unable to annul it for to-morrow, since [by implication] he confirmed it for today;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A vow can be annulled only on the day the husband or father hears of it. — Num. XXX, 6-9, 13. ');">²</span>

אם תמצא לומר הא לא אמר לה מיהו אמר לה מאי מי אמרינן כיון דקיימו קיימו או דלמא כיון דכוליה יומא בר הקמה ובר הפרה הוא כי אמר מופר ליכי לאחר שעה מהני

or perhaps, since he did not state, 'It be confirmed unto thee to-day,' by declaring, 'It be annulled unto thee to-morrow,' he really meant from to-day? Now, should you say that even so, since he [implicitly] confirmed it to-day,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Accepting the first alternative. ');">³</span>

ת"ש הריני נזירה ושמע בעלה ואמר ואני אין יכול להפר ואמאי נימא ואני דאמר הוא על נפשיה דהוי נזיר אבל הריני נזירה דילה דשעה אחת קיימא לאחר שעה אי בעי ליפר אמאי אין יכול להפר לאו משום דכיון דקיימו קיימו לא קסבר כל ואני כמאן דאמר קיים ליכי לעולם דמי

it is as though in force to-morrow too,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Having confirmed it for the first day, he no longer has the power to annul it; hence his nullification from the morrow is invalid. ');">⁴</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> מת האב לא נתרוקנה רשות לבעל מת הבעל נתרוקנה רשות לאב בזה יפה כח האב מכח הבעל

what if he declares, 'It be confirmed unto thee for an hour?' Do we say, It is as though he declared, 'It be annulled unto thee thereafter'; or perhaps, he in fact did not say thus to her? Should you rule, he did not in fact declare thus, what if he did explicitly annul it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., it be confirmed to thee for an hour and thereafter annulled. ');">⁵</span>

בדבר אחר יפה כח הבעל מכח האב שהבעל מפר בבגר והאב אינו מפר בבגר

Do we say, Since he confirmed it, he confirmed it [for good]; or perhaps, as he is empowered to confirm and annul it the whole day, if he says, 'It be annulled unto thee after an hour,' his statement is efficacious? — Come and hear: [If a woman vows], 'Behold, I will be a nazirite'; and her husband on hearing it, exclaimed 'And l'; he cannot [subsequently] annul it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Mishnah, Nazir 20b. ');">⁶</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> מאי טעמא דאמר קרא (במדבר ל, יז) בנעוריה בית אביה

But why so? Let us say that his exclamation, 'And I,' referred to himself only [viz.,] that he would be a nazirite, but as for her vow, 'Behold, I will be a nazirite,' he confirmed it [but] for one hour;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since he merely attached his vow to that of his wife, he must have meant momentarily to confirm the vow. ');">⁷</span>

מת הבעל נתרוקנה רשות לאב מנלן אמר רבה דאמר קרא (במדבר ל, ז) ואם היו תהיה לאיש ונדריה עליה

whilst thereafter, if he wishes to annul it, why cannot he do so? Surely it is because having confirmed it, he confirmed it [for good]! — No. He [the Tanna of that Mishnah] holds that every 'And I' is as though one declares, 'It be permanently confirmed unto thee.' <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IF THE FATHER DIES, HIS AUTHORITY DOES NOT PASS OVER TO THE HUSBAND; BUT IF THE HUSBAND DIES, HIS AUTHORITY PASSES OVER TO THE FATHER. IN THIS RESPECT, THE FATHER'S POWER IS GREATER THAN THE HUSBAND'S. BUT IN ANOTHER, THE HUSBAND'S POWER IS GREATER THAN THAT OF THE FATHER, FOR THE HUSBAND CAN ANNUL [HER VOWS] AS BOGERETH<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');">⁸</span> BUT THE FATHER CANNOT ANNUL HER VOWS AS BOGERETH.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The father can annul his daughter's vow only if a na'arah (v. Glos.) ');">⁹</span> <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. What is the reason?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the father's authority is not transmitted to the husband, as it is in the reverse case. ');">¹⁰</span> — Because the Writ saith, In her youth, she is in her father's house.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXX, 17: i.e., as long as she is in her youth, she is under parental control. Hence if her father dies, his authority is not transferable. ');">¹¹</span> IF THE HUSBAND DIES, HIS AUTHORITY PASSES OVER TO HER FATHER. Whence do we know this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first question was 'what is the reason thereof', because, granted that the husband's authority is transmitted, as stated in the second clause, why is the father's not? But now the Talmud asks, how do we know that the husband's authority is transmitted? ');">¹²</span> — Said Rabbah:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is alluded to in 68a, where the reading is Raba. ');">¹³</span> Because it is written, And if she be at all to an husband and her vows be upon her:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 7. The word for 'being' is repeated, from which it is deduced that two betrothals are referred to. This is preceded by a verse dealing with the father's powers of annulment, and as stated above (p. 217, n. 5), the 'And' commencing v. 7 combines the two verses, teaching that even in the case of marriage the father may still retain his authority. ');">¹⁴</span>