Nedarim 144

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> דרך תלמידי חכמים עד שלא היתה בתו יוצאה מאצלו אומר לה כל נדרים שנדרת בתוך ביתי הרי הן מופרין וכן הבעל עד שלא תכנס לרשותו אומר לה כל נדרים שנדרת עד שלא תכנסי לרשותי הרי הן מופרין שמשתכנס לרשותו אינו יכול להפר

<b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. IT IS THE PRACTICE OF SCHOLARS,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'disciples of the Sages'. ');">¹</span>

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> בעי רמי בר חמא בעל מהו שיפר בלא שמיעה (במדבר ל, ח) ושמע אישה דוקא הוא או לאו דוקא הוא

BEFORE THE DAUGHTER OF ONE OF THEM DEPARTS FROM HIM FOR NISSU'IN], TO DECLARE TO HER, 'ALL THE VOWS WHICH THOU DIDST VOW IN MY HOUSE ARE ANNULLED'. LIKEWISE THE HUSBAND, BEFORE SHE ENTERS INTO HIS CONTROL [FOR NISSU'IN] WOULD SAY TO HER, 'ALL VOWS WHICH THOU DIDST VOW BEFORE THOU ENTERST INTO MY CONTROL ARE ANNULLED'; BECAUSE ONCE SHE ENTERS INTO HIS CONTROL HE CANNOT ANNUL THEM.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because they are pre-nissu'in vows. ');">²</span>

אמר רבא ת"ש דרך תלמידי חכמים עד שלא יצאת בתו מאצלו אומר לה כל נדרים שנדרת בתוך ביתי הרי הן מופרין והא לא שמע

<b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. Rami b. Hama propounded: Can a husband annul [a vow] without hearing [it]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., can he declare that if his wife has vowed, he vetoes her vows? ');">³</span>

לכי שמע הוא דמיפר א"כ כי לא שמע למה ליה למימר הא קמשמע לן אורחיה דצורבא מרבנן להדורי

is, and her husband heard it,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXX, 8. ');">⁴</span>

ת"ש מסיפא וכן הבעל עד שלא תכנס לרשותו אומר לה הכא נמי דאמר לה לכי שמענא

expressly stated,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That he can annul only if he heard it. ');">⁵</span>

ת"ש האומר לאשתו כל נדרים שתדורי עד שאבא ממקום פלוני הרי הן קיימין לא אמר כלום הרי הן מופרין רבי אליעזר אומר מופר והא לא שמע

or not — Said Raba: Come and hear: IT IS THE PRACTICE OF SCHOLARS, BEFORE THE DAUGHTER OF ONE OF THEM DEPARTS FROM HIM, TO DECLARE TO HER, 'ALL THE VOWS WHICH THOU DIDST VOW IN MY HOUSE ARE ANNULLED'. But he did not hear them!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The fact that he generalises, 'ALL THE VOWS' proves this. ');">⁶</span>

הכא נמי דאמר לכי שמענא ולמה לי מן השתא לכי שמע ליפר לה קסבר דלמא מטרידנא ההיא שעתא

— Only when he hears them does he annul them. If so, why make a declaration before he hears?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since his present annulment is, on this hypothesis, invalid. ');">⁷</span>

תא שמע האומר לאפוטרופוס כל נדרים שנודרת אשתי מכאן ועד שאבא ממקום פלוני הפר והפר לה יכול יהו מופרין תלמוד לומר (במדבר ל, יד) אישה יקימנו ואישה יפרנו דברי רבי יאשיה

— He [the Tanna] informs us this: that it is the practice of scholars to go over such matters.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., to mention this at frequent intervals; the daughter, on hearing this, may confess that she has vowed so and so, and then the father really annuls it. ');">⁸</span>

אמר לו רבי יונתן מצינו בכל התורה כולה שלוחו של אדם כמותו

Come and hear, from the second clause: LIKEWISE THE HUSBAND, BEFORE SHE ENTERS INTO HIS CONTROL, WOULD SAY TO HER [etc.]! — Here too it means that he said, 'When I hear them.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to the reading of our text, this answer differs from the previous. There it was stated that the father can annul the vows only when he hears them, his purpose in generalizing being to induce his daughter to reveal that she had vowed. Here, however, the answer is that this general annulment will automatically become valid when the husband hears the vow, and another declaration is unnecessary. The reason for the difference is this: since she became a nesu'ah, and entirely freed from parental control, the father will not be in a position to annul her vows when he hears them; hence he cannot annul them in anticipation either. The husband, on the contrary, will have her even more under his authority when she actually vows; therefore his anticipatory veto is valid. ');">⁹</span>

ואפילו רבי יאשיה לא קאמר אלא משום דגזירת הכתוב הוא אישה יקימנו ואישה יפרנו אבל דכולי עלמא שלוחו של אדם כמותו והא לא שמיע ליה

Come and hear: If one says to his wife, 'All vows which thou mayest vow until I return from such and such a place are confirmed,' his statement is valueless;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that he can subsequently annul them. ');">¹⁰</span> [If he said] 'Behold, they are annulled,' R. Eliezer ruled: They are annulled. But he has not heard them!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Proving that this is unnecessary. ');">¹¹</span> — Here too [it means] that he said, 'When I hear them.' Why then state it now? Let him disallow her when he hears it? — He fears, I may then be busily occupied.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And overlook it; hence the annulment is made now. ');">¹²</span> Come and hear: If one says to a guardian,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one appointed to be in charge of his household in his absence. ');">¹³</span> 'Annul all the vows which my wife may make between now and my return from such and such a place', and he does so: I might think that they are void, therefore Scripture teaches, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXX, 14. ');">¹⁴</span> This is the view of R. Josiah. Said R. Jonathan to him: But we find in the whole Torah that a man's agent is as himself!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence the guardian's annulment is valid. ');">¹⁵</span> Now, even R. Josiah ruled thus only because it is a Scriptural decree, 'her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void': but both agree that a man's agent is as himself;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So that but for the decree, the annulment would be valid. ');">¹⁶</span> but he [the husband] did not hear the vows!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And if it were necessary for him to hear them before making them void, his authorisation to the guardian would be invalid, since a man cannot invest an agent with authority which he himself lacks. ');">¹⁷</span>