Nedarim 176

כמאן אזלא הא שמעתא דרב כרבי מאיר דאמר יד אשה כיד בעלה

With whom does this ruling of Rab agree? With R. Meir, who said: The hand of a woman is as the hand of her husband.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., she has no independent rights, v. Kid. 23b. ');">¹</span>

ורמינהו כיצד משתתפין במבוי מניח את החבית ואומר הרי זה לכל בני מבוי ומזכה להן על ידי עבדו ושפחתו העברים ועל ידי בנו ובתו הגדולים ועל ידי אשתו

But the following contradicts it: How is a partnership formed in respect of an alley way?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By a legal fiction a partnership was formed by all the Jewish residents of an alley in respect thereto, that it might rank as a private domain, and carrying therein be permitted on the Sabbath. This was effected by placing in it some food of which all the residents became joint-owners, v. 'Er. 73b. ');">²</span>

ואי אמרת קנה יתהון בעלה עירוב לא נפיק מרשותיה דבעל

One [of the residents] places there a barrel [of wine] and declares, 'This belongs to all the residents of the alley way': and he transfers ownership to them through his Hebrew slave, male or female, his adult son or daughter, or his wife.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who accept it from him on behalf of the residents. ');">³</span>

אמר רבא אע"ג דאמר רבי מאיר יד אשה כיד בעלה מודה רבי מאיר לענין שיתוף דכיון דלזכות לאחרים הוא מיד בעלה זכיא

But if you say, her husband acquires it, the 'erub<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'mixture', 'combination', the technical terms for the thing deposited (v. Glos.). ');">⁴</span>

איתיביה רבינא לרב אשי אלו שזכין להן [על ידי] בנו ובתו הגדולים ועבדו ושפחתו העברים ואלו שאין זכין להן על ידי בנו ובתו הקטנים ועבדו ושפחתו הכנענים ואשתו

has not left the husband's possession?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And that law is contained in an anonymous Mishnah, the author of which is R. Meir. ');">⁵</span>

אלא אמר רב אשי מתניתין בשיש לה חצר באותו מבוי עסקינן דמגו דזכיא לנפשה זכיא לאחריני

— Raba replied: Although R. Meir said, The hand of a woman is as the hand of her husband, he agrees in respect to 'partnership',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shittuf. The technical term for the partnership created for the purposes of the Sabbath law. ');">⁶</span>

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> (במדבר ל, י) ונדר אלמנה וגרושה יקום עליה כיצד אמרה הריני נזירה לאחר שלשים יום אע"פ שנשאת בתוך ל' יום אינו יכול להפר

that since his object is to transfer it to others, she can acquire it from her husband. Rabina objected before R. Ashi: The following can acquire it on their behalf: his adult son or daughter, his Hebrew slave, male or female. But the following can not acquire it on their behalf: his son or daughter, if minors, his Canaanite slave, male or female, and his wife!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reference is the same as above. This shews that the wife, having no powers of acquisition apart from her husband, cannot be the medium of transference, and thus contradicts the Mishnah just quoted. This difficulty arises in any case, but Rabina adduces it here to refute the distinction posited by Raba. ');">⁷</span> — But, said R. Ashi, the Mishnah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In 'Er. ');">⁸</span> holds good [only] when she possesses a court in that alley way,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if she had inherited it before marriage, and the groom had written a deed renouncing all rights therein. ');">⁹</span> so that since she can acquire part ownership [in the 'erub] for herself,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because that is in the husband's own interest, for carrying is forbidden in the alley unless every resident — and the wife ranks as one in her own rights, since she possesses a court — is part owner of the 'erub, whereas the other teaching (a Baraitha) refers to the case where she has no court of her own. ');">¹⁰</span> she can also acquire it on behalf of others. <b><i>MISHNAH</i></b>. BUT EVERY VOW OF A WIDOW AND OF HER THAT IS DIVORCED&nbsp;… SHALL STAND AGAINST HER.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXX, 10. ');">¹¹</span> HOW SO? IF SHE DECLARED, BEHOLD, I WILL BE A NAZIRITE AFTER THIRTY DAYS', EVEN IF SHE MARRIED WITHIN THE THIRTY DAYS, HE CANNOT ANNUL IT.