Now, if you say, he did not in fact declare thus, what if he declares, 'It be confirmed unto thee to-morrow';1 do we rule, he is unable to annul it for to-morrow, since [by implication] he confirmed it for today;2 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,3 it is as though in force to-morrow too,4 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?5 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.6 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;7 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.'
MISHNAH. 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 BOGERETH8 BUT THE FATHER CANNOT ANNUL HER VOWS AS BOGERETH.9
GEMARA. What is the reason?'10 — Because the Writ saith, In her youth, she is in her father's house.11
IF THE HUSBAND DIES, HIS AUTHORITY PASSES OVER TO HER FATHER. Whence do we know this?12 — Said Rabbah:13 Because it is written, And if she be at all to an husband and her vows be upon her:14
Original footnotes renumbered.
- Without first asserting, 'It be disallowed thee to-day'.
- A vow can be annulled only on the day the husband or father hears of it. — Num. XXX, 6-9, 13.
- Accepting the first alternative.
- Having confirmed it for the first day, he no longer has the power to annul it; hence his nullification from the morrow is invalid.
- I.e., it be confirmed to thee for an hour and thereafter annulled.
- Mishnah, Nazir 20b.
- Since he merely attached his vow to that of his wife, he must have meant momentarily to confirm the vow.
- V. Glos.
- The father can annul his daughter's vow only if a na'arah (v. Glos.)
- That the father's authority is not transmitted to the husband, as it is in the reverse case.
- 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.
- 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?
- This is alluded to in 68a, where the reading is Raba.
- 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.
hence the [vows made by her] previously to her second betrothal are assimilated to [those made] previously to her first betrothal;1 just as those made before the first betrothal, the father can annul alone, so also those made before the second betrothal, the father can annul alone. But perhaps this is only in the case of vows which were unknown to the arus,2 but those which were known to the arus the father is not able to annul?3 — As to vows unknown to the arus, these4 follow from 'in her youth, she is in her father's house'.5
IN THIS RESPECT, THE FATHER'S POWER IS GREATER THAN THE HUSBAND'S etc. How is this meant?6 Shall we say, that he betrothed her7 whilst a na'arah, and then she became a bogereth? But consider: [her father's] death frees her from her father's authority, and the bogereth stage frees her from her father's authority; then just as at death, his authority does not pass over to her husband, so on puberty, his authority should not pass over to her husband?8 Again, if he betrothed her as a bogereth, surely that has already been taught once, viz., A bogereth who tarried twelve months?9 (Now this is self-contradictory. You say, 'a bogereth who tarried twelve months': in the case of a bogereth, why twelve months? thirty days are sufficient?10 — Read: A bogereth and one [viz., a na'arah] who tarried twelve months.) But still the difficulty remains?11 — I can answer either that here it is specifically taught, whilst there bogereth is mentioned because it is desired to state the controversy between R. Eliezer and the Rabbis. Or, alternatively, bogereth [there] is specifically taught; but [here], because the first clause states 'IN THIS RESPECT etc.,' a second [contrary] clause IN THIS RESPECT, is added.12
Original footnotes renumbered.
- I.e., since the verse implies a reference to two betrothals, they are equalized, and therefore the periods preceding them too. The period preceding the second betrothal is of course after the first husband's death.
- Lit., 'which were not seen by the arus'. I.e., the first arus died before becoming aware of them.
- Just as the vows made prior to her first betrothal.
- Sc. that the father can annul these alone after the death of the arus.
- Which implies that as long as there is no other authority over her, her father is in authority, and the very least to which this can be applied is to vows of which the arus was not aware, hence the deduction from, 'and if she be at all to an husband' must apply even to vows known to the arus before his death
- That the husband (arus) can annul the vows of a bogereth.
- I.e. by kiddushin, making her an arusah.
- Since she was under parental control when she made the vow.
- V. infra 73b; there it is seen that the arus can annul the vows of a bogereth.
- V. p. 216, n. 1; in the case of a na'arah the interval between kiddushin (erusin) and nissu'in might not be more than twelve months; in the case of a bogereth, not more than thirty days. After that, even if the nissu'in were not celebrated, the arus is responsible for her maintenance, though she is still in her father's house.
- Viz., that we know from elsewhere that the arus can annul the vows of a bogereth.
- Though really unnecessary here.