— Come and hear; When was it said that if the husband dies his authority passes over to the father? If the husband did not hear [the vow], or heard and annulled it, or heard it, was silent, and died on the same day.1 Now, should you say that divorce is as silence, let him [the Tanna] also teach, 'or heard it and divorced her'? Since it is not taught thus, it follows that divorce is as confirmation! — Then consider the second clause: But if he heard and confirmed it, or heard it, was silent, and died on the following day, he [the father] cannot annul it.2 But if you maintain that divorce [too] is as confirmation, let him also state, 'or if he heard it and divorced her.' But since this is omitted, it proves that divorce is tantamount to silence! Hence no deductions can be made from this; if the first clause is exact, the second clause is stated [in that form] on account of the first; if the second is exact, the first is so taught on account of the second.3
Come and hear; IF SHE VOWED AS AN ARUSAH, WAS DIVORCED ON THAT DAY AND BETROTHED [AGAIN] ON THE SAME DAY, EVEN A HUNDRED TIMES, HER FATHER AND HER LAST HUSBAND CAN ANNUL HER VOWS; this proves that divorce is the equivalent of silence, for if it is as confirmation, can the second arus annul vows which the first arus confirmed?4 — No. This refers to a case where the first arus did not hear thereof. If so, why particularly state ON THE SAME DAY? The same holds good even after a hundred days! — This refers to a case where the arus did not hear thereof, but her father did; so that he can annul only on the same day, but not afterwards.
Come and hear: If she vowed on one day, and he divorced her on the same day and took her back on the same day, he cannot annul it.5 This proves that divorce is as confirmation! — I will tell you. This refers to a nesu'ah,6 and the reason that he cannot annul is because a husband cannot annul pre-marriage vows.7
Original footnotes renumbered.
- V. 68a, b, and notes.
- The silence of a whole day is the equivalent of confirmation.
- I.e., one clause must have been taught with exactitude, and the omission of divorce is intentional; but the other has been stated inexactly, for though divorce could have been included therein, it was omitted for the sake of parallelism.
- Surely not!
- Now it is assumed that it refers to mere betrothal.
- I.e., when she finally becomes married to him.
- I.e., in the case of a nesu'ah; v. supra 67a.
MISHNAH. IT IS THE PRACTICE OF SCHOLARS,1 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.2
GEMARA. Rami b. Hama propounded: Can a husband annul [a vow] without hearing [it]:3 is, and her husband heard it,4 expressly stated,5 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!6 — Only when he hears them does he annul them. If so, why make a declaration before he hears?7 — He [the Tanna] informs us this: that it is the practice of scholars to go over such matters.8 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.'9
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;10 [If he said] 'Behold, they are annulled,' R. Eliezer ruled: They are annulled. But he has not heard them!11 — 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.12
Come and hear: If one says to a guardian,13 '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.14 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!15 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;16 but he [the husband] did not hear the vows!17
Original footnotes renumbered.
- Lit., 'disciples of the Sages'.
- Because they are pre-nissu'in vows.
- I.e., can he declare that if his wife has vowed, he vetoes her vows?
- Num. XXX, 8.
- That he can annul only if he heard it.
- The fact that he generalises, 'ALL THE VOWS' proves this.
- Since his present annulment is, on this hypothesis, invalid.
- 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.
- 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.
- So that he can subsequently annul them.
- Proving that this is unnecessary.
- And overlook it; hence the annulment is made now.
- I.e., one appointed to be in charge of his household in his absence.
- Num. XXX, 14.
- Hence the guardian's annulment is valid.
- So that but for the decree, the annulment would be valid.
- 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.