משנה: נַעֲרָה מְאוֹרָסָה אָבִיהָ וּבַעֲלָהּ מְפֵרִין נְדָרֶיהָ. הֵיפֵר הָאָב וְלֹא הֵיפֵר הַבַּעַל הֵיפֵר הַבַּעַל וְלֹא הֵיפֵר הָאָב אֵינוֹ מוּפָר וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם קִייַם אֶחָד מֵהֶן. MISHNAH: Father and husband jointly dissolve the vows of a preliminarily married adolescent girl1An underage girl can be married off by her father. A woman becomes an adult in two steps. At age 12 (if she had developed two pubic hairs) she becomes an adult before the law but the father retains the right to marry her off and the right to her earnings for an additional 6 months, when she is called נַעֲרָה “adolescent girl”. After these 6 months she becomes an adult, בּוֹגֶרֶת “ripe”, is totally independent from her father, and has to marry on her own. The vow of a minor below age 11 is void. If she made a vow after age 11 (for a male after age 12), one has to investigate whether she understands the meaning and implications of a vow. If the investigation has a positive result, her vows are valid and, as far as vows are concerned, she has acquired the status of adolescent, even though in other legal aspects she remains a minor.
The chapter on vows states clearly that the father can dissolve his dependent daughter’s vows (Numbers.30.4-6">Num. 30:4–6). Similarly, the husband can dissolve the vows of his wife if she lives “in his house” (Numbers.30.11-15">vv. 11–15). A preliminarily married girl (cf. Peah 6:2:6" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Peah.6.2.6">Peah 6:2 Note 46; Demay 4:1, Note 19; Terumot 8:1:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Terumot.8.1.2">Terumot 8:1, Note 9) remains under her father’s jurisdiction until she is taken to her husband’s house in the final ceremony. It is asserted that during her status as preliminarily married wife, the father can dissolve her vows since she is “in his house” and the husband is given special authority over her vows in vv. 7–9 which, therefore, are not duplicated in vv. 11–15.
The power of dissolution in any case is restricted to the day after the father or husband first was informed of the vow (vv. 6,9,13,15). But if one of them agreed to the vow within the allotted period, he can no longer object after that.. If the father dissolved but not the husband, or the husband but not the father, it is not dissolved; one does not have to mention whether one of them confirmed it.
הלכה: נַעֲרָה מְאוֹרָסָה כול׳. כְּתִיב אִם הָיֹה תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ. מַה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אִם בִּנְשׂוּאָה. כְּבָר כְּתִיב אִם בֵּית אִשָׁהּ נָדָרָה. וְאִם בִּפְנוּיָה. כְּבָר כְּתִיב וִאִשָּׁה כִּי תִדֹּר נֶדֶר לַי֙י. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְאִם הָיֹה תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ וּנְדָרֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ. וְאֵי זוֹ זוֹ. זוֹ נַעֲרָה מְאוֹרָסָה שֶׁאָבִיהָ וּבַעֲלָהּ מְפֵירִין נְדָרֶיהָ. עַד כְּדוֹן בִּנְדָרִים שֶׁנָּֽדְרָה מִשֶּׁנִּתְאָֽרְסָה. נְדָרִים שֶׁנָּֽדְרָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְאָֽרְסָה. וּנְדָרֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ. לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַנְּדָרִין שֶׁבָּא בְיָדָהּ מִבֵּית אָבִיהָ. HALAKHAH: “An adolescent girl,” etc. 2A similar argument in the Nedarim.67">Babli, 67a/b. In both Talmudim, the argument is amoraic. It is written3Numbers.30.7">Num. 30:7. The masoretic text reads הָיוֹ., “if she should be a man’s”. What are we speaking about? If a married one, it already is written4Numbers.30.11">Num. 30:11. “if she vowed in her husband’s house”. If about an unmarried one, it already is written5Numbers.30.4">Num. 30:4. “if she vows a vow to the Eternal”. Why does the verse say3Numbers.30.7">Num. 30:7. The masoretic text reads הָיוֹ., ““if she should be a man’s with her vows on her”? That refers to the preliminarily married adolescent girl whose vows are dissolved by father and husband. So far for vows which she vowed after she was prelinimarily married. Vows which she vowed before she was prelinimarily married? “With her vows on her,3Numbers.30.7">Num. 30:7. The masoretic text reads הָיוֹ.” to include the vows which come with her from her father’s house.
תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. אִם הָיֹה תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ. בְּבוֹגֶרֶת אֲרוּסָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. חֲבֵרַייָא אָֽמְרֵי. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. וְקַשְׁיָא עַל דְּרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּֽגְרָה לֹא כְּבָר יָצָאת מֵרְשׁוּת אָבִיהָ. יְתוֹמָה שֶׁמֵּת אָבִיהָ מִי מֵיפֵר לָהּ. הַבַּעַל מֵיפֵר. וְקַשְׁיָא עַל רַבָּנִין. אִם עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִכְנְסָה לִרְשׁוּתוֹ הוּא מֵיפֵר לָהּ. נִכְנְסָה לִרְשׁוּתוֹ לֹא כָּל־שֶׁכֵּן. מַה מְקַייְמִין רַבָּנִן וּנְדָרֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ. מָה אֲנָן קַייָמִין. אִם בִּנְדָרִים שֶׁנָּֽדְרָה עַד שֶלֹּא נִתְאָֽרְסָה וְנִתְאָֽרְסָה. כְּבָר נִרְאֶה לָאָב וּלְבַעַל לְהָפֵר. אֶלָּא כִּי נָן קַייָמִין בְּנֵדֶר שֶׁנָּֽדְרָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא מֵת אָבִיהָ וּמֵת אָבִיהָ וְהִיא בוֹגֶרֶת. מְנָן לְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר נַעֲרָה מְאוֹרָסָה אָבִיהָ וּבַעֲלָהּ מְפֵירִין נְדָרֶיהָ. בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. עַד כְּדוֹן בְּבַעַל. בְּאָב. בֵּין אָב לְבִתּוֹ. מַה מְקַיימִין רַבָּנִין בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. וְלֹא שֶׁבֵּינָהּ לְבֵין אֲחֵרִים. בֵּין אָב לְבִתּוֹ. לֹא שֶׁבֵּינָהּ לְבֵין אֲחֵרִים. וְלֵית לְרִבִּי לָֽעְזָר כֵּן. אִית לֵיהּ. כּוּלָּהּ מִתַּמָּן אִית לֵיהּ. בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. לֹא מַה שֶׁבֵּינָהּ לְבֵין אֲחֵרִים. בֵּין אָב לְבִתּוֹ. וְלֹא שֶׁבֵּינָהּ לְבֵין אֲחֵרִים. It was stated in the name of Rebbi Eleazar6If the material in the first paragraph is Amoraic, R. Eleazar is the Amora, bar Pedat. If the argument is tannaїtic, he is the Tanna, ben Shamua. R. Eleazar’s argument is paralleled in Sifry Num. 153 by R. Joshia, student of R. Ismael. The final argument in this paragraph is attributed to R. Ismael in the Nedarim.68a">Babli, 68a.: “If she should be a man’s”3Numbers.30.7">Num. 30:7. The masoretic text reads הָיוֹ., the verse speaks about a preliminarily married adult girl7At 12 years and 6 months (or 6 months after she developed two pubic hairs) she permanently leaves her father’s potestas. He reads the verse as dealing with a case where there is no residual power of the father. But since vv. 11 ff. speak of the married woman, he must find a case of a preliminarily married woman free from her father.. The colleagues say, Rebbi Eleazar says it correctly8His interpretation follows the wording of the verse more closely.. Is it not difficult for Rebbi Eleazar: Did she not leave her father’s power the moment she became an adult9Vv. 7–8 give the husband the right to dissolve vows which preceded the marriage. But vv. 11 ff. restrict the right of the husband to vows made during the marriage (Nedarim 10:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.10.2.1">Mishnah 2). For the rabbis, the right to dissolve prior vows depends on the father’s collaboration. But R. Eleazar denies any participation to the father; why should the power of the preliminarily married husband be greater than that of the fully married one?? Who may dissolve the vows of an orphan whose father had died10If the father had arranged his daughter’s preliminary marriage and then had died, the husband cannot dissolve his wife’s prior vows (Nedarim 10:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.10.2.1">Mishnah 2) and, after the definitive marriage ceremony, he cannot dissolve prior vows. (The existence of undisclosed prior vows might be grounds for divorce.) An underage girl orphaned from her father can be married off by her mother and brothers, but that is only a rabbinic institution (cf. Yevamot 1:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Yevamot.1.2.1">Yebamot1:2, Note 118). The husband can dissolve her vows only after the definitive marriage or after she became an adult. The latter case is the one dealt with by R. Eleazar.? The husband dissolves11But only the vows made after the preliminary marriage and only after she has reached adulthood.. It is difficult for the rabbis: If he may dissolve before she entered his power, is it not obvious [that he may dissolve] after she entered12Why are vv. 11 ff. needed after vv. 7–9? That is a rhetorical question since the two cases are not comparable. For the rabbis, the husband dissolves the vow of the preliminarily married minor only in conjunction with the father, but he also dissolves vows made before the marriage. Once the woman is emancipated from her father, either by completed marriage or by becoming of age, the husband dissolves alone but only vows made during the marriage.? How do the rabbis explain “with her vows on her”? What are we talking about? If about vows which she made before she was preliminarily married and she became preliminarily married, already the father and the husband had the power to dissolve13If they do not exercise their powers, they get no second chance. If the girl became an adult between preliminary and definitive marriage, the father lost his right of dissolution and the husband lost it with him. If the father died between preliminary and definitive marriages, the husband alone cannot dissolve; therefore, he cannot dissolve her vow after the definitive marriage when he lives with her.. But we must talk about a vow which she made before her father died, then the father died14Before she was preliminarily married. Then the father never had any right concurrent with the husband; the husband is not hindered by the father’s power. and she became an adult. From where does Rebbi Eleazar obtain: “The father and the husband dissolve the vows of a preliminarily married adolescent girl.15Since he rejects the references given in the first paragraph.” “Between a man and his wife.16Numbers.30.17">Num. 30:17.” That deals with the husband. The father? “Between a father and his daughter.16Numbers.30.17">Num. 30:17.” How do the rabbis interpret “between a man and his wife”? Not what is between her and others. “Between a father and his daughter,” not what is between her and others. Does Rebbi Eleazar not agree with this? He agrees; he understands everything from there: “Between a man and his wife”, not what is between her and others17This is the topic of Chapter 11. The husband can only void vows that either involve the relations between husband and wife or “vows of deprivation” (v. 14); he can forbid his wife to mortify herself. As in Nedarim 11:12:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.11.12.1">Mishnah 11:13, if she had vowed not to sleep with any man, he can void his part but she remains forbidden if she should become a widow or a divorcee.; “between a father and his daughter,” not what is between her and others.
וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁיְּקִייֵם אֶחָד מֵהֶן. אִיתָא חֲמֵי. הֵיפֵר הָאָב אֵין מוּפָר. וְאַתְּ אֲמַר הָכֵין. לֹא עַל הָדָא אִתְאֲמָרַת אֶלָּא עַל הָדָא. הֵיפֵר הָאָב אֶת חֲלְקוֹ. לֹא הִסְפִּיק הַבַּעַל לְהָפֵר עַד שֶׁמֵּת. הָאָב מֵיפֵר חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלַּבַּעַל. אָמַר רִבִּי נָתָן. זוֹ דִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּי. אֲבָל דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים אֵין צוֹרֶךְ לְהָפֵר בְּשֶׁלֹּא הֵקִם. אֲבָל אִם הֵקִם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. “One does not have to mention if one of them confirmed it.” Come and see; if the father dissolved, it is not dissolved, and you say so18Since the Mishnah stated that if only one of them dissolved, in the example given, the father, the vow is not dissolved. Why does one have to mention that it is not dissolved if one of them confirmed the vow, since confirmation implies non-dissolution!? Not on that it was said, but on the following: If the father dissolved his part but the husband did not have time to dissolve before he died, the father dissolves the husband’s part19While the husband cannot dissolve after the father’s death (Nedarim 10:2:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.10.2.1">Mishnah 2), the father can dissolve alone after the husband’s death (as long as the marriage is in the preliminary stage) since after the husband’s death the underage daughter returns to the father’s tutelage.. Rebbi Nathan said, those are the words of the House of Shammai. But the statement of the Sages is that he does not need to dissolve20Since the husband’s power has disappeared, the father’s prior dissolution is sufficient.
The Nedarim.69a">Babli (69a, Nedarim.71a">71a) and the Tosephta 6:3 read: “[the father] cannot dissolve”. The Babli has a long discussion about the nature of the joint powers of dissolution. If the powers are parallel, then the dissolution by one of the parties has no influence on the other; the husband’s death leaves half of the vow undissolved and undissolvable. But if the powers are joint ones, then the husband’s death opens the way for the father to exercise his now unrestrained powers. There is no reason to think that the Yerushalmi makes a similar distinction. if [the husband] did not confirm it. But if [the husband] confirmed, [the father] cannot void21Since the affirmation cannot be undone..
אַתְּ אָמַר. הָאָב מֵיפֵר חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלַּבַּעַל. בִּיקֵּשׁ לְהָקֵם אָמַר. מוּקָם לֵיךְ סְתָם. מוּקָם לֵיךְ סְתָם. מוּפָר לָךְ חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלַּבַּעַל. פְּשִׁיטָא דָא מִילְתָא. לֹא הֵיפֵר הָאָב אֶת חֶלְקוֹ וְעָֽבְרָה עַל נִדְרָהּ. לוֹקָה. הֵיפֵר הָאָב וְלֹא הֵיפֵר הַבַּעַל מַהוּ שֶׁתִּלָּקָה. אוֹ מֵאַחַר שֶׁאִם יָמוּת הַבַּעַל מִתְרוֹקֶנֶת אֶצֶל הָאָב אֵינָהּ לוֹקָה. נִיחָא כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. אֵין מִיתָה. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. יֵשׁ מִיתָה בַהֲפָרָה. מִיתָה כַהֲפָרָה הִיא. וְכָן מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁאֵינוֹ מֵיפֵר לָהּ וְעָֽבְרָה עַל נִדְרָהּ לוֹקָה. תַּנֵּי. הֵיפֵר הָאָב אֶת חֶלְקוֹ וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק הַבַּעַל לְהָפֵר עַד שֶׁמֵּת. הַבַּעַל הָאַחֲרוֹן מֵיפֵר לָהּ חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלָּרִאשׁוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָא אָֽמְרָה כֵן. אָבִיהָ וּבַעֲלָהּ הָאַחֲרוֹן מֵפֵירִין נְדָרֶיהָ. You say that the father dissolves the husband’s part. If he wanted to confirm, he says, it is confirmed for you, without details, (it is confirmed for you, without details)22It seems that this is a case of dittography, even though one could read it as: If the father confirmed without indicating what he confirmed, then the vow is legally confirmed without indication whose part was confirmed (since the confirmation by one party is absolute.); the husband’s part is dissolved for you23In contrast, for the House of Shammai who hold that the father has to dissolve the late husband’s part, the dissolution is invalid unless the father explicitly declares the husband’s part dissolved.. The following is obvious: If the father did not dissolve his part and she violated her vow, she is whipped. If the father dissolved but the husband did not, would she be whipped24Since the father may dissolve after the husband’s death but the husband cannot dissolve after the father’s death, it is clear that the father’s power over his underage preliminarily married daugher is greater than the husband’s. Is the father’s power strong enough to eliminate the prohibition to violate one’s vow contained in 30:3?? Or since if the husband died and his part became void in favor of the father, would she not be whipped? This follows him who said, death does not force [dissolution]25It seems that the word בַּהֲפָרָה is missing here; it was inserted in editio princeps.
The argument follows the Sages in the previous paragraph, who hold that the husband’s death automatically voids the vow. For them, the power of the husband is secondary and the woman cannot be prosecuted.. But following him who said, death does force dissolution26The House of Shammai, who require the father explicitly to dissolve the late husband’s part, imply that the husband’s and the father’s powers are equal and that partial dissolution is of no legal value., and here since he did not dissolve for her and she violated her vow, she is whipped. It was stated: If the father dissolved his part but the husband died before he could dissolve27And she was preliminarily married to another man on the same day (since the period of dissolution is at most 24 hours after the first person knew of the vow.). Tosephta 6:4; there the re-marriage is noted., the last husband dissolves the part of the first one. Rebbi Yose said, a Mishnah says so: “Her father and her last husband dissolve her vows28Nedarim 10:3:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.10.3.1">Mishnah 3.”.