Jerusalem Talmud Nedarim 10.1

משנה: נַעֲרָה מְאוֹרָסָה אָבִיהָ וּבַעֲלָהּ מְפֵרִין נְדָרֶיהָ. הֵיפֵר הָאָב וְלֹא הֵיפֵר הַבַּעַל הֵיפֵר הַבַּעַל וְלֹא הֵיפֵר הָאָב אֵינוֹ מוּפָר וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר אִם קִיַים אֶחָד מֵהֶן.

MISHNAH: Father and husband jointly dissolve the vows of a preliminarily married adolescent girl. 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 קַיָימִין. אִם בִּנְשׂוּאָה. כְּבָר כְּתִיב אִם בֵּית אִשָׁהּ נָדָרָה. וְאִם בִּפְנוּיָה. כְּבָר כְּתִיב וִאִשָּׁה כִּי תִדֹּר נֶדֶר לַיי. מַה תַלְמוּד לוֹמַר וְאִם הָיֹה תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ וּנְדָרֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ. וְאֵי זוֹ זוֹ. זוֹ נַעֲרָה מְאוֹרָסָה שֶׁאָבִיהָ וּבַעֲלָהּ מְפֵירִין נְדָרֶיהָ. עַד כְּדוֹן בִּנְדָרִים שֶׁנָּדְרָה מִשֶּׁנִּתְאָרְסָה. נְדָרִים שֶׁנָּדְרָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִתְאָרְסָה. וּנְדָרֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ. לְרַבּוֹת אֶת הַנְּדָרִין שֶׁבָּא בְיָדָהּ מִבֵּית אָבִיהָ.

HALAKHAH: “An adolescent girl,” etc. It is written, “if she should be a man’s”. What are we speaking about? If a married one, it already is written “if she vowed in her husband’s house”. If about an unmarried one, it already is written “if she vows a vow to the Eternal”. Why does the verse say, ““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,” to include the vows which come with her from her father’s house.

תַּנֵּי בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעְזָר. אִם הָיֹה תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ. בְּבוֹגֶרֶת אֲרוּסָה הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר. חֲבֵרַיָיא אָמְרֵי. יְאוּת אָמַר רִבִּי לָעְזָר. וְקַשְׁיָא עַל דְּרִבִּי לָעְזָר. מִכֵּיוָן שֶׁבָּגְרָה 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 מְקַיְימִין רַבָּנִן וּנְדָרֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ. מָה אֲנָן קַיָימִין. אִם בִּנְדָרִים שֶׁנָּדְרָה עַד שֶלֹּא נִתְאָרְסָה וְנִתְאָרְסָה. כְּבָר נִרְאֶה לָאָב וּלְבַעַל לְהָפֵר. אֶלָּא כִּי נָן קַיָימִין בְּנֵדֶר שֶׁנָּדְרָה עַד שֶׁלֹּא מֵת אָבִיהָ וּמֵת אָבִיהָ וְהִיא בוֹגֶרֶת. מְנָן לְרִבִּי לָעְזָר 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 לָעְזָר 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 Eleazar: “If she should be a man’s”, the verse speaks about a preliminarily married adult girl. The colleagues say, Rebbi Eleazar says it correctly. Is it not difficult for Rebbi Eleazar: Did she not leave her father’s power the moment she became an adult? Who may dissolve the vows of an orphan whose father had died? The husband dissolves. 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 entered? 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 dissolve. But we must talk about a vow which she made before her father died, then the father died 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.” “Between a man and his wife.” That deals with the husband. The father? “Between a father and his daughter.” 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 others; “between a father and his daughter,” not what is between her and others.

וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁיְּקִיֵים 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 so? 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 part. 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 dissolve if [the husband] did not confirm it. But if [the husband] confirmed, [the father] cannot void.

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 וְעָבְרָה 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 וְעָבְרָה עַל נִדְרָהּ לוֹקָה. תַּנֵּי. הֵיפֵר הָאָב אֶת חֶלְקוֹ וְלֹא הִסְפִּיק הַבַּעַל לְהָפֵר עַד שֶׁמֵּת. הַבַּעַל הָאַחֲרוֹן מֵיפֵר לָהּ חֶלְקוֹ שֶׁלָּרִאשׁוֹן. אָמַר רִבִּי יוֹסֵי. מַתְנִיתָא אָמְרָה 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); the husband’s part is dissolved for you. 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 whipped? 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]. But following him who said, death does force dissolution, 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 dissolve, 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 vows”.