Talmud - Nedarim 70a נדרים ע׳ א׳

If you say that since he did not explicitly say to her that the vow is nullified, this means that it remains in force, then if he said to her: It is nullified for you tomorrow, what is the halakha? Do we say that on the following day he cannot nullify it, as he has already ratified the vow today, in that he did not nullify it “on the day that he hears it” (Numbers 30:8)? Or perhaps, since he did not explicitly say to her: It is ratified for you today, then when he says to her: It is nullified for you tomorrow, he is actually saying that the nullification begins from today, so that the vow is nullified.

And if you say: Nevertheless, since he ratified it today, as he said that it is nullified only tomorrow, on the following day it is considered already in force and he cannot nullify it, then if he said to her: It is ratified for you for an hour, what is the halakha? Do we say that it is like one who said to her: It is nullified for you after an hour has passed? Or perhaps, since he did not say this to her explicitly, it is not nullified?

If you say that since he did not say so to her explicitly, therefore the vow is not nullified after an hour, still, if he explicitly said to her that it is nullified after an hour, what is the halakha? Do we say that since he has ratified this vow, in that he explicitly withheld nullification for an hour, he has ratified it and can no longer nullify it? Or, perhaps since the entire day is valid for ratification and valid for nullification, when he says: It is nullified for you after an hour, it is effective.

The Gemara cites a mishna (Nazir 20b) to resolve this last question: Come and hear: If a woman said: I am hereby a nazirite, and her husband heard her vow and said: And I, meaning that he intends to become a nazirite as well, he can no longer nullify his wife’s vow. And why not? Let us say that the words: And I, that he said referred to himself, that he should be a nazirite. But her vow of: I am hereby a nazirite, exists for one hour, i.e., the time until the husband took his own vow based on hers. After an hour, if he wants to nullify it, why can he not nullify it? Is it not because once he has ratified it by basing his vow on hers, even for one hour, he has ratified it permanently and can no longer nullify it? The Gemara rejects this suggestion. No, that is not the explanation. The tanna of that mishna holds that anyone who says the words: And I, in response to his wife’s vow, is like one who says: It is ratified for you forever. All the aforementioned questions are therefore left unresolved.

MISHNA: If the father of a betrothed young woman dies, his authority does not revert to the husband, and the husband cannot nullify the young woman’s vows by himself. However, if the husband dies, his authority reverts to the father, who can now nullify her vows on his own. In this matter, the power of the father is enhanced relative to the power of the husband.

In another matter, the power of the husband is enhanced relative to the power of the father, as the husband nullifies vows during the woman’s adulthood, once they are fully married, whereas the father does not nullify her vows during her adulthood.

GEMARA: What is the reason, i.e., what is the source for the fact that the authority over the young woman’s vows does not revert to the husband if her father dies? The source is that the verse states: “Being in her youth, in her father’s house” (Numbers 30:17). As long as she is a young woman “in her youth,” she is considered to be “in her father’s house” and under his jurisdiction, even if she is betrothed. Even if her father passes away, she is still considered to be in his house, and her betrothed does not assume authority over her vows.

The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that if the husband died his authority reverts to the father? Rabba said: We derive it from the fact that the verse states: “And if she be [hayo tihyeh] to a husband, and her vows are upon her” (Numbers 30:7). The phrase hayo tihyeh is a doubled usage of the verb to be. The Gemara understands this as referring to two different instances of being betrothed to a man, e.g., the woman’s first betrothed dies and then she is betrothed to another man.

Traduction : The William Davidson digital edition of the Koren Noé Talmud, with commentary by Rabbi Adin Even-Israel Steinsaltz.

Nedarim 70a explores whether a husband’s ambiguous timing when nullifying or upholding his wife’s vow determines its validity, using a nazirite case as precedent.