מתני׳ דֶּרֶךְ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים, עַד שֶׁלֹּא הָיְתָה בִּתּוֹ יוֹצְאָה מֵאֶצְלוֹ אוֹמֵר לָהּ: כָּל נְדָרִים שֶׁנָּדַרְתְּ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתִי – הֲרֵי הֵן מוּפָרִין. וְכֵן הַבַּעַל, עַד שֶׁלֹּא תִּכָּנֵס לִרְשׁוּתוֹ אוֹמֵר לָהּ: כָּל נְדָרִים שֶׁנָּדַרְתְּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא תִּכָּנְסִי לִרְשׁוּתִי – הֲרֵי הֵן מוּפָרִין. שֶׁמִּשֶּׁתִּכָּנֵס לִרְשׁוּתוֹ – אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר.

The practice of Torah scholars is to ensure that a woman about to be married should not be encumbered by any vows. A father, before his daughter would leave him through marriage, would say to her: All vows that you vowed in my house are hereby nullified. And similarly, the husband, before she would enter his jurisdiction, i.e., while they were still betrothed, would say to her: All vows that you vowed before you entered my jurisdiction are hereby nullified. This was necessary because once she enters his jurisdiction he cannot nullify the vows she made before that.

גמ׳ בָּעֵי רָמִי בַּר חָמָא: בַּעַל, מַהוּ שֶׁיָּפֵר בְּלֹא שְׁמִיעָה? ״וְשָׁמַע אִישָׁהּ״ דַּוְקָא הוּא, אוֹ לָאו דַּוְקָא הוּא?

Rami bar Ḥama asks: Concerning a husband, what is the halakha with regard to his nullifying a vow without hearing it? “And her husband hears it, on the day that he hears it, and holds his peace at her, then her vows shall be ratified” (Numbers 30:8), is that referring specifically to a situation where he actually heard of a vow, and only then he can nullify it? Or is it not specifically referring to such a situation, and the mention of hearing is merely because the ordinary situation is that the husband nullifies a vow once he hears it?

אֲמַר רָבָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: דֶּרֶךְ תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים עַד שֶׁלֹּא יָצָאת בִּתּוֹ מֵאֶצְלוֹ אוֹמֵר לָהּ: כָּל נְדָרִים שֶׁנָּדַרְתְּ בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתִי הֲרֵי הֵן מוּפָרִין, וְהָא לָא שְׁמַע!

Rava said: Come and hear the mishna: The practice of Torah scholars is that a father, before his daughter would leave him through marriage, would say to her: All vows that you vowed in my house are hereby nullified. Rava points out: But the father did not hear her vows, so it must be that one can nullify vows without knowledge that they were actually made.

לְכִי שָׁמַע הוּא דְּמֵיפֵר. אִם כֵּן, כִּי לֹא שְׁמַע לָמָּה לֵיהּ לְמֵימַר? הָא קָמַשְׁמַע לָן: אוֹרְחֵיהּ דְּצוּרְבָא מֵרַבָּנַן לַהֲדוּרֵי.

The Gemara rejects this conclusion: The mishna means that the father states a preemptive nullification that when he will hear a particular vow is when he nullifies it. The vow is not actually nullified until he hears it. The Gemara asks: If so, when he has not actually heard those vows yet, why is it necessary for him to state preemptively that the vows will be nullified; why not wait until he actually hears the vow? The Gemara answers: This teaches us that it is the practice of a Torah scholar to pursue such matters, in order to prompt his daughter or his betrothed to inform him of vows she took, which will then be nullified when he hears of them.

תָּא שְׁמַע מִסֵּיפָא: וְכֵן הַבַּעַל, עַד שֶׁלֹּא תִּכָּנֵס לִרְשׁוּתוֹ אוֹמֵר לָהּ. הָכָא נַמִי דְּאָמַר לָהּ ״לְכִי שָׁמַעֲנָא״.

The Gemara suggests: Come and hear from the latter clause of the mishna: And similarly, the husband, before she would enter his jurisdiction, i.e., while they were still betrothed, would say to her: All vows that you vowed before you entered my jurisdiction are hereby nullified. This implies that he can nullify vows without hearing them. The Gemara responds: Here too, it means that he says to her: When I hear the particular vow, then it will be nullified.

תָּא שְׁמַע, הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ ״כָּל נְדָרִים שֶׁתִּדּוֹרִי עַד שֶׁאֲבֹא מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי הֲרֵי הֵן קַיָּימִין״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. ״הֲרֵי הֵן מוּפָרִין״, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מוּפָר. וְהָא לָא שְׁמַע!

Come and hear another mishna to answer the question ( Nedarim 75a): One who says to his wife: All vows that you vow until I arrive from such and such a place are hereby ratified, has not said anything, i.e., the vows are not ratified. If he says: All vows that you vow until then are hereby nullified, Rabbi Eliezer says: They are nullified. The Gemara comments: But he did not actually hear the particular vows, so one can infer from this that he need not hear her vows in order to nullify them.

הָכָא נַמִי דְּאָמַר ״לְכִי שָׁמַעֲנָא״. וְלָמָּה לִי מִן הָשְׁתָּא? לְכִי שָׁמַע לֵיפֵר לָהּ! קָסָבַר: דִּלְמָא מִטְרִידְנָא הַהִיא שָׁעְתָא.

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Here too, one can understand the situation to be that he says: When I hear the particular vow, it will be nullified. The Gemara asks: But if so, why do I need, i.e., why must the husband state his nullification, from now; let him nullify them for her when he actually hears them. The Gemara answers: He reasons: Perhaps I will be preoccupied at that moment and will forget to nullify them. He therefore nullifies the vows beforehand, so that the nullification will take effect automatically when he hears them.

תָּא שְׁמַע: הָאוֹמֵר לָאַפּוֹטְרוֹפּוֹס ״כָּל נְדָרִים שֶׁנּוֹדֶרֶת אִשְׁתִּי מִכָּאן וְעַד שֶׁאֲבֹא מִמָּקוֹם פְּלוֹנִי – הָפֵר״ וְהֵפֵר לָהּ, יָכוֹל יְהוּ מוּפָרִין – תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״אִישָׁהּ יְקִימֶנּוּ וְאִישָׁהּ יְפֵרֶנּוּ״, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה.

Come and hear a baraita : In the case of one who says to a steward [ apotropos ] appointed to manage his affairs in his absence: All vows that my wife vows from now until I arrive from such and such a place you should nullify, and the steward nullified the vows for her, one might have thought that they would be nullified. Therefore, the verse states: “Her husband may ratify it, or her husband may nullify it” (Numbers 30:14). The repetition of “her husband” teaches that it is the husband alone who may nullify his wife’s vows; this is the statement of Rabbi Yoshiya.

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: מָצִינוּ בְּכָל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ שְׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם כְּמוֹתוֹ.

Rabbi Yonatan said to him: We have found everywhere in the Torah that the legal status of a person’s agent is like that of himself. Therefore, a steward can nullify the vows on the husband’s behalf.

וַאֲפִילּוּ רַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה לָא קָאָמַר אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם דִּגְזֵירַת הַכָּתוּב הוּא ״אִישָׁהּ יְקִימֶנּוּ וְאִישָׁהּ יְפֵרֶנּוּ״, אֲבָל דְּכוּלֵּי עָלְמָא – שְׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם כְּמוֹתוֹ. וְהָא לָא שְׁמִיעַ לֵיהּ!

The Gemara points out: And even Rabbi Yoshiya says that a steward cannot nullify the wife’s vows only because it is a Torah edict, based upon the words “her husband may ratify it, or her husband may nullify it” (Numbers 30:14). But according to everyone, the principle that the legal status of a person’s agent is like that of himself is generally valid. The only objection to the steward nullifying the vows is the Torah edict. The Gemara asks: But these vows were not heard by the steward?