## Nedarim Daf 68a

###### Nedarim 68a:1
[Nedarim 68a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/68a:1)

דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל תָּנָא: ״בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ בֵּין אָב לְבִתּוֹ״, מִכָּאן לְנַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה שֶׁאָבִיהָ וּבַעְלָהּ מְפִירִין נְדָרֶיהָ. וּלְתָנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, ״אִם הָיוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught** a different source for the *halakha* in the mishna: The Torah states with regard to vows: “These are the statutes, which the Lord commanded Moses, **between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter,** being in her youth, in her father’s house” (Numbers 30:17). **From here** it is derived **with regard to a betrothed young woman that her father and her husband nullify her vows.** The Gemara asks: **And according to the *tanna* of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, what does he do** with the words “and **if she be to a husband”** (Numbers 30:7)?


###### Nedarim 68a:2
[Nedarim 68a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/68a:2)

מוֹקֵים לְאִידַּךְ דְּרָבָא. וְרָבָא, הַאי דְּתָנֵי דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לוֹמַר שֶׁהַבַּעַל מֵיפֵר נְדָרִים שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵינָהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: According to him, he **establishes** it **to** teach the **other** statement **of Rava**: If her betrothed died without ratifying the vow, her father can nullify it on his own. The Gemara then asks: **And Rava,** who derives the *halakha* that the father and the betrothed of the young woman together nullify her vows from the phrase “and if she be to a husband” (Numbers 30:7), **what does he do with this** verse **that the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught** as the source for the father and the betrothed nullifying the young woman’s vows? The Gemara answers: **He requires that** phrase: “Between a man and his wife” (Numbers 30:17), in order **to say that the husband can nullify** only **vows that are between him and her,** i.e., vows that negatively impact their marital relationship, but he cannot nullify any other type of vow.


###### Nedarim 68a:3
[Nedarim 68a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/68a:3)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בַּעַל מִיגָּז גָּיֵיז, אוֹ מִקְלָישׁ קָלֵישׁ? הֵיכָא קָא מִיבַּעְיָא לַן: כְּגוֹן דִּנְדַרָה מִתְּרֵין זֵיתִין וּשְׁמַע אָרוּס וְהֵיפֵר לַהּ, וַאֲכַלְתִּנּוּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: If **a husband** nullifies his betrothed’s vow, does he **sever** his share of the vow **or** does he **weaken** the force of the entire vow? The Gemara clarifies: Under **which** circumstances **do we raise the dilemma,** i.e., what is the practical difference between these two possibilities? In a case **where she vowed** not to derive benefit **from two olives, and** her **betrothed heard and nullified** the vow **for her, and** she **ate those** two olives before her father nullified the vow, there is a practical difference.


###### Nedarim 68a:4
[Nedarim 68a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/68a:4)

אִי אָמְרִינַן מִיגָּז גָּיֵיז — לָקְיָיא. אִי אָמְרִינַן מִקְלָישׁ קָלֵישׁ — אִיסּוּרָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא. מַאי?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**If we say** that he **severs** his share of the vow, nullifying half of the prohibition, then one of the olives remains completely forbidden, and she **is flogged** for violating her vow. **If we say** that he **weakens** its force, she is not liable to be flogged, as eating the olives **is** now **merely a prohibition** that she has violated. If so, **what** is the ruling with regard to this question?


###### Nedarim 68a:5
[Nedarim 68a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/68a:5)

תָּא שְׁמַע: אֵימָתַי אָמְרוּ מֵת הַבַּעַל נִתְרוֹקְנָה רְשׁוּת לָאָב — בִּזְמַן שֶׁלֹּא שָׁמַע הַבַּעַל קוֹדֶם שֶׁיָּמוּת, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמַע וְשָׁתַק, אוֹ שֶׁשָּׁמַע וְהֵפֵר וּמֵת בּוֹ בַּיּוֹם. זוֹ הִיא שֶׁשָּׁנִינוּ: מֵת הַבַּעַל נִתְרוֹקְנָה רְשׁוּת לָאָב.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara now cites a lengthy *baraita*, ultimately stating a proof to answer the previous question. **Come** and **hear** a *baraita* that will resolve the dilemma: **When did they say** that if **the husband** of a betrothed young woman **dies,** the **authority** to nullify her vows **reverts to the father,** who can then nullify her vows on his own? This occurs in a case **when the husband had not heard** her vow **before he died; or** in a case **where he heard and was silent; or where he heard and nullified** it **and died on the same day. This is what we learned** in the mishna, concerning a case of this kind (70a): If **the husband dies,** the **authority** to nullify vows **reverts to the father.**