## Nedarim Daf 73a

###### Nedarim 73a:1
[Nedarim 73a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/73a:1)

הָכָא נָמֵי, דְּאָמַר לֵיהּ: לְכִי שָׁמַעְנָא מֵיפַר לַהּ. לְכִי שָׁמַע לֵיפַר לַהּ? הוּא סָבַר: דִּלְמָא מִטְּרִידְנָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara rejects this conclusion as well: **Here too,** it is a case **in which** the husband **says to** the steward: **When I hear** the vow, then it **will be nullified for her.** The Gemara asks: **Let him nullify** the vows **for her when he** actually **hears** them. Why do so earlier? The Gemara answers: **He reasons: Perhaps I will be preoccupied** at that moment and will forget to nullify them. The question pertaining to nullification of vows without hearing them is left unresolved.


###### Nedarim 73a:2
[Nedarim 73a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/73a:2)

בָּעֵי רָמֵי בַּר חָמָא: חֵרֵשׁ, מַהוּ שֶׁיָּפֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ? אִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר בַּעַל מֵיפֵר בְּלֹא שְׁמִיעָה — מִשּׁוּם דְּבַר מִישְׁמַע הוּא, אֲבָל חֵרֵשׁ דְּלָאו בַּר מִישְׁמַע הוּא, הַיְינוּ דְּרַבִּי זֵירָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rami bar Ḥama asks:** With regard to **a deaf man, what is** the *halakha* **with regard to his nullifying** vows **for his wife? If you say** that **a husband** who is not deaf **can nullify** a vow **without hearing** it, then perhaps this is **because he is capable of hearing. But** with regard to **a deaf man, who is not capable of hearing,** perhaps **this is** an application of the principle derived from the statement **of Rabbi Zeira.**


###### Nedarim 73a:3
[Nedarim 73a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/73a:3)

דְּאָמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: כׇּל הָרָאוּי לְבִילָּה — אֵין בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ, וְכֹל שֶׁאֵין רָאוּי לְבִילָּה — בִּילָּה מְעַכֶּבֶת בּוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**As Rabbi Zeira said:** For **any** amount of flour **suitable for mingling** with oil in a meal-offering, **mingling is not indispensable for it.** Even though it is a mitzva to mingle the flour and oil *ab initio*, if they were not mingled, the meal-offering is still valid. **But** for **any** amount of flour **not suitable for mingling, mingling is indispensable for it,** and such a meal-offering is invalid. The principle is: *Ab initio* requirements prevent the fulfillment of a mitzva in situations where they are not merely absent but impossible. In this case, the deaf man does not merely not hear the vow, it is impossible for him to do so.


###### Nedarim 73a:4
[Nedarim 73a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/73a:4)

אוֹ דִלְמָא: ״וְשָׁמַע אִישָׁהּ״ לָא מְעַכֵּב. אָמַר רָבָא: תָּא שְׁמַע ״וְשָׁמַע אִישָׁהּ״ — פְּרָט לְאֵשֶׁת חֵרֵשׁ. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Or perhaps** the phrase **“and her husband hears it”** (Numbers 30:8) **does not** mean that hearing **is indispensable** to the nullification of a vow, so that even a deaf man can nullify his wife’s vows. **Rava said: Come** and **hear** a *baraita* interpreting that verse: **“And her husband hears it”;** this **excludes the wife of a deaf man.** The Gemara concludes: **Learn from** this *baraita* that a deaf man cannot nullify his wife’s vows.


###### Nedarim 73a:5
[Nedarim 73a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/73a:5)

אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: בַּעַל, מַהוּ שֶׁיָּפֵר לִשְׁתֵּי נָשָׁיו בְּבַת אַחַת? ״אוֹתָהּ״ דַּוְקָא, אוֹ לָאו דַּוְקָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **A dilemma was raised before** the Sages: Concerning **a husband, what is** the *halakha* **with regard to nullifying** vows **for his two wives simultaneously?** Do the words “but if her husband disallows **her** on the day that he hears it, and he nullifies her vow which is upon her” (Numbers 30:9), stated in the singular, refer **specifically** to one wife? **Or,** perhaps it does **not** refer **specifically** to one wife, and a husband can nullify the vows of more than one wife simultaneously.


###### Nedarim 73a:6
[Nedarim 73a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/73a:6)

אָמַר רָבִינָא, תָּא שְׁמַע: אֵין מַשְׁקִין שְׁתֵּי סוֹטוֹת כְּאַחַת, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלִּבָּהּ גַּס בַּחֲבֶירְתָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: Come** and **hear** a *baraita*: In the *sota* ritual, performed by women suspected by their husbands of having committed adultery, **two *sota* women are not given to drink** the bitter waters **as one.** This is **because the heart** of each becomes **emboldened [*gas*] in the** presence of **the other** woman, and if one is guilty she will lack the humility to confess.


###### Nedarim 73a:7
[Nedarim 73a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/73a:7)

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: לֹא מִן הַשֵּׁם הוּא זֶה, אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וְהִשְׁקָהּ״ — אוֹתָהּ, לְבַדָּהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Yehuda says: This is not for** that **reason [*lo min hashem hu zeh*], but because it is stated: “And he shall make her drink”** (Numbers 5:27), which indicates **her by herself.** Similarly, the words “disallows her” (Numbers 30:9) should be read as referring specifically to a single woman, indicating that a man cannot nullify the vows of two wives simultaneously.