נדרים 74:1 — Soncino English Talmud

MISHNAH. IF A WOMAN WAITS FOR A YABAM, WHETHER FOR ONE OR FOR TWO, — R. ELIEZER RULED: HE [THE YABAM] CAN ANNUL [HER VOWS]. R. JOSHUA SAID: [ONLY IF SHE WAITS] FOR ONE, BUT NOT FOR TWO. R. AKIBA SAID; NEITHER FOR ONE NOR FOR TWO. R. ELIEZER ARGUED: IF A MAN CAN ANNUL THE VOWS OF A WOMAN WHOM HE ACQUIRED HIMSELF, HOW MUCH THE MORE CAN HE ANNUL THOSE OF A WOMAN GIVEN TO HIM BY GOD! SAID R. AKIBA TO HIM; IT IS NOT SO; IF YOU SPEAK OF A WOMAN WHOM HE ACQUIRES HIMSELF, THAT IS BECAUSE OTHERS HAVE NO RIGHTS IN HER; WILL YOU SAY [THE SAME] OF A WOMAN GRANTED TO HIM BY GOD, IN WHOM OTHERS TOO HAVE RIGHTS! R. JOSHUA SAID TO HIM: AKIBA, YOUR WORDS APPLY TO TWO YEBAMIM; BUT WHAT WILL YOU ANSWER IF THERE IS ONLY ONE YABAM? HE REPLIED, THE YEBAMAH IS NOT AS COMPLETELY UNITED TO THE YABAM AS AN ARUSAH IS TO HER [BETROTHED] HUSBAND. GEMARA. It is well according to R. Akiba, for he maintains that the bond [wherewith she is bound to the yabam] involves no legal consequences; also according to R. Joshua, who maintains that the tie is a real one. But what is R. Eliezer's reason? Even if the tie is a real one, selection is not retrospective? — R. Ammi answered: [The circumstances are] e.g., that he [the yabam] made a [betrothal] declaration, R. Eliezer ruling with Beth Shammai that a declaration completely acquires. But R. Joshua says thus: That applies only to one yabam, but not to two yebamin; for can there be such a case that though when his brother comes he can prohibit her to him by cohabitation or divorce, and yet he [the first] can annul! Whilst R. Akiba maintains that the bond carries with it no legal consequences. Now, according to R. Eleazar, who maintained that in the opinion of Beth Shammai a declaration is binding only in that it renders her co-wife ineligible, what can be said? — The reference here is to one who had come before Court and been ordered to support her; and [the law] is in accordance with the dictum of R. Phineas in Raba's name: Every woman who vows, vows conditionally upon her husband's assent.^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ

^ᵃnote:This is the designation of the widow between the death of her husband and her union with or rejection by the yabam.
^ᵇnote:If there is more than one, she waits for all, as anyone may marry or free her.
^ᶜnote:Lit., 'heaven'. The yabam acquires his sister-in-law through a Biblical precept.
^ᵈnote:I.e., all the brothers of the deceased have the same rights in her.
^ᵉnote:[MS.M.: HER HUSBAND v. infra p. 236, n. 3.]
^ᶠnote:The meaning of this is discussed below.
^ᵍnote:Lit., 'there is no real tie'. E.g., in respect of vows this tie gives him no right of veto.
^ʰnote:Hence, if there is only one yabam, he can annul her vows, but not if there are two, since it is not clear which will take her.
^ⁱnote:Bererah, a term denoting retrospective validity of a subsequent selection. CF. supra Mishnah 45b, v. Glos. Thus, here, when she vows, it is not clear which yabam will eventually marry her. [Unlike, however, elsewhere in the Talmud where this principle is debated and gives rise to difference of opinion, its application here would not be retro-active, as we are not considering whether the annulment by one yabam before marriage becomes effective after marriage, but whether it takes effect immediately. And in regard to this it is taken as axiomatic that there is no bererah, as in the case of two yebamim it cannot be stated with certainty which of the two will be her husband (cf. Adereth. S. Kiddushin). The term bererah is accordingly used here in a loose sense and in fact does not occur in the parallel passage, Yeb. 29b; v. a.l.]
^ʲnote:rntn in reference to a yabam means a formal declaration, 'be thou betrothed to me'.
^ᵏnote:I.e., by means of this declaration she is his wife in all legal respects; hence that yabam can annul her vows. — The view of Beth Hillel is that only cohabitation effects this.
^ˡnote:I.e., even in Beth Shammai's view a declaration is a legal betrothal only if there is but one yabam, but not if there are two. Because even after the declaration, if the other cohabited with her or divorced her, she is forbidden to the first.
^ᵐnote:An amora; the Tanna in the Mishnah is R. Eliezer.
^ⁿnote:Two or more wives of the same husband are co-wives (Zaroth) to each other.
^ᵒnote:Lit., to reject the co-wife'. In the following case; A, B and C, are three brothers, A and B being married to X and Y, two sisters. If A dies childless and C makes a declaration to X (but does not consummate the marriage), and then B dies childless too, Beth Shammai rule that X, A's widow, remains C's wife; hence Y, B's wife and the would-be co-wife of X, is ineligible to him, since one cannot take in marriage a yebamah who is also his wife's sister. Thus we see that Beth Shammai rule that the declaration made by C is Biblically valid as betrothal, for otherwise he would be regarded as having become the yabam of two sisters simultaneously, in which case a different law applies. Thereon R. Eleazar observed, only in this respect did Beth Shammai hold a declaration to be Biblically binding; but should he subsequently desire to free her, a divorce is not sufficient (as it would be had the marriage been consummated), but halizah too is needed.
^ᵖnote:Since then she is not his wife in all respects, why can he annul her vows?
^ᵠnote:If the yabam delayed to marry or free her, she could claim support from him. V. Yeb. 41b.