תלמוד על נדרים 10:2

“This, your house,” because of what do you catch him? Because of “your house,” “this”³³Rashba (Novellae to 46b) has a slightly enlarged text: משום ביתך או משום זה “because of ‘your house’ or because of ‘this’?” The text as it stands is completely intelligible. A vow because of “your house” becomes void if it is no longer the other’s, because of “this” is permanent.? If it collapsed and he himself rebuilt it, is it not “this”? Let us hear from the following: “If somebody said to his heirs, give a wedding house to my son or a widow’s house to my daughter, if it collapsed, the heirs are required to rebuild it.³⁴Since the baraita does not say that if he said “this house” the heirs do not have to rebuild, it follows that “your house” is determining, not “this”. This means that if the house collapses and he rebuilds, it is forbidden, but if it is sold, it is permitted.” ³⁵From here to the end of the paragraph there is an approximate parallel in Baba Qama 9:14, source of the Mishnah. There, we have stated: “If somebody says to his son, ‘a qônām that you can not enjoy anything from me,’ if he dies, [the son] inherits³⁶Since he inherits by biblical decree (Num. 27:6–11), not by his father’s will.. ‘During my lifetime and after my death,’ if he dies, [the son] does not inherit.³⁷Cf. Chapter 2, Note 15; Babli 47a.” [Did we not state, ‘during my lifetime’, [the son] inherits; ‘after my death’, [the son] inherits?] What is the difference between the one who says it one by one and the one who says it by twos³⁸If he makes two separate vows, the first one, a qônām forbidding his property during his lifetime, is valid, but the second one for the time after his death is invalid since nobody can forbid to another person anything not in his possession. Why does it become valid if combined?? ³⁹The text in Baba Qama switches the Mishnaiot quoted, respectively, by Rav Jeremiah and Rebbi Yose. Rav Jeremiah and Rebbi Yose [ben Ḥanina] both say, ‘a qônām that I⁴⁰It seems that instead of עלי “for me” one has to read עליו “for him”, as is clear from the rest of the sentence. cannot enjoy these my properties during my lifetime and after my death,’ from the moment he said “these” he forbade to him during his lifetime and after his death⁴¹Both of them disagree with the position taken earlier by the editors of the Yerushalmi and assert that “this” overrides “your house”. If the house collapses and he rebuilds, it is permitted, but if sold, it remains forbidden.. Rebbi Yose said, we have stated in Nedarim what we did not state in S̄ebuot⁴²There is no comparable Mishnah in Tractate Šebuot. In Baba Qama, the text is: “We have stated in Neziqin what we did not state in Nedarim,” but there, the reference is to a Mishnah in Neziqin, cf. Note 39. The difference is not a variant reading.: “A qônām that I shall not enter your house, or that I shall not buy your field, if the owner died or sold it, the other is permitted. That I shall not enter this house, or that I shall not buy this field, if the owner died or sold it, the other is forbidden.” Because he said “this”. Therefore, if he had not said “this”, he would have⁴³It seems that one has to read “had not forbidden”. In Baba Qama this last sentence is missing; the preceding one reads: “Because he said ‘these’, he forbade to him both during his lifetime and after his death.” forbidden to him both during his lifetime and after his death.

MISHNAH: “The way of learned people is that, before his daughter left his house, he told her: ‘Any vows which you had vowed in my house are dissolved’. Similarly, the husband tells her before she enters his domain⁴⁰I. e., before the final marriage ceremony.: ‘Any vows which you had vowed before you enter my domain are dissolved,’ for after she enters his domain he cannot dissolve³⁰Mishnah 4. The quote does not prove anything; the proof is from the second part of the Mishnah which requires the husband to dissolve all prior vows of his bride prior to her entering his house, i. e., as long as she still is only preliminarily married. After she enters his house, he can no longer dissolve prior vows. Since the final marriage ceremony emancipated the girl (older than three years and one day) from her father and the father’s death does the same, it is concluded that the husband’s power over a preliminarily married girl endures only as long as she is under her father’s tutelage..
An adult girl and one who had waited⁴¹A different text of the Babylonian Mishnah is amended in the Halakhah there to the Yerushalmi text. twelve months and a widow 30 days⁴²Mishnah Ketubot 5:2 states that a girl who never was married before has 12 months after the preliminary marriage to prepare her trousseau and a widow 30 days. An adult girl, for whom the father no longer has responsibility, is supposed to have a trousseau by the twelfth month of her adulthood and can marry immediately (cf. the commentary ascribed to Rashi to the Babli, 73b, and Halakhah Ketubot 5:3). If the groom does not bring her into his house by the appointed time (by means of the final marriage ceremony), he nevertheless becomes resposible for her upkeep as if he were completely married., Rebbi Eliezer says, since her husband is responsible for her upkeep he may dissolve but the Sages say that the husband dissolves only after she enters his domain.