Study Nedarim folio 73A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
הכא נמי, דאמר ליה: לכי שמענא מיפר לה. לכי שמע ליפר לה? הוא סבר: דלמא מטרידנא.
The Talmud 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 Talmud asks: Let him nullify the vows for her when he actually hears them. Why do so earlier? The Talmud 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.
בעי רמי בר חמא: חרש, מהו שיפר לאשתו? אם תמצא לומר בעל מיפר בלא שמיעה — משום דבר מישמע הוא, אבל חרש דלאו בר מישמע הוא, היינו דרבי זירא.
§ 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 R' Zeira.
דאמר רבי זירא: כל הראוי לבילה — אין בילה מעכבת בו, וכל שאין ראוי לבילה — בילה מעכבת בו.
As R' 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.