daf bit: Nedarim 69

[cellio]

The torah (in parshat Matot) gives laws of vows, including anullment of a girl's vow by her father or a woman's vow by her husband. The mishna discusses the case of a betrothed (but not yet wed) woman, and says that in this case the vow stands unless both her father and her future husband anul it. The gemara then discusses the case where the father anuls the vow and the future husband dies before he can anul it. Beit Shammai says the father can stand in for the husband and anul it, but Beit Hillel says he cannot and her vow stands. (67a mishna, 69a gemara)

In all cases save one, it is understood that Shammai's view is stricter than Hillel's. As this argument is presented Hillel seems to be stricter (more requirements to break the vow). If instead we look at the proposition not as "her vow can be broken" but "her vow stands", then it's easier for me to see Hillel as lenient (yup, she gets to keep it) and Shammai as placing obstacles. I have no idea if this is the reading the rabbis intended.

Comments

[cellio]

I've always understood the principle behind the rule as "the man whose money will be spent to fulfill the vow gets to object to that use of his money."

That's interesting. What about vows that do not involve expenditures (such as vows to abstain from certain foods or activities)?

So if the woman will inherit her ketubah, why should her father get to object to how she'll spend it? (That would be my reading of Hillel's approach).

Is she entitled to the ketubah from betrothal, or only from marriage?

[zevabe.livejournal.com]

A woman is entitled to ketuba from marriage, not betrothal. (I think, but the other guy in the computer room agrees).

And I too would ask about vows not involving money. However, if she vowed not to eat certain foods, the husband would need to buy her other foods, which may or may not cost more.

In trying to figure out if this is classically considered a case where Beit Hillel is more stringent than Beit Shammai, look to Eduyot, a tractate in Nezikin. There are listed all such cases. A proof is brought from the absence of certain cases that Beit Hillel held either what he said or what Beit Shammai said. It is a very interesting tractate in its own right, but very difficult to learn because it covers a great many unrelated matters.