Study Nedarim folio 75A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
is it taught in the baraita in accordance with the opinion of R' Ami? The Talmud explains that support for R' Ami’s opinion is found in that which is taught in the baraita, as R' Akiva mentions the following distinction: Whether he performed levirate betrothal or whether he did not perform levirate
Alternatively, support can be derived from the first clause of the baraita, which teaches: Once she enters his jurisdiction, she is fully under his authority. If the baraita is referring to a situation where he did not betroth her in levirate betrothal, in what sense is she fully under his authorit
The Talmud then asks with regard to the baraita itself. What is the meaning of the phrase: And just as in other matters there is no such distinction, so too with regard to vows, that R' Akiva teaches in the baraita? Rava said: This is what R' Akiva is teaching: Do you not concede that one is not lia
Rav Ashi said: The Mishnah (74a) is also precisely formulated to indicate this, as it teaches: A yevama is not her husband’s full-fledged wife in the same manner that a betrothed woman is her husband’s full-fledged wife.
Mishnah: One who says to his wife: All vows that you will vow from now until I arrive from such and such a place are hereby ratified, has not said anything, i.e., the vows are not ratified. However, if he states that all vows that she will take until then are hereby nullified, R' Eliezer said: Th