Study Guide Nedarim 68
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Nedarim 67
הֵפֵר הָאָב וְלֹא הֵפֵר הַבַּעַל, הֵפֵר הַבַּעַל וְלֹא הֵפֵר הָאָב — אֵינוֹ מוּפָר. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁקִּיֵּים אֶחָד מֵהֶן.
If the father nullified her vow and the husband did not nullify it, or if the husband nullified it and the father did not nullify it, then the vow is not nullified. And needless to say, it is not nullified if one of them ratified the vow.
גְּמָ׳ הַיְינוּ רֵישָׁא: אָבִיהָ וּבַעְלָהּ מְפִירִין נְדָרֶיהָ! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אוֹ אָבִיהָ אוֹ בַעְלָהּ קָתָנֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
GEMARA: The mishna states that if the father nullified her vow and the husband did not nullify it, or if the husband nullified it and the father did not nullify it, then the vow is not nullified. The Gemara asks: Is this not the same as the first clause of the mishna, which states: Her father and her husband nullify her vows? The Gemara answers: The second clause is necessary, lest you say: The mishna is teaching that either her father or her husband can nullify her vows, but there is no need for both of them to do so, which is also a possible interpretation of the Hebrew phrase used. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that it means that both of them must nullify the vow.
וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁקִּיֵּים אֶחָד מֵהֶן. לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנָא? הַשְׁתָּא יֵשׁ לוֹמַר הֵפֵר זֶה בְּלֹא זֶה — וְלֹא כְּלוּם, קִיֵּים אֶחָד מֵהֶן לְמָה לִי? צְרִיכָא לְמִיתְנֵי?!
At the end of the mishna it is stated: And needless to say, it is not nullified if one of them ratified the vow. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach this? Now, it was stated that if one of them nullified the vow without the other, it is nothing, her vow is not nullified. If one of them ratified it, why do I need it to state that her vow is not nullified? Is it necessary to teach this?
כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ כְּגוֹן דְּהֵפֵר אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְקִיֵּים אֶחָד, וְחָזַר הַמְקַיֵּים וְנִשְׁאַל עַל הֲקָמָתוֹ. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מַאי דְּאוֹקִי הָא עַקְרֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דִּמְפִירִין שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּבַת אַחַת.
The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the mishna to mention this in a case where one of them nullified the vow and the other one ratified it, and the one who ratified the woman’s vow retracted and requested dissolution of his ratification from a halakhic authority, who dissolved it. Lest you say: That which he ratified is what he uprooted, by asking the halakhic authority to dissolve his ratification, and therefore the vow is no more, the mishna teaches us that they both must nullify it together.
וְנַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה אָבִיהָ וּבַעְלָהּ מְפִירִין נְדָרֶיהָ, מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבָּה, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאִם הָיוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ וּנְדָרֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ״. מִכָּאן לְנַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה שֶׁאָבִיהָ וּבַעְלָהּ מְפִירִין נְדָרֶיהָ. אֵימָא הַאי קְרָא בִּנְשׂוּאָה כְּתִיב!
§ The mishna teaches: And with regard to a betrothed young woman, her father and her husband nullify her vows. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? Since she is still in her father’s house, he should be authorized to nullify her vows by himself. Rabba said: The verse states: “And if she be to a husband, and her vows are upon her…But if her husband disallows her on the day that he hears it” (Numbers 30:7–9). From here can be derived with regard to a betrothed young woman that her father and her husband nullify her vows. The Gemara asks: Is it not possible to say that this verse is written with regard to a married woman?
אִי מִשּׁוּם נְשׂוּאָה, קְרָא אַחֲרִינָא כְּתִיב: ״וְאִם בֵּית אִישָׁהּ נָדָרָה״. אֵימָא תַּרְוַיְיהוּ בִּנְשׂוּאָה?! וְכִי תֵּימָא תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי בִּנְשׂוּאָה לְמָה לִי — לְמֵימַר שֶׁאֵין הַבַּעַל מֵיפֵר בְּקוֹדְמִין.
The Gemara answers: No, if you say that it is written due to a need to teach the halakha of a married woman, it cannot be, as a different verse is written for that purpose: “And if a woman vowed in her husband’s house” (Numbers 30:11). The earlier verses therefore refer to a betrothed young woman, who is not yet in her husband’s house. The Gemara suggests: Say that both sets of verses are written with regard to a married woman. And if you would say: Why do I need two verses written with regard to a married woman? It is to say that the husband cannot nullify earlier vows made before her marriage but only those made “in her husband’s house.”
וְלָאו מִמֵּילָא שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ?
The Gemara rejects this, stating: And do you not learn it by itself, from the words “And if she vowed in her husband’s house” (Numbers 30:11)? As the verse indicates that her husband can nullify only vows made after the couple is fully married, and not those made beforehand, the earlier verse is unnecessary.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, דַּהֲוָיָה קִדּוּשִׁין מַשְׁמַע.
The Gemara suggests an alternative method of demonstrating that the first verse is referring to a betrothed woman: Or if you wish, say that the words “and if she be to a husband” (Numbers 30:7) must be referring to a betrothed woman, since the usage of the term “she be” indicates betrothal rather than marriage.
אֵימָא אָב לְחוֹדֵיהּ מֵיפֵר! אִם כֵּן ״וְאָסְרָה אִסָּר בֵּית אָבִיהָ״, ״יָנִיא אוֹתָהּ״ לְמָה לִי? הַשְׁתָּא יֵשׁ לוֹמַר בִּמְקוֹם אָרוּס מֵיפֵר אָב לְחוֹדֵיהּ, שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם אָרוּס, מִיבַּעְיָא?
The Gemara proposes: Say that a father can nullify the vows of his betrothed daughter on his own. The Gemara responds: If so, why do I need the verse to teach that in a case where she binds herself with a bond in her father’s house, her father can disallow her, i.e., nullify her vow (see Numbers 30:4–6). Now when it can be said that in the presence of a betrothed, i.e., when she is betrothed, the father nullifies his daughter’s vows on his own, is it necessary to state that he can do so where there is no betrothed? Therefore, the fact that the Torah specifically states that the father nullifies her vows by himself when she is not betrothed indicates that he does not have that power when she is betrothed.
אֵימָא אָב לִיבְעֵי אָרוּס, וְאָרוּס לְחוֹדֵיהּ מֵיפֵר. וְכִי תֵּימָא: אָב דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי, מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ דְּאִי הֵקִים — הֵקִים!
The Gemara suggests: Say that the father requires the betrothed’s participation in order to nullify his daughter’s vows but that the betrothed can nullify them on his own. And if you would say: If the woman’s betrothed can nullify them on his own, why do I need the reference to the father that the Merciful One writes with regard to the vows of a betrothed young woman, implying that the participation of the father is necessary to nullify her vows. One can explain that the need to mention the father is necessary in order to teach us that if the father ratified the vow, it is ratified, and her betrothed can no longer nullify it.
אִם כֵּן, ״בֵּית אִישָׁהּ נָדָרָה״ לְמַאי כְּתִב? קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם אָב אָרוּס מֵיפֵר לְחוֹדֵיהּ, שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם אָב מִיבַּעְיָא?!
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If so, for what purpose did the Torah write “And if she vowed in her husband’s house” (Numbers 30:11), which indicates that a married woman’s husband nullifies her vows on his own? That could be derived by an a fortiori inference: If in the presence of the father, a betrothed man nevertheless nullifies her vows on his own, then when she is no longer in the presence of the father, i.e., she is married and no longer subject to his authority, is it necessary to state that her husband nullifies her vows on his own?
אֵימָא: ״אִם בֵּית אִישָׁהּ נָדָרָה״, לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין הַבַּעַל מֵיפֵר בְּקוֹדְמִין!
The Gemara suggests: Say that the betrothed can nullify her vows by himself, and the words “And if she vowed in her husband’s house” (Numbers 30:11) are in fact not necessary to teach that a fully married husband can nullify her vows on his own. Rather, they come to say, i.e., to teach, that the husband cannot nullify vows that preceded the betrothal.
וּמִינֵּיהּ, אָרוּס מֵיפֵר בְּקוֹדְמִין.
The Gemara answers: But from that, i.e., from the fact that the verse precludes only the full-fledged husband from nullifying vows that preceded the betrothal, one may infer that the betrothed can nullify by himself vows that preceded the betrothal. Such a conclusion is unreasonable, as the fully married man has greater authority over her than the betrothed.
אֶלָּא לָאו מִשּׁוּם שׁוּתָּפוּתֵיהּ דְּאָב.
Rather, is it not the case that the betrothed cannot nullify vows on his own, and his ability to do so is only because of his partnership with the father?
Follow 
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Hearing and reading about the siyumim at the completion of the 13 th cycle Daf Yomi asked our shul rabbi about starting the Daf – he directed me to another shiur in town he thought would allow a woman to join, and so I did! Love seeing the sources for the Divrei Torah I’ve been hearing for the past decades of living an observant life and raising 5 children .
Jill Felder
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Julie Mendelsohn
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Gila Loike
Ashdod, Israel
I had tried to start after being inspired by the hadran siyum, but did not manage to stick to it. However, just before masechet taanit, our rav wrote a message to the shul WhatsApp encouraging people to start with masechet taanit, so I did! And this time, I’m hooked! I listen to the shiur every day , and am also trying to improve my skills.
Laura Major
Yad Binyamin, Israel
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Susan Vishner
Brookline, United States
“I got my job through the NY Times” was an ad campaign when I was growing up. I can headline “I got my daily Daf shiur and Hadran through the NY Times”. I read the January 4, 2020 feature on Reb. Michelle Farber and Hadran and I have been participating ever since. Thanks NY Times & Hadran!
Deborah Aschheim
New York, United States
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
linda kalish-marcus
Efrat, Israel
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
Rhona Fink
San Diego, United States
My first Talmud class experience was a weekly group in 1971 studying Taanit. In 2007 I resumed Talmud study with a weekly group I continue learning with. January 2020, I was inspired to try learning Daf Yomi. A friend introduced me to Daf Yomi for Women and Rabbanit Michelle Farber, I have kept with this program and look forward, G- willing, to complete the entire Shas with Hadran.
Lorri Lewis
Palo Alto, CA, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Linda Brownstein
Mitspe, Israel
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Gitta Jaroslawicz-Neufeld
Far Rockaway, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Reena Slovin
Worcester, United States
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
Madeline Cohen
London, United Kingdom
I’ve been studying Talmud since the ’90s, and decided to take on Daf Yomi two years ago. I wanted to attempt the challenge of a day-to-day, very Jewish activity. Some days are so interesting and some days are so boring. But I’m still here.
Wendy Rozov
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Leah Herzog
Givat Zev, Israel
I decided to give daf yomi a try when I heard about the siyum hashas in 2020. Once the pandemic hit, the daily commitment gave my days some much-needed structure. There have been times when I’ve felt like quitting- especially when encountering very technical details in the text. But then I tell myself, “Look how much you’ve done. You can’t stop now!” So I keep going & my Koren bookshelf grows…
Miriam Eckstein-Koas
Huntington, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
Medinah Korn
בית שמש, Israel
Robin Zeiger
Tel Aviv, Israel
About a year into learning more about Judaism on a path to potential conversion, I saw an article about the upcoming Siyum HaShas in January of 2020. My curiosity was piqued and I immediately started investigating what learning the Daf actually meant. Daily learning? Just what I wanted. Seven and a half years? I love a challenge! So I dove in head first and I’ve enjoyed every moment!!
Nickie Matthews
Blacksburg, United States
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Sue Parker Gerson
Denver, United States
Nedarim 67
הֵפֵר הָאָב וְלֹא הֵפֵר הַבַּעַל, הֵפֵר הַבַּעַל וְלֹא הֵפֵר הָאָב — אֵינוֹ מוּפָר. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁקִּיֵּים אֶחָד מֵהֶן.
If the father nullified her vow and the husband did not nullify it, or if the husband nullified it and the father did not nullify it, then the vow is not nullified. And needless to say, it is not nullified if one of them ratified the vow.
גְּמָ׳ הַיְינוּ רֵישָׁא: אָבִיהָ וּבַעְלָהּ מְפִירִין נְדָרֶיהָ! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אוֹ אָבִיהָ אוֹ בַעְלָהּ קָתָנֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
GEMARA: The mishna states that if the father nullified her vow and the husband did not nullify it, or if the husband nullified it and the father did not nullify it, then the vow is not nullified. The Gemara asks: Is this not the same as the first clause of the mishna, which states: Her father and her husband nullify her vows? The Gemara answers: The second clause is necessary, lest you say: The mishna is teaching that either her father or her husband can nullify her vows, but there is no need for both of them to do so, which is also a possible interpretation of the Hebrew phrase used. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that it means that both of them must nullify the vow.
וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁקִּיֵּים אֶחָד מֵהֶן. לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנָא? הַשְׁתָּא יֵשׁ לוֹמַר הֵפֵר זֶה בְּלֹא זֶה — וְלֹא כְּלוּם, קִיֵּים אֶחָד מֵהֶן לְמָה לִי? צְרִיכָא לְמִיתְנֵי?!
At the end of the mishna it is stated: And needless to say, it is not nullified if one of them ratified the vow. The Gemara asks: Why do I need the mishna to teach this? Now, it was stated that if one of them nullified the vow without the other, it is nothing, her vow is not nullified. If one of them ratified it, why do I need it to state that her vow is not nullified? Is it necessary to teach this?
כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ כְּגוֹן דְּהֵפֵר אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְקִיֵּים אֶחָד, וְחָזַר הַמְקַיֵּים וְנִשְׁאַל עַל הֲקָמָתוֹ. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מַאי דְּאוֹקִי הָא עַקְרֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דִּמְפִירִין שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּבַת אַחַת.
The Gemara answers: It was necessary for the mishna to mention this in a case where one of them nullified the vow and the other one ratified it, and the one who ratified the woman’s vow retracted and requested dissolution of his ratification from a halakhic authority, who dissolved it. Lest you say: That which he ratified is what he uprooted, by asking the halakhic authority to dissolve his ratification, and therefore the vow is no more, the mishna teaches us that they both must nullify it together.
וְנַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה אָבִיהָ וּבַעְלָהּ מְפִירִין נְדָרֶיהָ, מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבָּה, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאִם הָיוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ וּנְדָרֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ״. מִכָּאן לְנַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה שֶׁאָבִיהָ וּבַעְלָהּ מְפִירִין נְדָרֶיהָ. אֵימָא הַאי קְרָא בִּנְשׂוּאָה כְּתִיב!
§ The mishna teaches: And with regard to a betrothed young woman, her father and her husband nullify her vows. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? Since she is still in her father’s house, he should be authorized to nullify her vows by himself. Rabba said: The verse states: “And if she be to a husband, and her vows are upon her…But if her husband disallows her on the day that he hears it” (Numbers 30:7–9). From here can be derived with regard to a betrothed young woman that her father and her husband nullify her vows. The Gemara asks: Is it not possible to say that this verse is written with regard to a married woman?
אִי מִשּׁוּם נְשׂוּאָה, קְרָא אַחֲרִינָא כְּתִיב: ״וְאִם בֵּית אִישָׁהּ נָדָרָה״. אֵימָא תַּרְוַיְיהוּ בִּנְשׂוּאָה?! וְכִי תֵּימָא תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי בִּנְשׂוּאָה לְמָה לִי — לְמֵימַר שֶׁאֵין הַבַּעַל מֵיפֵר בְּקוֹדְמִין.
The Gemara answers: No, if you say that it is written due to a need to teach the halakha of a married woman, it cannot be, as a different verse is written for that purpose: “And if a woman vowed in her husband’s house” (Numbers 30:11). The earlier verses therefore refer to a betrothed young woman, who is not yet in her husband’s house. The Gemara suggests: Say that both sets of verses are written with regard to a married woman. And if you would say: Why do I need two verses written with regard to a married woman? It is to say that the husband cannot nullify earlier vows made before her marriage but only those made “in her husband’s house.”
וְלָאו מִמֵּילָא שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ?
The Gemara rejects this, stating: And do you not learn it by itself, from the words “And if she vowed in her husband’s house” (Numbers 30:11)? As the verse indicates that her husband can nullify only vows made after the couple is fully married, and not those made beforehand, the earlier verse is unnecessary.
אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, דַּהֲוָיָה קִדּוּשִׁין מַשְׁמַע.
The Gemara suggests an alternative method of demonstrating that the first verse is referring to a betrothed woman: Or if you wish, say that the words “and if she be to a husband” (Numbers 30:7) must be referring to a betrothed woman, since the usage of the term “she be” indicates betrothal rather than marriage.
אֵימָא אָב לְחוֹדֵיהּ מֵיפֵר! אִם כֵּן ״וְאָסְרָה אִסָּר בֵּית אָבִיהָ״, ״יָנִיא אוֹתָהּ״ לְמָה לִי? הַשְׁתָּא יֵשׁ לוֹמַר בִּמְקוֹם אָרוּס מֵיפֵר אָב לְחוֹדֵיהּ, שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם אָרוּס, מִיבַּעְיָא?
The Gemara proposes: Say that a father can nullify the vows of his betrothed daughter on his own. The Gemara responds: If so, why do I need the verse to teach that in a case where she binds herself with a bond in her father’s house, her father can disallow her, i.e., nullify her vow (see Numbers 30:4–6). Now when it can be said that in the presence of a betrothed, i.e., when she is betrothed, the father nullifies his daughter’s vows on his own, is it necessary to state that he can do so where there is no betrothed? Therefore, the fact that the Torah specifically states that the father nullifies her vows by himself when she is not betrothed indicates that he does not have that power when she is betrothed.
אֵימָא אָב לִיבְעֵי אָרוּס, וְאָרוּס לְחוֹדֵיהּ מֵיפֵר. וְכִי תֵּימָא: אָב דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי, מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ דְּאִי הֵקִים — הֵקִים!
The Gemara suggests: Say that the father requires the betrothed’s participation in order to nullify his daughter’s vows but that the betrothed can nullify them on his own. And if you would say: If the woman’s betrothed can nullify them on his own, why do I need the reference to the father that the Merciful One writes with regard to the vows of a betrothed young woman, implying that the participation of the father is necessary to nullify her vows. One can explain that the need to mention the father is necessary in order to teach us that if the father ratified the vow, it is ratified, and her betrothed can no longer nullify it.
אִם כֵּן, ״בֵּית אִישָׁהּ נָדָרָה״ לְמַאי כְּתִב? קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם אָב אָרוּס מֵיפֵר לְחוֹדֵיהּ, שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם אָב מִיבַּעְיָא?!
The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If so, for what purpose did the Torah write “And if she vowed in her husband’s house” (Numbers 30:11), which indicates that a married woman’s husband nullifies her vows on his own? That could be derived by an a fortiori inference: If in the presence of the father, a betrothed man nevertheless nullifies her vows on his own, then when she is no longer in the presence of the father, i.e., she is married and no longer subject to his authority, is it necessary to state that her husband nullifies her vows on his own?
אֵימָא: ״אִם בֵּית אִישָׁהּ נָדָרָה״, לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין הַבַּעַל מֵיפֵר בְּקוֹדְמִין!
The Gemara suggests: Say that the betrothed can nullify her vows by himself, and the words “And if she vowed in her husband’s house” (Numbers 30:11) are in fact not necessary to teach that a fully married husband can nullify her vows on his own. Rather, they come to say, i.e., to teach, that the husband cannot nullify vows that preceded the betrothal.
וּמִינֵּיהּ, אָרוּס מֵיפֵר בְּקוֹדְמִין.
The Gemara answers: But from that, i.e., from the fact that the verse precludes only the full-fledged husband from nullifying vows that preceded the betrothal, one may infer that the betrothed can nullify by himself vows that preceded the betrothal. Such a conclusion is unreasonable, as the fully married man has greater authority over her than the betrothed.
אֶלָּא לָאו מִשּׁוּם שׁוּתָּפוּתֵיהּ דְּאָב.
Rather, is it not the case that the betrothed cannot nullify vows on his own, and his ability to do so is only because of his partnership with the father?
Follow
