Nedarim 67a (סז.) — the Talmud in English

,

or

if the father annulled but the husband did not, or if the husband annulled but the father did not, it is not annulled

the vow, until both annul it.

And it is not necessary to say that

if

one of them upheld

the vow, needless to say the annulment of the other is ineffective, because both must annul her vow simultaneously.

Gemara:

We raise the matter: Why did the tanna need to teach at the end of the Mishna that if the father alone or the husband alone annulled the vow, the vow is not annulled?

Yet

that is already stated in the first clause [that is what the tanna already taught in the first clause],

as

“Her father and her husband annul her vows.”

It is self-evident that the annulment of the father or the husband alone is ineffective.

And we answer: If the tanna had taught only the first clause,

you might have said—

it would have been possible to say that the meaning of the Mishna’s statement, “her father and her husband,” is

“either her father or her husband”;

both would not be required to annul it.

it teaches us

that only both of them together can annul the vow, and the annulment of one without the annulment of the other is entirely ineffective, and the vow is not annulled.

We further learned in the Mishna:

“And needless to say, if one of them upheld it.”

We raise an objection:

why do I need it taught,

why did the tanna need to write this law?

For

now, it can be said,

now, after the tanna has already stated that the annulment of both is required, and if

one annulled without the other

the annulment is ineffective

and accomplishes nothing.

If so, when the tanna subsequently said, “And needless to say,

‘one of them upheld it,’”—

why do I need this?

Is it not obvious that the annulment of one is ineffective if the other upheld the vow, since in this case there is annulment by only one of them, and the tanna has already explicitly taught that both the father’s annulment and the betrothed man’s annulment are required?

And we answer:

it was necessary to teach it,

the tanna needed to teach this law in the Mishna,

because it was necessary for him

to do so in order to introduce an additional case:

For example, one of them annulled [either the father or the husband]

the vow.

And one upheld it [and the other upheld]

the vow.

And

and

afterward, the one who upheld it went and sought a ruling

from a Sage

concerning his upholding. [ [ויכולים להשאל על ההיקם כמו שיכולים להשאל על הנדר, והחכם יכול לעקור את ההיקם, כדי שיוכל המקיים לחזור ולהפר]]They can seek a ruling concerning an upholding just as they can concerning a vow, and the Sage can uproot the upholding, so that the one who upheld it can return and annul it].

One can ask a Sage about an upholding just as one can ask about a vow, and the Sage can uproot the upholding so that the person who upheld it can later return and annul the vow.

Therefore, if the tanna had taught only the law that the annulment of one is ineffective without the annulment of the other, and had not taught the law that if one upholds the vow it is thereafter impossible to annul it—

you might have said

it would have been possible to say that in this situation, when the second seeks a ruling concerning his upholding, he can now return and annul her vow, because

what he upheld, he has uprooted,

since by seeking a ruling from a Sage he uprooted his upholding of the vow. From this point onward, he can again annul it and join the previous annulment of the first.

the tanna teaches us

in the Mishna that since he upheld the vow for her, even though the upholding was uprooted when he sought a ruling from a Sage concerning it, the one who upheld it cannot return and join the first’s earlier annulment, because

only

only if

both annul simultaneously

do their annulments combine to nullify the vow.

But if, between the first person’s annulment and the second person’s annulment, something occurred that nullifies the annulment, such as one of them upholding the vow, the annulments no longer combine, and the vow is not annulled.

We learned in the Mishna:

“A betrothed young woman: her father and her husband annul her vows”:

We raise the matter:

from where do we derive

from the Torah this law of partnership between the father and the betrothed man in the annulment of vows?

Rabba said: The verse states: “

‘And if she becomes married to a man while her vows are upon her.’”

This verse teaches that a betrothed man can annul the vows of his betrothed [as will be explained below, there is another verse concerning the husband’s annulment of the vows of his married wife].

And since the betrothed young woman has not yet entirely left her father’s authority as long as she has not married, the verse teaches that, in the case of a betrothed young woman, the annulments of the husband and the father combine, since she is under the authority of both of them, each in part.

From here

we learn

with regard to a betrothed young woman, that her father and her husband annul her vows.

The Gemara is puzzled:

but say that this verse

perhaps refers—

in

to a

married woman,

and not to a betrothed woman! One cannot learn from this verse that a betrothed man has the authority to annul the vows of his betrothed.

And we answer:

if it is because of a married woman—

another verse is written [with regard to the annulment of the vows of a married woman]—

[for there is another verse concerning the annulment of the vows of a married woman]—

“And if she vowed in her husband’s house!”

Necessarily, the verse “And if she becomes married to a man” refers to a betrothed woman.

But the Gemara still raises an objection:

But say that both of them refer to a married woman [perhaps both verses refer to a married woman],

and we have no source from the verse that a betrothed man can annul the vows of his betrothed?

And if you would say,

And if you would say,

“Why do I need two verses concerning a married woman?”

why are they necessary?

Why is there a need for two verses concerning a married woman?

It can be said that the verse “And if she vowed in her husband’s house” was written

to say that the husband does not annul

to say that the husband does not annul

earlier vows,

which his wife took before the marriage.

And this is the implication of the verse: specifically, if she vowed in her husband’s house, her husband can annul the vows. But vows that she took before the marriage, he cannot annul.

The question returns: Since it is possible to say that both verses refer to a married woman and neither verse is superfluous, from where do we know that a betrothed man also annuls the vows of his betrothed?