Nedarim 67a — the Talmud in English

If the father annulled and the husband did not annul,

or

the husband annulled and the father did not annul, it is not annulled

the vow, until both of them annul it.

And it is not necessary to say that

if

one of them upheld

the vow, the annulment of the other is of no avail, because both of them must annul her vow together.

Gemara:

And we raise it as a matter for discussion: Why was it necessary for the tanna to repeat at the end of the Mishna that if the father alone annulled or the husband alone annulled, the vow is not annulled?

But

that is the opening clause [that the tanna already taught in the opening clause],

for

her father and her husband annul her vows.

And it is self-evident that the annulment of the father or of the husband alone is of no avail.

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

what might you have said—

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

either her father or her husband, it teaches,

and it is not necessary that both of them annul.

It teaches us

that only both of them together can annul the vow, and the annulment of one without the annulment of the other accomplishes nothing, and the vow is not annulled.

We further learned in the Mishna:

“And it is not necessary to say that one of them upheld it.”

And we object:

Why was it necessary to teach,

why was it necessary for the tanna to write this law?

For

now, it can be said,

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

one annulled without the other

the annulment is of no avail

at all.

If so, when the tanna subsequently said, “And it is not necessary to say that

one of them upheld it”—

why is it necessary?

Is it not certain that the annulment of one will be of no avail if the other upheld it, since there is here only the annulment of one of them, and the tanna already explicitly taught that both the annulment of the father and the annulment of the betrothed man 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,

he needed it in order to introduce an additional case:

For example, one of them annulled

[either the father or the husband] the vow.

And one upheld

[and the other upheld] the vow.

And

afterward

the one who upheld it went and asked

a Sage

about his upholding.

[And they can ask about their upholding just as they can ask about the vow, and the Sage can uproot the upholding, so that the one who upheld it can return and annul.]

And therefore, if the tanna had said only the law that the annulment of one is not effective without the annulment of the other, and had not said the law that if one upholds it, it is again impossible to annul—

what might you have said,

it would have been possible to say that in this manner, when the second asked about his upholding, he can now return and annul it for her, because

what this one upheld, he uprooted,

for he uprooted the upholding of the vow by asking the Sage about it. And from now he can again annul it, and join his annulment to the earlier annulment of the first.

It teaches us

the tanna in the Mishna that since he upheld the vow for her, then even though the upholding was uprooted when he asked a Sage about it, the one who upheld it cannot return and join the earlier annulment of the first, because

only

if

both annul it at one and the same time

does their annulment join together to nullify the vow.

But if between the annulment of the first and the annulment of the second there was something that nullifies the annulment, such as the upholding of the vow by one of them, the annulments no longer join together, and the vow is not annulled.

We learned in the Mishna:

The betrothed maiden: her father and her husband annul her vows.

And we raise it as a matter for discussion:

From where do we know,

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

Rabba said: The verse says, “

And if she shall be married to a man, while her vows are upon her.”

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

And since the betrothed maiden has not yet completely left her father’s authority, as long as she has not married, Scripture teaches that with a betrothed maiden the annulments of the husband and the father join together, since she is under the authority of both of them, each partially.

From here

we learn

with regard to the betrothed maiden, that her father and her husband annul her vows.

And the Gemara is astonished:

And let us say that this verse,

perhaps we should say that this verse—

in

a

married woman is written,

and not with regard to a betrothed woman! And we cannot learn from this verse that a betrothed man has the right to annul the vows of his betrothed.

And we answer:

If it is because of a married woman—

another verse is written [for regarding the annulment of the vows of a married woman, there is another verse]—

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

“And if, in her husband’s house, she made a vow”!

Necessarily, the verse “And if she shall be married to a man” speaks with regard to a betrothed woman.

But the Gemara still objects:

And let us say: both of them concern a married woman [and perhaps we should say that both verses concern a married woman], and we have no source from the verse that a betrothed man can annul the vows of his betrothed?

[and perhaps both verses refer to a married woman], and we have no source that a betrothed man can annul the vows of his betrothed woman.

And if you would say,

perhaps you will say,

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, in her husband’s house, she made a vow” was written

to say that the husband does not annul

vows

that preceded,

which his wife made before the marriage.

And as the verse implies, it is specifically if she made a vow in her husband’s house that her husband can annul it. But a vow that she made before the marriage, he cannot annul.

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