Nedarim 67b (סז:) — the Talmud in English

And we answer: It cannot be said that the verse, “And if she made her vow in her husband’s house,” comes to teach that the husband does not annul vows that preceded the marriage, because there is no need to derive this from the superfluous wording of the verse.

But

perhaps

you derive it by itself!

Indeed, from the implication of the verse, “And if she made her vow in her husband’s house,” it can be learned that the husband’s right to annul applies only to vows that she made while she was in his house. Thus, this verse teaches that the husband annuls his wife’s vows from the time of the marriage, and it also implies that the husband does not annul his wife’s vows from before the marriage.

If so, necessarily the second verse, “And if she shall be betrothed to a man,” is referring to a betrothed woman.

Alternatively,

it is possible to answer further that the verse, “And if she shall be betrothed to a man,” necessarily cannot be referring to a married woman, but specifically to a betrothed woman, because

the

word

“shall be betrothed”

indicates betrothal,

and not marriage.

But it is still possible to raise an objection:

From where is it known that the father and the husband must annul the vow together?

Say that the father alone annuls,

and the father does not require the participation of the betrothed man in the annulment. Rather, only the betrothed man requires the father’s annulment. And the Gemara answers:

If so,

if the father could annul by himself the vows of his minor daughter who is betrothed to a man, then why do I need

“And she binds herself with a bond in her father’s house”

“and her father nullifies it”?

Why is this verse necessary?

According to your words, there is no need to write the law concerning a father’s annulment for his unmarried daughter!

For

now, one can say

that if she is his betrothed daughter,

where

there is an

betrothed man,

to whom she is partially subject, and the betrothed man can annul her vow [together with the father],

the father

can

annul by himself—

where there is no betrothed man,

that is, in the case of an unmarried daughter,

is it necessary

to say that the father can annul?

And from the fact that the Torah wrote a special verse stating that the father annuls the vows of his unmarried daughter, it is proven that there is a distinction between the father’s right with regard to his daughter while she is unmarried and his right with regard to his betrothed daughter.

The distinction is this: while she is unmarried, he can annul by himself, whereas once she is betrothed, he must join with the betrothed man.

But now the Gemara asks, with regard to the other side: From where do we learn that the betrothed man cannot annul without the father’s annulment?

Say

that, indeed,

the father requires the betrothed man

[that the father requires the betrothed man’s annulment to join his own annulment, and without the betrothed man’s annulment the father’s annulment is ineffective]. But

the betrothed man

annuls by himself,

alone, even without the father’s annulment!?

And if you would say

that perhaps one should answer that it cannot be said this way, because if so—

the

father’s

right to annul the vows of his betrothed daughter,

as the Merciful One wrote

why do I need it?

For if the betrothed man can annul without the father, while the father cannot annul without the betrothed man, what practical difference is there in the father’s ability to annul? The father will always require the betrothed man’s annulment to join his own, and once the betrothed man annuls, the father’s annulment is no longer necessary!?

This cannot be rejected in this manner, since it can be said that

it is necessary for him,

that the verse be written to make known the father’s right with regard to the vows of his betrothed daughter, teaching us:

if he confirmed it

he has confirmed it!

If the father confirmed his daughter’s vow, the vow is confirmed, and the betrothed man can no longer annul it.

This verse teaches us that although the father cannot annul the vow by himself, nevertheless, since he possesses the right of annulment together with the betrothed man, he can confirm the vow by himself.

If so, the question returns: From where do we learn that the betrothed man also cannot annul by himself, without the father also annulling?

And we answer: We can learn this from the fact that the verse had to say, “And if she made her vow in her husband’s house,” in order to clarify that the husband of a married woman annuls by himself, without the father.

For

if so,

if you say that the betrothed man, too, can annul by himself, the following difficulty arises—

the verse, “And if she made her vow in

her husband’s house,”

[which is stated with regard to a married woman]—

why did the Merciful One write it?

After all, this verse, which is stated with regard to a married woman, is superfluous, since it can be derived by means of a kal va-homer from a betrothed woman—

And if where there is a father,

when she is betrothed and partially subject to her father, and the father can still annul her vow, nevertheless

the betrothed man annuls by himself,

where there is no father,

in the case of a married woman, who has completely left her father’s authority,

is it necessary

to say that the husband can annul by himself? After all, his power is certainly not diminished after the marriage.

And since the Torah wrote a special verse to make known that the husband annuls the vows of his married wife, it is proven that there is a distinction between the husband’s right to annul the vows of his betrothed woman and his right to annul the vows of his wife after the marriage.

The distinction is this: after the marriage, the husband can annul by himself, whereas when she is only betrothed, the husband must join with the father.

The Gemara rejects this answer:

Say

that the verse

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

was written in order

to say that the husband does not annul

vows

that preceded

the marriage, which she made before the marriage, as implied by the verse, “And if she made her vow in her husband’s house,” meaning specifically while she was in her husband’s house.

And since this verse is not superfluous, there is no longer proof that there is a distinction between a betrothed woman and a married woman.

If so, it is possible to say that just as after the marriage the husband annuls by himself, without partnership, so too the betrothed man annuls the vows of his betrothed woman without the partnership of the father!?

But the Gemara rejects this rejection:

On the contrary,

from the fact that we find that a husband cannot annul vows that preceded the marriage, it can be learned that a betrothed man annuls specifically in partnership with the father.

For with regard to the betrothed man it is written, “And her vows are upon her,” from which it is implied that

a betrothed man annuls vows that preceded the betrothal.

It is impossible to say that the power of the betrothed man is greater than that of the husband, who does not annul vows that preceded the marriage!

Rather,

it is proven from here that the betrothed man’s advantage over the husband exists

because of his partnership with the father.

The betrothed man’s power derives from his partnership with the father; therefore, he can annul even vows that she made before the betrothal, while she was under her father’s authority.

And it is proven from this that with regard to a minor daughter who is betrothed, the betrothed man cannot annul her vows except together with the father’s annulment, and likewise the father cannot annul her vows except together with the betrothed man’s annulment.