Nedarim 67b — the Talmud in English

And we answer: It cannot be said that the verse, “And if in the house of her husband she vowed,” comes to teach that the husband does not annul vows that preceded [the marriage], for there is no need to teach this from the extra wording of the verse.

And

because

if not, you understand it automatically!

For from the meaning of the verse, “And if in the house of her husband she vowed,” it may be learned that the husband’s right to annul applies only to vows that she vowed while she was in his house. It follows that this verse teaches that the husband annuls the vows of his wife from the marriage onward, and it also implies that the husband does not annul the vows of his wife from before the marriage.

And if so, necessarily, the second verse, “And if she shall be married to a man,” is stated with regard to a betrothed woman.

Alternatively,

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

the

expression

“shall be married”—

implies betrothal,

and not marriage.

But it may still be challenged:

From where [do we know] that the father and the husband must annul the vow together?

Say: The father alone annuls,

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

If so,

that the father can annul by himself the vows of his daughter, a young woman betrothed to a man, then why do I need that which the verse said that the father can annul the vows of his unmarried daughter, as it is written:

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

“and her father nullifies it”—

why do I need it?

This follows from your words: There is no need to write the law of the father’s annulment with regard to his unmarried daughter!

For

now, it may be said,

if it is with regard to his betrothed daughter,

in a place

where there is

a betrothed man,

who has partial authority over her, and the betrothed can annul for her [together with the father],

does

the

father alone annul—

where there is no betrothed man,

that is, with an unmarried woman,

is it necessary

to say that the father can annul?

And from the fact that the Torah wrote a special verse 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.

And the distinction is: While she is unmarried, he can annul by himself, whereas when she is betrothed, he must join with the betrothed.

But now the Gemara challenges from the other side: From where do we learn that the betrothed does not annul without the father’s annulment?—

Say,

say that indeed

the father requires the betrothed [

the father requires the participation of the betrothed’s annulment in his annulment, and without the betrothed’s annulment the father’s annulment is not effective]. But

the betrothed—

annuls by himself,

alone, even without the father’s annulment!?

And if you would say,

perhaps you would say in answer that it is impossible to say this, because if so—

the right of the

father

to annul the vows of his betrothed daughter,

that the Merciful One wrote—

why do I need it?

For if the betrothed can annul without the father, and the father cannot annul without the betrothed, what practical difference is there in the fact that the father can annul? Surely the father will always require the participation of the betrothed’s annulment, and once the betrothed annuls, the father’s annulment is no longer needed!?

This cannot be rejected in this way, since it may be said that

it is needed for him,

it is necessary to write it to inform us of the father’s right with regard to the vows of his betrothed daughter, to teach us:

if he upheld it—

he upheld it!

For if the father upheld his daughter’s vow, the vow shall be upheld, and the betrothed can no longer annul it.

And this verse teaches us that although the father cannot annul the vow by himself, nevertheless, since he has the right of annulment together with the betrothed, he can uphold the vow by himself.

And if so, the challenge returns: From where do we learn that the betrothed also cannot annul by himself, without the father also annulling?

And we answer: We have to learn this from the fact that the verse had to say, “And if in the house of her husband she vowed,” in order to explain that the husband of a married woman annuls by himself, without the father.

For

if so,

if you say that the betrothed also can annul by himself, it is difficult—

the verse, “And if

in the house of her husband she vowed” [

which is stated with regard to a married woman]—

why did the Merciful One write it

at all!? Surely this verse, which is stated with regard to a married woman, is superfluous, since it can be learned by a kal va-chomer from the betrothed—

And in a place with a father,

where she is betrothed and has partial connection to her father, and the father can still annul for her, nevertheless

the betrothed annuls by himself.

Where there is no father,

with a married woman, who has left the father’s authority entirely,

is it necessary

to say that the husband can annul by himself!? Surely his power is not diminished after the marriage?

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

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

And the Gemara rejects the answer:

Say,

say that the verse

“And if in the house of her husband she vowed,”

was written in order

to say that the husband does not annul

vows

that preceded,

which she vowed before the marriage, and in accordance with the meaning of the verse, “And if in the house of her husband she vowed,” that is, specifically while she is in her husband’s house.

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

And if so, it is possible to say: Just as after the marriage the husband annuls alone, without partnership, so too the betrothed annuls the vows of his betrothed without the partnership of the father!?

But the Gemara rejects the rejection:

And on the contrary,

on the contrary, from the fact that we find with regard to the husband that he cannot annul vows that preceded, it may be learned that the betrothed annuls specifically in partnership with the father.

For in the section concerning the betrothed it is written, “And her vows are upon her,” and this implies that

the betrothed annuls [even] vows that preceded.

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

Rather, is it not

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

because of his partnership with the father.

The power of the betrothed is through partnership with the father; therefore, he can annul even vows that she vowed before the betrothal, while she was under the father’s authority.

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