(67a:1)הפר האב ולא הפר הבעל הפר הבעל ולא הפר האב אינו מופר ואין צריך לומר שקיים אחד מהן:
(67a:1)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.
(67a:2)גמ׳ היינו רישא אביה ובעלה מפירין נדריה מהו דתימא או אביה או בעלה קתני קמ"ל
(67a:2)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.
(67a:3)ואין צריך לומר שקיים אחד מהן למה לי למיתנא השתא יש לומר הפר זה בלא זה ולא כלום קיים אחד מהן למה לי צריכא למיתני
(67a:3)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?
(67a:4)כי איצטריך ליה כגון דהפר אחד מהן וקיים אחד וחזר המקיים ונשאל על הקמתו מהו דתימא מאי דאוקי הא עקריה קמ"ל דמפירין שניהם בבת אחת
(67a:4)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.
(67a:5)ונערה המאורסה אביה ובעלה מפירין נדריה מנלן אמר רבה אמר קרא (במדבר ל, ז) ואם היו תהיה לאיש ונדריה עליה מכאן לנערה המאורסה שאביה ובעלה מפירין נדריה אימא האי קרא בנשואה כתיב
(67a:5)§ 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?
(67a:6)אי משום נשואה קרא אחרינא כתיב (במדבר ל, יא) ואם בית אישה נדרה אימא תרוייהו בנשואה וכי תימא תרי קראי בנשואה למה לי למימר שאין הבעל מיפר בקודמין
(67a:6)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.”
(67b:1)ולאו ממילא שמעת מינה
(67b:1)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.
(67b:2)איבעית אימא דהויה קדושין משמע
(67b:2)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.
(67b:3)אימא אב לחודיה מיפר א"כ (במדבר ל, ד) ואסרה איסר בית אביה יניא אותה למה לי השתא י"ל במקום ארוס מיפר אב לחודיה שלא במקום ארוס מיבעיא
(67b:3)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.
(67b:4)אימא אב ליבעי ארוס וארוס לחודיה מיפר וכי תימא אב דכתב רחמנא למה לי מיבעי ליה דאי הקים הקים
(67b:4)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.
(67b:5)א"כ בית אישה נדרה למאי כתב ק"ו ומה במקום אב ארוס מיפר לחודיה שלא במקום אב מיבעיא
(67b:5)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?
(67b:6)אימא (במדבר ל, יא) אם בית אישה נדרה לומר שאין הבעל מיפר בקודמין
(67b:6)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.
(67b:7)ומיניה ארוס מיפר בקודמין
(67b:7)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.
(67b:8)אלא לאו משום שותפותיה דאב
(67b:8)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?
