Quoting%20commentary for Nedarim 133:6

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

hence it follows that a betrothed maiden, her father and her husband annul her vows.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This verse is preceded by, But, if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vow&nbsp;… shall stand&nbsp;… because her father disallowed her. Then follows: And if she be etc. Now, Rabbah reasons thus: Since we have a different verse for a nesu'ah (a married woman, v. Glos.), as explained below, this verse must refer to an arusah, and consequently, the copulative 'and' must mark a continuation of the preceding verse; i.e., if in her father's house, the father has power to annul her vow, and if at the same time she is married, viz., an arusah, her husband too, in conjunction with her father, exercises this authority. For if the 'and' introduces a separate law, namely, that the husband of arusah can disallow her vows without her father, the verse referring to a nesu'ah is superfluous: if the husband can himself annul the vows of an arusah, surely it goes without saying that he can do so for a nesu'ah! Now this reasoning is implicit in the first verse quoted, but the Talmud proceeds to elucidate it by means of question and answer. ');">⁹</span> But perhaps this verse refers to a nesu'ah? — In respect to a nesu'ah there is a different verse, viz., And if she vowed in her husband's house, etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. II. ');">¹⁰</span> But perhaps both refer to a nesu'ah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But in the case of an arusah the father alone can annul her vows. ');">¹¹</span> and should you object, what need of two verses relating to a nesu'ah? It is to teach that a husband cannot annul pre-marriage vows?

Explore quoting%20commentary for Nedarim 133:6. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.