Nedarim 133

IF HER FATHER ANNULLED [HER VOW] BUT NOT THE HUSBAND, OR IF THE HUSBAND ANNULLED [IT] BUT NOT THE FATHER, IT IS NOT ANNULLED; AND IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING IF ONE OF THEM CONFIRMED [IT]. <b><i>GEMARA</i></b>. But that<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Viz., IF HER FATHER ANNULLED, etc. ');">¹</span>

is the same as the first clause. HER FATHER AND HUSBAND ANNUL HER VOWS! — I might think that either her father or her husband is meant;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The 'and', Heb. u, having the disjunctive force of 'or'. ');">²</span> therefore we are taught [otherwise].

AND IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING IF ONE OF THEM CONFIRMED [IT]. Then why teach it? If we say that annulment by one without the other is invalid, what need is there to state 'IF ONE OF THEM CONFIRMED [IT]?' — It is necessary, in the case where one of them annulled it and the other confirmed it, and then the latter sought absolution of his confirmation.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By a Rabbi, who granted it to him just as he would for a vows. ');">³</span> I might think, that which he confirmed, he has surely overthrown;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Either that the very revoking of his confirmation is in itself the equivalent of nullification, or, having revoked his confirmation, he is now free to nullify the vow. ');">⁴</span>

there fore we are taught that they must both annul simultaneously.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Not literally, for even if one annulled in the morning, and the other in the evening, it is valid. But there must be no invalidating act between the two nullifications, and here, since one confirmed it, the nullification of the other previous thereto is void. ');">⁵</span> IN THE CASE OF A BETROTHED MAIDEN, HER FATHER AND HER HUSBAND ANNUL HER VOWS. Whence do we know this?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That her husband may annul her vows, though she has not yet entered his home. ');">⁶</span>

— Rabbah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Yalkut reads: Raba. ');">⁷</span> said: The Writ saith, And if she be to an husband, when she vowed [… then he shall make her vow&nbsp;… of no effect]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXX, 7-9. ');">⁸</span>

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?