Nedarim 134

ולאו ממילא שמעת מינה

— But does that not follow in any case?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashi, Ran, and one alternative in Asheri explain: 'And if she vowed in her husband's house', which obviously refers to a nesu'ah, teaches at the same time that the vow must have been made in her husband's house, and not before marriage. So that 'and if she be, etc.', must refer to an arusah. ');">¹</span>

איבעית אימא דהויה קדושין משמע

Alternatively, I might say 'to be' implies <i>kiddushin</i>.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The phrase 'if she be' denotes mere betrothal; it therefore refers to an arusah. ');">²</span>

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

But perhaps the father himself can annul?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though it has been shewn that the husband can annul only in conjunction with the father, the latter, on the other hand, can perhaps act alone. ');">³</span>

אימא אב ליבעי ארוס וארוס לחודיה מיפר וכי תימא אב דכתב רחמנא למה לי מיבעי ליה דאי הקים הקים

— If so, what is the need of, 'and bind himself by a bond, being in the father's house&nbsp;… if her father disallow&nbsp;… not any of her vows shall stand&nbsp;… because her father disallowed her'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXX, 4-6. ');">⁴</span>

א"כ בית אישה נדרה למאי כתב ק"ו ומה במקום אב ארוס מיפר לחודיה שלא במקום אב מיבעיא

If the father can annul them alone even when there is an arus, surely he can do so when there is no arus! But perhaps the father needs the arus, but the arus can annul alone? And should you reply, If so, why does Scripture mention the father?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., why is and if she be at all to an husband coupled with because her father disallowed her; as explained p. 217, n. 5, that the and combines the two. But why combine them, if the arus can annul entirely without the father? ');">⁵</span>

אימא (במדבר ל, יא) אם בית אישה נדרה לומר שאין הבעל מיפר בקודמין

It is to shew that if he confirmed, the confirmation is valid!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the father still retains that authority. But if he is neutral, the arus alone can annul. ');">⁶</span>

ומיניה ארוס מיפר בקודמין

— If so, why write, 'and if she vowed in her husband's house': [since] it follows <i>a fortiori</i>: if the arus can annul alone even where there is a father,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when she is still under the paternal roof and to some extent under his authority; e.g., her earnings belong to her father. ');">⁷</span>

אלא לאו משום שותפותיה דאב

is it necessary [to state it] when she is no longer under her father's control! But perhaps, 'and if she vowed in her husband's house', teaches that he cannot annul pre-marriage vows?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The question here is not the same as on 67a. There it was suggested that both 'and if she be to an husband' and, 'and if she vowed in her husband's house' refer to a nesu'ah, the latter verse teaching that the husband cannot annul pre-marriage vows. Here the question is: perhaps the first verse refers to an arus, and means that he can annul alone, and the second to a husband (after nissu'in)? But it does not teach that in the second case too he can annul, since this is obvious from the first a fortiori, but implies a limitation: that he cannot annul pre-marriage vows. ');">⁸</span> — From that fact itself [it is proved. That] an arus can annul pre-marriage vows: surely, that is [only] because of his partnership with the father.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is obvious that an arus alone cannot wield greater authority than a husband. Hence, when we find that in one respect his power is greater, it must be because he does not exercise it alone, but in conjunction with the father, who can disallow his daughter's vows whenever made under his authority. ');">⁹</span>