## Nedarim Daf 67a

###### Nedarim 67a:1
[Nedarim 67a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/67a:1)

הֵפֵר הָאָב וְלֹא הֵפֵר הַבַּעַל, הֵפֵר הַבַּעַל וְלֹא הֵפֵר הָאָב — אֵינוֹ מוּפָר. וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁקִּיֵּים אֶחָד מֵהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nedarim 67a:2
[Nedarim 67a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/67a:2)

**גְּמָ׳** הַיְינוּ רֵישָׁא: אָבִיהָ וּבַעְלָהּ מְפִירִין נְדָרֶיהָ! מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: אוֹ אָבִיהָ אוֹ בַעְלָהּ קָתָנֵי, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nedarim 67a:3
[Nedarim 67a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/67a:3)

וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שֶׁקִּיֵּים אֶחָד מֵהֶן. לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנָא? הַשְׁתָּא יֵשׁ לוֹמַר הֵפֵר זֶה בְּלֹא זֶה — וְלֹא כְּלוּם, קִיֵּים אֶחָד מֵהֶן לְמָה לִי? צְרִיכָא לְמִיתְנֵי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


###### Nedarim 67a:4
[Nedarim 67a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/67a:4)

כִּי אִיצְטְרִיךְ לֵיהּ כְּגוֹן דְּהֵפֵר אֶחָד מֵהֶן וְקִיֵּים אֶחָד, וְחָזַר הַמְקַיֵּים וְנִשְׁאַל עַל הֲקָמָתוֹ. מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא: מַאי דְּאוֹקִי הָא עַקְרֵיהּ, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דִּמְפִירִין שְׁנֵיהֶם בְּבַת אַחַת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Nedarim 67a:5
[Nedarim 67a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/67a:5)

וְנַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה אָבִיהָ וּבַעְלָהּ מְפִירִין נְדָרֶיהָ, מְנָלַן? אָמַר רַבָּה, אָמַר קְרָא: ״וְאִם הָיוֹ תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ וּנְדָרֶיהָ עָלֶיהָ״. מִכָּאן לְנַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה שֶׁאָבִיהָ וּבַעְלָהּ מְפִירִין נְדָרֶיהָ. אֵימָא הַאי קְרָא בִּנְשׂוּאָה כְּתִיב!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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?


###### Nedarim 67a:6
[Nedarim 67a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/67a:6)

אִי מִשּׁוּם נְשׂוּאָה, קְרָא אַחֲרִינָא כְּתִיב: ״וְאִם בֵּית אִישָׁהּ נָדָרָה״. אֵימָא תַּרְוַיְיהוּ בִּנְשׂוּאָה?! וְכִי תֵּימָא תְּרֵי קְרָאֵי בִּנְשׂוּאָה לְמָה לִי — לְמֵימַר שֶׁאֵין הַבַּעַל מֵיפֵר בְּקוֹדְמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.”