## Nedarim Daf 67b

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

וְלָאו מִמֵּילָא שָׁמְעַתְּ מִינַּהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, דַּהֲוָיָה קִדּוּשִׁין מַשְׁמַע.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

אֵימָא אָב לְחוֹדֵיהּ מֵיפֵר! אִם כֵּן ״וְאָסְרָה אִסָּר בֵּית אָבִיהָ״, ״יָנִיא אוֹתָהּ״ לְמָה לִי? הַשְׁתָּא יֵשׁ לוֹמַר בִּמְקוֹם אָרוּס מֵיפֵר אָב לְחוֹדֵיהּ, שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם אָרוּס, מִיבַּעְיָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

אֵימָא אָב לִיבְעֵי אָרוּס, וְאָרוּס לְחוֹדֵיהּ מֵיפֵר. וְכִי תֵּימָא: אָב דִּכְתַב רַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לִי, מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ דְּאִי הֵקִים — הֵקִים!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


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

אִם כֵּן, ״בֵּית אִישָׁהּ נָדָרָה״ לְמַאי כְּתִב? קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה בִּמְקוֹם אָב אָרוּס מֵיפֵר לְחוֹדֵיהּ, שֶׁלֹּא בִּמְקוֹם אָב מִיבַּעְיָא?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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?


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

אֵימָא: ״אִם בֵּית אִישָׁהּ נָדָרָה״, לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין הַבַּעַל מֵיפֵר בְּקוֹדְמִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nedarim 67b:7
[Nedarim 67b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/67b:7)

וּמִינֵּיהּ, אָרוּס מֵיפֵר בְּקוֹדְמִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nedarim 67b:8
[Nedarim 67b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/67b:8)

אֶלָּא לָאו מִשּׁוּם שׁוּתָּפוּתֵיהּ דְּאָב.

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