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].
GEMARA. But that1 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;2 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.3 I might think, that which he confirmed, he has surely overthrown;4 there fore we are taught that they must both annul simultaneously.5
IN THE CASE OF A BETROTHED MAIDEN, HER FATHER AND HER HUSBAND ANNUL HER VOWS. Whence do we know this?6 — Rabbah7 said: The Writ saith, And if she be to an husband, when she vowed [… then he shall make her vow … of no effect]:8 hence it follows that a betrothed maiden, her father and her husband annul her vows.9 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.10 But perhaps both refer to a nesu'ah,11 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?
Original footnotes renumbered.
- Viz., IF HER FATHER ANNULLED, etc.
- The 'and', Heb. u, having the disjunctive force of 'or'.
- By a Rabbi, who granted it to him just as he would for a vows.
- 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.
- 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.
- That her husband may annul her vows, though she has not yet entered his home.
- Yalkut reads: Raba.
- Num. XXX, 7-9.
- This verse is preceded by, But, if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vow … shall stand … 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.
- Ibid. II.
- But in the case of an arusah the father alone can annul her vows.
— But does that not follow in any case?1 Alternatively, I might say 'to be' implies kiddushin.2 But perhaps the father himself can annul?3 — If so, what is the need of, 'and bind himself by a bond, being in the father's house … if her father disallow … not any of her vows shall stand … because her father disallowed her'?4 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?5 It is to shew that if he confirmed, the confirmation is valid!6 — If so, why write, 'and if she vowed in her husband's house': [since] it follows a fortiori: if the arus can annul alone even where there is a father,7 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?8 — 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.9
Original footnotes renumbered.
- 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.
- The phrase 'if she be' denotes mere betrothal; it therefore refers to an arusah.
- 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.
- Num. XXX, 4-6.
- 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?
- I.e., the father still retains that authority. But if he is neutral, the arus alone can annul.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.