Nedarim 67

Sugya Map

• Issue: The precise conditions for nullifying vows (hafara) made by a na'arah me'orasa (betrothed young woman), specifically concerning the joint authority of her father and husband.
• Nafka Mina(s): Whether unilateral nullification is effective; the implications of one party ratifying the vow; the source for this dual authority.
• Primary Sources: Mishna Nedarim 67a, Gemara Nedarim 67a, Bamidbar 30:7-11.

Text Snapshot

"הפר האב ולא הפר הבעל, או הפר הבעל ולא הפר האב – אינו מופר. ואין צריך לומר קיים אחד מהן." (Nedarim 67a)

This line from the Mishna states that if either the father or the husband nullifies the vow, but the other does not, the vow is not nullified. It then adds, "and needless to say," the vow stands if one of them ratifies it. The Gemara immediately pounces on the apparent redundancy: "היינו רישא?" (Is this not the same as the first clause?) Nedarim 67a, challenging the Mishna's necessity.

Readings

• Rashi (Nedarim 67a s.v. הפר האב): Clarifies "ולא הפר הבעל" as the husband "שתק מעת לעת" (was silent for 24 hours), implying that passive non-nullification by one party suffices to uphold the vow, even if the other actively nullified. This highlights the strict requirement for joint active nullification.
• Ran (Nedarim 67a s.v. ואין צריך לומר קיים אחד מהן): Zeroes in on the Gemara's query, "למה ליה למיתנא" (Why does it need to teach this?), setting up the Gemara's profound chiddush (novel insight) that the "אין צריך לומר" clause addresses a unique case where "הפר האחד וקיים האחד, וחזר המקיים ובקש התרה על קיומו" (one nullified and one ratified, and the one who ratified later retracted and sought dissolution of his ratification) Nedarim 67a.

Friction

• Kushya: The Gemara's strongest challenge is to the "ואין צריך לומר קיים אחד מהן" clause: if a unilateral nullification is ineffective, surely a unilateral ratification makes the vow stand, rendering the statement superfluous?
• Terutz: The Gemara brilliantly answers that the Mishna teaches a chiddush for a scenario where one nullified and the other ratified, and the ratifier subsequently sought hatarat nedarim (dissolution of vows) on his own ratification. One might think that since his ratification was "uprooted," the other's nullification now stands. The Mishna, however, teaches "שניהם צריכים להפר יחד" (they both must nullify together) Nedarim 67a, meaning that a subsequent hatara on a ratification does not retroactively validate a prior unilateral nullification.

Intertext

The Gemara later derives the dual authority of father and husband for a na'arah me'orasa from a careful analysis of Bamidbar 30:7-9 ("ואם היות תהיה לאיש...") vis-à-vis Bamidbar 30:11 ("וכי תדור נדר בבית אישה"). The Gemara interprets the former as referring to a betrothed woman, requiring both authorities, while the latter refers to a married woman, where only the husband nullifies. This precise exegetical work underpins the entire sugya.

Psak/Practice

The halakha follows the Gemara's conclusion: for a na'arah me'orasa, both father and husband must nullify her vow. If one nullifies and the other is silent for me'et l'et, or actively ratifies, the vow stands. Even if a ratification is later dissolved by hatarat nedarim, it does not validate a prior unilateral hafara; joint action is paramount. (See Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 234:10).

Takeaway

The Mishna's seeming redundancy reveals a critical insight into the nature of joint authority, emphasizing that a vow's nullification is not merely the sum of individual actions but requires unified, synchronized intent, even overriding subsequent attempts to undo a ratification.