QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches that the Nedarim made by a Na'arah Me'urasah can be
annulled only by a joint annulment of her father and her husband. Neither the father
nor the husband can annul her Nedarim by himself. The Gemara discusses the source for
this Halachah (see Chart). Rabah explains that the Torah writes two Parshios that
discuss how a husband annuls his wife's Nedarim. Since it is not necessary to tell us
the same Halachah twice, it must be that the first Parshah (Bamidbar 30:7-9) is
discussing an Arusah (a woman who is only betrothed), while the second Parshah
(Bamidbar 30:11-16) is discussing a Nesu'ah (a woman who is fully married). Since the
Torah divides them into two Parshios, it must be that there are Halachic differences
between the two. What difference could there be? It must be that in the case of an
Arusah, since she has not yet completely left her father's domain, both the father
and the Arus must annul the Neder and neither one can do it alone.
The RAN adds that the Torah hints that the annulment of the Neder of a Na'arah
Me'urasah requires the Hafarah of the father and not just of the husband when it adds
the letter "Vav" at the beginning of the Parshah (30:7) that teaches that a husband
may annul his Arusah's Neder. The "Vav" implies that the Torah is adding ("Vav
Mosif") to what it mentioned earlier. Since the Torah earlier mentioned that a father
may annul his daughter's Nedarim, the "Vav" is teaching that in order to annul the
Na'arah's Neder, it is necessary for the Arus to annul it as well (when she is a
This point, though -- that the extra letter "Vav" teaches that the father must annul
the Neder together with the husband -- is not mentioned anywhere in the Gemara. Why
does the Ran find it necessary to add this point, when he already explains that this
Halachah is inferred from the fact that the Torah writes an extra Parshah about the
husband's annulment of his wife's Nedarim?
Moreover, for several reasons it would seem that the "Vav Mosif" here is not a true
Derashah. First, the second Parshah of Hafaras ha'Ba'al, which is not discussing
Arusah, *also* begins with a "Vav" (30:11). If we contend that the verse discussing
an Arusah is a continuation of the Parshah of Hafaras ha'Av, then the "Vav" here
should also make *this* Parshah, discussing a Nesu'ah, a continuation of the Parshah
of Hafaras ha'Av so that even in the case of a Nesu'ah, the husband should be able to
annul his wife's Neder *only* with the Hafarah of the father!
Second, the RAN (67b, DH Eima Av) asks why the Gemara does not suggest that the
reason the Torah divides the Parshah of Arusah from the Parshah of Nesu'ah is to
teach that the father can be Mekayem (uphold) the Neder, while the Arus can annul his
Arusah's Neder on his own without her father.
What is the Ran's question? If the "Vav Mosif" teaches that the father has some
jurisdiction over the Nedarim of his daughter who is an Arusah, then we already learn
from that "Vav" that the father may at least be Mekayem his daughter's Nedarim! As
such, the verse would not have to divide the laws of Hafaras ha'Ba'al into two
Parshios, one for Arusah one for Nesu'ah, simply to teach that the father may be
Mekayem the Neder of his daughter who is an Arusah! We would have known that from the
"Vav Mosif" even if the Torah had written only the Parshah of Hafaras ha'Ba'al of an
Arusah! (MELO HA'RO'IM)
We may ask a similar question on the way the Ran explains the conclusion of the
Gemara (67b). The Gemara says that the reason the Torah divides Hafaras ha'Ba'al into
two Parshios is to teach that a husband of a Nesu'ah cannot annul Nedarim that she
had made before marrying him (he cannot be "Mefer b'Kodmin"). The Gemara says
"u'Minei" -- from that verse (30:11) -- we may infer that only the husband of a
*Nesu'ah* cannot be Mefer b'Kodmin, implying that an Arus *can* be Mefer b'Kodmin
(because he is Mefer together with the father).
It seems from the Gemara that the source that an Arus can be Mefer b'Kodmin is from
the fact that the Torah writes two separate Parshios, one for an Arusah and one for a
Nesu'ah. However, the RAN (end of 67b, DH Eima Im) writes that we learn that the
husband of an Arusah may be Mefer b'Kodmin from the wording of the verse (30:7) which
says "u'Nedarehah Alehah" ("her Nedarim that were on her"), implying that he may
annul even the Nedarim that she had made before the betrothal. Why does the Ran need
to give another source for this Halachah if it is already derived from the fact that
there are two separate Parshios of Hafaras ha'Ba'al?
ANSWER: From the "Vav Mosif" alone we cannot learn that the father must be Mefer
together with the husband in the case of a Na'arah Me'urasah. The "Vav" might be
there simply to introduce that this is another Parshah teaching the laws of Hafarah,
and not because there is a certain specific Halachah that the "Vav" is adding.
Similarly, from the phrase, "u'Nedarehah Alehah" alone we would not be able to learn
that the Arus is Mefer b'Kodmin, because that phrase might be referring simply to the
Nedarim that she made after she became betrothed.
Hence, while the real proof that the laws of Hafaras ha'Ba'al in the case of an
Arusah differ from the laws of Hafaras ha'Ba'al in the case of a Nesu'ah is from the
fact that the Torah splits them into two Parshios, we cannot arbitrarily decide in
what Halachah they differ. We would have to find some hint in the verse to that
Halachah first. That is why the Ran is looking for a hint in the verse that a father
must be Mefer with the husband and he cites the "Vav Mosif" as evidence that the
Torah must be saying more than that the husband is Mefer like the father, but that
the husband *needs* the father in order to be Mefer.
Similarly, this explains the need for the phrase, "u'Nedarehah Alehah." Once we know
that the laws of Hafarah of the Nedarim of an Arusah are different from the laws in
the case of a Nesu'ah, we can infer that the verse is hinting to what the difference
is by using the words, "u'Nedarehah Alehah."
Support for the Ran that the Gemara is also relying on the "Vav Mosif" in addition to
the division of the Parshios into two can be found in the Gemara later (67b) that
says, "Av d'Kasav Rachmana Lama Li" (why does the Torah write the Halachah regarding
the Hafarah of the father), implying that the Torah explicitly mentions somewhere the
fact that the father must be Mefer the Neder with the Arus.