Study Nedarim folio 67A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
הפר האב ולא הפר הבעל, הפר הבעל ולא הפר האב — אינו מופר. ואין צריך לומר שקיים אחד מהן.
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.
גמ׳ היינו רישא: אביה ובעלה מפירין נדריה! מהו דתימא: או אביה או בעלה קתני, קא משמע לן.
Talmud: The Mishnah 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 Talmud asks: Is this not the same as the first clause of the Mishnah, which states: Her father and her husband nullify her vows? The Talmud answers: The second clause is necessary, lest you say: The Mishnah 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 Mishnah teaches us that it means that both of them must nullify the vow.
ואין צריך לומר שקיים אחד מהן. למה לי למיתנא? השתא יש לומר הפר זה בלא זה — ולא כלום, קיים אחד מהן למה לי? צריכא למיתני?!
At the end of the Mishnah it is stated: And needless to say, it is not nullified if one of them ratified the vow. The Talmud asks: Why do I need the Mishnah 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?
Text data via Sefaria: William Davidson Edition - English and William Davidson Edition - Vocalized Aramaic, CC-BY-NC; edition provenance: Koren. Display terminology has been modernized for readability.