GEMARA. But that 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; 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. I might think, that which he confirmed, he has surely overthrown; there fore we are taught that they must both annul simultaneously. IN THE CASE OF A BETROTHED MAIDEN, HER FATHER AND HER HUSBAND ANNUL HER VOWS. Whence do we know this? — Rabbah said: The Writ saith, And if she be to an husband, when she vowed [… then he shall make her vow … of no effect]: hence it follows that a betrothed maiden, her father and her husband annul her vows. 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. But perhaps both refer to a nesu'ah, 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?ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏ