Nedarim

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?