QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches that a Neder made by a Na'arah Me'urasah may be annulled only jointly by her father and her husband. Neither her father nor her husband may annul her Neder by himself. The Gemara discusses the source for this law (see Chart). Rabah explains that the Torah writes two Parshiyos in which it discusses how a husband annuls his wife's Nedarim. Since it is not necessary to teach the same Halachah twice, it must be that the first Parshah (Bamidbar 30:7-9) refers to an Arusah (a woman who is only betrothed) and the second Parshah (Bamidbar 30:11-16) refers to a Nesu'ah (a woman who is fully married). By dividing these laws into two Parshiyos, the Torah teaches that there is some Halachic difference between the two. What difference, though, is there? The difference must be that since an Arusah has not yet completely left her father's domain, both the father and the Arus must annul the Neder and neither one may do it alone, while in the case of a Nesu'ah the husband alone may annul his wife's Neder.

The RAN adds that the Torah hints that the annulment of a Na'arah Me'urasah's Neder requires the participation of the father and not just of the husband when it adds the letter "Vav" at the beginning of the Parshah (30:7) which teaches that an Arus 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" teaches 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 Na'arah Me'urasah).

This point -- 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 has already explained 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, the "Vav Mosif" here does not seem to be an actual Derashah, for several reasons: The second Parshah of Hafaras ha'Ba'al (which does not discuss an Arusah) also begins with a "Vav" (30:11). If the verse which discusses an Arusah is a continuation of the Parshah of Hafaras ha'Av, the "Vav" here should also make this Parshah, which discusses a Nesu'ah, a continuation of the Parshah of Hafaras ha'Av, such that even in the case of a Nesu'ah the husband should not be able to annul his wife's Neder without with the Hafarah of the father!

Moreover, the RAN (67b, DH Eima Av) asks why the Gemara does not suggest that the reason why the Torah divides the Parshah of Arusah from the Parshah of Nesu'ah is to teach that the father may be Mekayem (uphold) the Neder, while the Arus may annul his Arusah's Neder by himself, without her father's participation.

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, that "Vav" already teaches that the father may at least be Mekayem his daughter's Nedarim! As such, the verse does not need to divide the laws of Hafaras ha'Ba'al into two Parshiyos, 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. That law would have been derived 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)

A similar question may be asked on the way the Ran explains the conclusion of the Gemara (67b). The Gemara says that the reason why the Torah divides Hafaras ha'Ba'al into two Parshiyos is to teach that the husband of a Nesu'ah cannot annul Nedarim she made before the marriage (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, which implies that an Arus may be Mefer b'Kodmin (because he is Mefer together with the father).

The Gemara implies that the source that an Arus may be Mefer b'Kodmin is the fact that the Torah writes two separate Parshiyos, one for an Arusah and one for a Nesu'ah. However, the RAN (end of 67b, DH Eima Im) writes that the source that the husband of an Arusah may be Mefer b'Kodmin are the words, "u'Nedarehah Alehah" -- "her Nedarim that were on her" (30:7), which imply that he may annul even the Nedarim which she made before the betrothal. Why does the Ran give another source for this Halachah if it is already derived from the fact that there are two separate Parshiyos of Hafaras ha'Ba'al?

ANSWER: The "Vav Mosif" alone cannot teach that the father must be Mefer together with the husband in the case of a Na'arah Me'urasah. The "Vav" might be intended merely as an introduction, expressing that what follows is another Parshah about the laws of Hafarah. It does not necessarily teach a specific Halachah. Similarly, the phrase "u'Nedarehah Alehah" alone cannot teach that the Arus is Mefer b'Kodmin, because that phrase might refer simply to the Nedarim she made after she became betrothed.

Hence, although the real source that the laws of Hafaras ha'Ba'al in the case of an Arusah differ from those in the case of a Nesu'ah is the fact that the Torah splits them into two Parshiyos, that division does not teach in what Halachah (or Halachos) they differ. Therefore, the Ran seeks an indication in the verse that a father must be Mefer with the husband in the case of an Arusah. He cites the "Vav Mosif" as evidence that the Torah means that not only the husband may the husband be Mefer like the father, but that the husband needs the father's participation in order to be Mefer.

This approach also explains the need for the phrase, "u'Nedarehah Alehah." Once the Torah teaches (by dividing the Parshiyos into two) that the laws of Hafarah of the Nedarim of an Arusah differ from the laws in the case of a Nesu'ah, what that difference is may be inferred from the words, "u'Nedarehah Alehah."

The Gemara later (67b) supports the Ran's explanation that the Gemara relies on the "Vav Mosif" as well as the division of the Parshiyos into two. The Gemara there asks, "Av d'Kasav Rachmana Lamah Li" -- "Why does the Torah write the Halachah of the Hafarah of the father," which implies that the Torah explicitly mentions somewhere the fact that the father must be Mefer the Neder with the Arus.