The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a different source for the halakha in the mishna: The Torah states with regard to vows: “These are the statutes, which the Lord commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter, being in her youth, in her father’s house” (Numbers 30:17). From here it is derived with regard to a betrothed young woman that her father and her husband nullify her vows. The Gemara asks: And according to the tanna of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, what does he do with the words “and if she be to a husband” (Numbers 30:7)?

The Gemara answers: According to him, he establishes it to teach the other statement of Rava: If her betrothed died without ratifying the vow, her father can nullify it on his own. The Gemara then asks: And Rava, who derives the halakha that the father and the betrothed of the young woman together nullify her vows from the phrase “and if she be to a husband” (Numbers 30:7), what does he do with this verse that the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught as the source for the father and the betrothed nullifying the young woman’s vows? The Gemara answers: He requires that phrase: “Between a man and his wife” (Numbers 30:17), in order to say that the husband can nullify only vows that are between him and her, i.e., vows that negatively impact their marital relationship, but he cannot nullify any other type of vow.

§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a husband nullifies his betrothed’s vow, does he sever his share of the vow or does he weaken the force of the entire vow? The Gemara clarifies: Under which circumstances do we raise the dilemma, i.e., what is the practical difference between these two possibilities? In a case where she vowed not to derive benefit from two olives, and her betrothed heard and nullified the vow for her, and she ate those two olives before her father nullified the vow, there is a practical difference.

If we say that he severs his share of the vow, nullifying half of the prohibition, then one of the olives remains completely forbidden, and she is flogged for violating her vow. If we say that he weakens its force, she is not liable to be flogged, as eating the olives is now merely a prohibition that she has violated. If so, what is the ruling with regard to this question?

The Gemara now cites a lengthy baraita, ultimately stating a proof to answer the previous question. Come and hear a baraita that will resolve the dilemma: When did they say that if the husband of a betrothed young woman dies, the authority to nullify her vows reverts to the father, who can then nullify her vows on his own? This occurs in a case when the husband had not heard her vow before he died; or in a case where he heard and was silent; or where he heard and nullified it and died on the same day. This is what we learned in the mishna, concerning a case of this kind (70a): If the husband dies, the authority to nullify vows reverts to the father.