We learned on yesterday’s daf that a na’ara me’orasa can have her vows nullified through the joint agreement of her father and her husband. Although the rules of hafarat nedarim that appear in Sefer Bamidbar (30:4-9) discuss the father’s right to annul vows and the husband’s right to annul vows, this specific case is not mentioned. What is the source for this law?
The Gemara offers a number of possible sources for this. On our daf we find a teaching from the beit midrash of Rabbi Yishmael which suggests that the source is the very last pasuk in the parasha (Bamidbar 30:17). The passage concludes bein ish le-ishto, bein av le-bito bine’urehah beit avihah – that these rules of hafarat nedarim apply to situations “between a husband and wife, between a father and daughter, while she is living in her father’s house.”
Rashi explains that this closing passage is totally unnecessary, since the Torah clearly stated the relationships earlier. Thus we must conclude that this discusses a new case – na’ara me’orasa. Since we find the father and husband mentioned together, we must conclude that they partner in this case.
The Ran explains that Rabbi Yishmael does not perceive the end of this pasuk – bine’urehah beit avihah, “while she is a na’ara in her father’s house” – as a concluding phrase, but rather as a new case: that of a na’ara me’orasa.
The Rit”z quoted in the Shitta Mekubbetzet also bases his approach on the concluding words, bine’urehah beit avihah asking, “Why would the Torah limit the case to a situation where she is a na’ara in her father’s house?” Rather, we must conclude that this is pointing to a unique case where the married woman is still perceived as being in her father’s house – the case of a na’ara me’orasa.