The Gemara rejects this, stating: And do you not learn it by itself, from the words ''And if she vowed in her husband’s house'' (Numbers 30:11)? As the verse indicates that her husband can nullify only vows made after the couple is fully married, and not those made beforehand, the earlier verse is unnecessary.

The Gemara suggests an alternative method of demonstrating that the first verse is referring to a betrothed woman: Or if you wish, say that the words ''and if she be to a husband'' (Numbers 30:7) must be referring to a betrothed woman, since the usage of the term ''she be'' indicates betrothal rather than marriage.

The Gemara proposes: Say that a father can nullify the vows of his betrothed daughter on his own. The Gemara responds: If so, why do I need the verse to teach that in a case where she binds herself with a bond in her father’s house, her father can disallow her, i.e., nullify her vow (see Numbers 30:4–6). Now when it can be said that in the presence of a betrothed, i.e., when she is betrothed, the father nullifies his daughter’s vows on his own, is it necessary to state that he can do so where there is no betrothed? Therefore, the fact that the Torah specifically states that the father nullifies her vows by himself when she is not betrothed indicates that he does not have that power when she is betrothed.

The Gemara suggests: Say that the father requires the betrothed’s participation in order to nullify his daughter’s vows but that the betrothed can nullify them on his own. And if you would say: If the woman’s betrothed can nullify them on his own, why do I need the reference to the father that the Merciful One writes with regard to the vows of a betrothed young woman, implying that the participation of the father is necessary to nullify her vows. One can explain that the need to mention the father is necessary in order to teach us that if the father ratified the vow, it is ratified, and her betrothed can no longer nullify it.

The Gemara rejects this suggestion: If so, for what purpose did the Torah write ''And if she vowed in her husband’s house'' (Numbers 30:11), which indicates that a married woman’s husband nullifies her vows on his own? That could be derived by an a fortiori inference: If in the presence of the father, a betrothed man nevertheless nullifies her vows on his own, then when she is no longer in the presence of the father, i.e., she is married and no longer subject to his authority, is it necessary to state that her husband nullifies her vows on his own?

The Gemara suggests: Say that the betrothed can nullify her vows by himself, and the words ''And if she vowed in her husband’s house'' (Numbers 30:11) are in fact not necessary to teach that a fully married husband can nullify her vows on his own. Rather, they come to say, i.e., to teach, that the husband cannot nullify vows that preceded the betrothal.

The Gemara answers: But from that, i.e., from the fact that the verse precludes only the full-fledged husband from nullifying vows that preceded the betrothal, one may infer that the betrothed can nullify by himself vows that preceded the betrothal. Such a conclusion is unreasonable, as the fully married man has greater authority over her than the betrothed.

Rather, is it not the case that the betrothed cannot nullify vows on his own, and his ability to do so is only because of his partnership with the father?