''This is the thing'' (Numbers 30:2), to teach that the husband nullifies vows and a halakhic authority dissolves vows, but a husband does not dissolve them. It is taught in another baraita: The phrase ''this is the thing'' teaches that a husband nullifies vows but a halakhic authority does not nullify vows. As, one might have thought: Just as a husband, who cannot dissolve vows, nevertheless nullifies them, so too with regard to a halakhic authority, who can dissolve vows, is it not logical that he should also nullify them? Therefore, the verse states: ''This is the thing,'' to teach us that a husband nullifies vows, but a halakhic authority does not nullify them.

It is taught in a baraita: It is stated here, with regard to vows: ''This is the thing,'' and it is stated elsewhere: ''Speak to Aaron, and to his sons, and to all the children of Israel, and say to them: This is the thing which the Lord has commanded, saying'' (Leviticus 17:2), in the verse introducing the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside of the Temple courtyard. Just as with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, the verse is directed to Aaron and his sons and all of Israel, so too, the portion in the Torah about vows is directed to Aaron and his sons and all of Israel. And just as here, with regard to vows, the verse states: ''And Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel'' (Numbers 30:2), so too, there, with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard, Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes.

The Gemara asks: With regard to the Torah portion on vows, for what halakha is the verbal analogy between it and slaughtering offerings outside the Temple courtyard taught? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says: The verbal analogy is the source to authorize three laymen to dissolve vows. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it written: ''The heads of the tribes''? Rav Ḥisda said, and some say it was Rabbi Yoḥanan: From the phrase ''the heads of the tribes'' the Sages derive that vows can also be dissolved by a single expert.

The Gemara then asks the corresponding question about the other passage. The verbal analogy connects ''the heads of the tribes'' to offerings slaughtered outside of the Temple courtyard. For what halakha is this connection made? Rav Sheshet said: This connection is made in order to say that there is a concept of requesting dissolution of consecration of consecrated property.

The Gemara asks: According to Beit Shammai, who say that there is no possibility of requesting from a halakhic authority to cancel the consecration of consecrated property, the treatment of the verse ''the heads of the tribes'' as if it were written also about offerings slaughtered outside the Temple courtyard serves to teach what halakha? The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai do not have a tradition of interpreting the verses in accordance with this verbal analogy.

The Gemara asks: Since Beit Shammai do not use this verbal analogy, for what purpose is ''this is the thing,'' in the portion on vows, written? The Gemara answers: It is written to say that only a halakhic authority dissolves vows, but a husband does not dissolve them; a husband nullifies vows, but a halakhic authority does not nullify them.

According to Beit Shammai, for what purpose is written the phrase ''this is the thing,'' found in the portion on offerings slaughtered outside of the Temple courtyard? The Gemara answers: It is written to say that one is liable for slaughtering outside, but one is not liable for pinching the neck of a bird-offering outside the Temple courtyard, although that is the way it would be killed if it were a valid offering in the Temple.

The Gemara asks: But according to Beit Shammai, who do not accept the verbal analogy between vows and the prohibition against slaughtering offerings outside of the Temple courtyard, from where do we derive the source to authorize three laymen to dissolve vows? The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai derive it from the explanation given to Rav Asi bar Natan.

This is as it is written: ''And Moses declared the Festivals of the Lord to the children of Israel'' (Leviticus 23:44). And it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The Festivals are stated, but Shabbat, which commemorates Creation, is not stated with them. Ben Azzai says: The Festivals are stated, but the portion on vows is not stated with them.

The Gemara relates that Rav Asi bar Natan had a difficulty with this baraita. He came to Neharde’a to ask about it before Rav Sheshet, but he did not find him there. He pursued him to Meḥoza and said to him: How can the baraita say that the Festivals of the Lord were stated, but Shabbat, which commemorates Creation, was not stated with them?

But Shabbat is written with them in the portions of the Torah about the Festivals (Leviticus 23:3; Numbers 28:9–10). And furthermore, can it be said that the Festivals of the Lord are stated, but the portion on vows (Numbers, chapter 30) is not stated with them? Isn’t it next to one of the portions in the Torah detailing the halakhot of the Festivals (Numbers, chapters 28–29)? Rav Sheshet said to him: This is what Rabbi Yosei HaGelili’s statement in the baraita is teaching: