Nedarim 71a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

If she made a vow while betrothed,

and

was divorced on that same day.

If she made a vow and afterward was betrothed on that same day, and likewise if she was again divorced and again betrothed, even [if this occurred] a hundred times, her father and her last husband annul her vows.

This is the rule: So long as she did not pass into her own authority [

through coming of age or through marriage, at which point she leaves her father’s authority ]

for a single hour—

her father and her last husband annul her vows.

Gemara:

And the Gemara brings the statement of Shmuel, who received it from his teacher, that the meaning of the Mishna is that the last fiancé can annul vows that had come within the purview of the first fiancé [see Ran].

And Shmuel explains the source for this law:

From where do we know that the last fiancé can annul vows that came within the purview of the first fiancé?

That she made the vow while she was still under the first fiancé’s authority, and it came within the purview of the first fiancé during his lifetime.

Shmuel said: The verse says, “And if she shall indeed be married to a man—

and her vows shall be upon her.”

From the implication of the expression “and her vows shall be upon her,” we learn that the verse is speaking

of vows that were already upon her.

But the Gemara still objects: From where do we know that this verse is also referring to vows that came within the purview of her first husband?

Perhaps, this applies

to vows

that did not come within the purview of the first fiancé.

But

vows that

came within the purview of the first fiancé—

he cannot annul them,

the second fiancé.

And the Gemara answers:

The word

“upon her”

that is written in the verse

is an extra phrase.

And we expound from the extra word that even vows that came within the purview of the first fiancé can be annulled by the last fiancé:

A beraita was taught in accordance with Shmuel,

who explained the meaning of the Mishna to be that the last fiancé can annul even vows that came within the purview of the first fiancé, and he also brought a source for this from the verse:

For it was taught:

A betrothed maiden—her father and her husband annul her vows.

How so?

1.

Her father heard and annulled it for her, but the husband did not have time [

the fiancé ]

to hear until he died,

the betrothed husband.

And she became betrothed

to another fiancé

on the same day

that her father annulled it [but if she became betrothed on the following day, the father no longer has the possibility of annulment. For the father could have annulled the husband’s portion after his death, if he heard of the husband’s death, and since he did not annul it during that same day but remained silent, the vow has been upheld].

And even

if she became betrothed and he died, and she again became betrothed,

a hundred times—

her father and her last husband annul her vows.

2.

Her husband heard and annulled it for her, but the father did not have time to hear until the husband died,

and the woman became betrothed to another husband—

the father returns and annuls

even

the husband’s portion.

That is, the father must annul also the husband’s portion, in addition to what he must annul of his own portion, even though the husband had already annulled his portion, because once the husband died, his annulment was nullified, and the father must return and annul the husband’s portion.

Rabbi Natan said

concerning the second case:

These are indeed the words of Beit Shammai.

But Beit Hillel say: The father cannot

alone

annul

the husband’s portion; rather, the annulment of the last fiancé must be joined with it.

And the Gemara explains in what Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed: