Nedarim 71a (עא.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

If she took a vow while betrothed,

and

she was divorced that same day.

If she took a vow and afterward became betrothed that same day, and likewise if she was again divorced and again became betrothed, even a hundred times, her father and her last betrothed annul her vows.

This is the rule: Whenever she has not entered her own domain

through reaching maturity or marrying, in which case she leaves her father's domain,

even for one hour—

her father and her last betrothed annul her vows.

Gemara:

The Gemara cites the statement of Shmuel, who received it from his teacher, that the meaning of the Mishna is that the last betrothed can annul vows of which the first betrothed had become aware [see the Ran].

Shmuel explains the source of this law:

From where do we know that the last betrothed can annul vows of which the first betrothed had become aware?

She took the vow while still under the authority of the first betrothed, and the first betrothed became aware of it during his lifetime.

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

and her vows are upon her.”

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

of vows that were already upon her.

But the Gemara still asks: From where do we know that this verse also applies to vows of which her first betrothed had become aware?

Perhaps this applies only

to vows

of which the first betrothed had not become aware.

But

vows of which

the first betrothed had become aware—

he cannot annul them,

the second betrothed.

The Gemara answers:

The word

“upon her”

written in the verse

is an extra expression.

And we derive from this extra word that even vows of which the first betrothed had become aware can be annulled by the last betrothed:

It was taught in a baraita in accordance with Shmuel,

who explained the meaning of the Mishna as teaching that the last betrothed can annul even vows of which the first betrothed had become aware, and who also brought a source for this from the verse:

For it was taught:

A maiden betrothed, her father and her betrothed annul her vows.

How so?

1.

Her father heard and annulled the vow for her, but her betrothed did not have time

the betrothed

to hear it before he died,

the betrothed.

And she became betrothed

to another betrothed

that same day

on which her father annulled the vow for her [but if she became betrothed on the following day, the father no longer has the ability to annul it. This is because, after the betrothed's death, the father could have annulled the betrothed's portion if he had learned of the betrothed's death, and since he did not annul it during that same day but remained silent, the vow became confirmed].

And even

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

a hundred times—

her father and her last betrothed annul her vows.

2.

Her betrothed heard and annulled the vow for her, but her father did not have time to hear it before the betrothed died,

and the woman became betrothed to another—

the father returns and annuls

even

the portion of the betrothed.

That is, the father must annul the betrothed's portion as well, in addition to having to annul his own portion, even though the betrothed had already annulled his portion. Since the betrothed died, his annulment was nullified, and the father must return and annul the betrothed's portion.

Rabbi Natan said

concerning the second case:

These are precisely the words of Beit Shammai.

But Beit Hillel say: The father cannot

the father

annul

the betrothed's portion by himself; rather, the annulment of the last betrothed must be joined with his own.

The Gemara explains the issue over which Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed: