Nedarim 71b (עא:) — the Talmud in English

Beit Shammai are of the opinion: Vows as well, which came before the betrothed during his lifetime and he died,

hearing them

the authority is transferred

of the betrothed

to the father.

Since the husband heard the vow before his death and annulled it, the father acquires the husband’s share after his death.

And since we already explained above that Beit Shammai hold that the vow is as though it were divided in two,

and

each one [the father and the husband

cuts off

half the vow, when the husband annulled it before his death, the husband’s authority to annul the vow was removed, since he had already annulled his share. Therefore, the latter betrothed cannot take the place of the first. The father can annul it by himself.

And

Beit Hillel are of the opinion

that

her father and her last husband annul her vows.

Their reasoning is that they hold that the vow is not divided into two,

and

the annulment of one of them

does not cut off

half the vow; rather, it weakens the entire vow. This is not considered a complete act with regard to the vow, but merely a weakening.

Therefore, the husband does not lose his authority over the vow after annulling it, and the last husband can take the place of the first husband. Consequently, the father and her last husband annul her vows.

There is proof from this dispute for Shmuel’s statement.

For it is evident that according to both Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai, the last betrothed can annul vows that came before the first betrothed. Their entire dispute concerns a case in which the first betrothed had already annulled the vow. In that case, Beit Shammai hold that after his annulment he lost his authority, and the other betrothed cannot take his place.

However, when the first betrothed merely heard the vow and had not yet annulled it, he did not lose his authority, as in the first ruling, and the last betrothed can take the place of the first betrothed and annul her vows together with the father.

They raised a dilemma:

A betrothed woman who made a vow, and her betrothed divorced her on the day he heard her vow—

Does

divorce

resemble silence,

so that this is considered a vow that was not annulled on the day he heard it?

Or

divorce

resembles confirmation!

Since by divorcing his wife he knows that after the divorce he can no longer annul her vow, this is like confirming the vow, because from that point onward he has no possibility of annulling it.

The Gemara explains:

What practical difference does it make?

For example, she made a vow, and her husband heard it,

the betrothed,

and he divorced her and took her back that same day

and returned her to him on that very day [and the same is true if she became betrothed to another betrothed man on that same day].

If you say

divorce

resembles silence,

and it is still possible to annul the vow,

he can annul

it, since the day on which he heard it has not yet passed.

But if you say that it resembles confirmation,

then he

can no longer annul it.

For through the divorce, the vow is considered confirmed.

The entire dilemma concerns a case in which he divorced her while she was still betrothed, as the second betrothed then has the power to annul, together with the father, earlier vows. But once she has married and left the father’s authority, the second betrothed does not have the power to annul earlier vows by himself. Ran.

And we resolve it from a beraita: