MISHNAH. IF ONE VOWED AS AN ARUSAH, WAS DIVORCED ON THAT DAY AND BETROTHED [AGAIN] ON THE SAME DAY, EVEN A HUNDRED TIMES,1 HER FATHER AND LAST BETROTHED HUSBAND CAN ANNUL HER VOWS. THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: AS LONG AS SHE HAS NOT PASSED OUT INTO HER OWN CONTROL FOR [BUT] ONE HOUR, HER FATHER AND LAST HUSBAND CAN ANNUL HER VOWS.2
GEMARA. Whence do we know that the last arus can annul vows known3 to the first arus? — Said Samuel: Because it is written, And if she be at all to an husband, and her vows are upon her:4 this implies, the vows that were already 'upon her'.5 But perhaps that is only where they [sc. her vows] were not known to her first arus, but those which were known to her first arus, the last arus cannot annul? — 'Upon her' is a superfluous word.6
It was taught in accordance with Samuel: A betrothed maiden, her father and her husband annul her vows. How so? If her father heard and disallowed her, and the husband died before he managed to hear, and she became betrothed [again] on the same day, even a hundred times, her father and her last husband can annul her vows. If her husband heard and disallowed her, and before the father heard it the husband died, the father must again annul the husband's portion.7 R. Nathan said; That is the view of Beth Shammai; but Beth Hillel maintain: He cannot re-annul.8 Wherein do they differ?
Original footnotes renumbered.
- To a hundred.
- I.e., that she has never been completely married (with nissu'in) and divorced, in which case she would be her own mistress.
- Lit., 'seen by'.
- Num. XXX, 7.
- I.e., before she was betrothed.
- Because Scripture could state, now if she be at all to an husband, then as for her vows, or the utterance of her lips etc. Hence 'upon her' is added to intimate that the last arus can annul vows made during the first betrothal. Now actually the Mishnah may simply mean that if she was betrothed a number of times, the power of annulment always lies with her father and her last husband, and does not necessarily refer to vows made during an earlier betrothal; whilst the phrase 'on that day' may be due to her father, who of course can annul only on the day he heard her vow. But Samuel assumed that it does in fact refer to such vows, and therefore the passage may be understood as though it read, Samuel said; Whence do we know, etc.? Hence this law is ascribed to Samiel rather than to the Mishnah, and consequently the Talmud proceeds to quote a Baraitha in support of Samuel's ruling.
- It goes without saying that he must annul his own portion. But the Baraitha teaches that he must also annul the husband's portion, because the latter's action is rendered void by his death.
- Without the co-operation of the second arus. Thus, according to Beth Hillel the second arus has a right of annulment over the vows known to the first arus, which is in support of Samuel.
— Beth Shammai maintain that even in respect to vows known to the arus, his [the husband's] authority passes over to the father; also he [the husband] cuts [the vow] apart;1 whilst Beth Hillel maintain: Her father and second husband [together] must annul her vow, and the husband does not cut it apart.2
The scholars propounded; Is divorce as silence or as confirmation?3 What is the practical difference? E.g., if she vowed, her husband heard it, divorced and remarried her on the same day: now, if you say it is as silence, he can now disallow her; but should you rule that it is as confirmation, he can not?
Original footnotes renumbered.
- V. p. 220, n. 4; because he cuts the vow apart, therefore his powers therein are finished when he has annulled it, and consequently, even if she remarries, the father can annul the vow entirely alone, without the co-operation of the second arus.
- Therefore the husband only weakens it; hence he is not finished with it, and so, on remarriage, his authority is transmitted to the second husband (Ran). Asheri, however, explains that the question whether the father needs the co-operation of the second husband is independent of whether the husband cuts the vow apart or weakens the stringency of the whole; it is mentioned here merely because, as was stated on 69a, they do differ on this question too.
- If a woman made a vow, and her husband heard it and divorced her on that day, without first annulling the vow.