Quoting%20commentary for Nedarim 141:5

א"ר נתן הן הן דברי בית שמאי אבל בית הלל אומרים אין יכול להפר במאי פליגי

this implies, the vows that were already 'upon her'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., before she was betrothed. ');">⁵</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁶</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁷</span> R. Nathan said; That is the view of Beth Shammai; but Beth Hillel maintain: He cannot re-annul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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. ');">⁸</span> Wherein do they differ?

Explore quoting%20commentary for Nedarim 141:5. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.