(Mishnah): If she vowed while she was an Arusah... her father and the last Arus annul her vows.

Explanation: The Arus annuls previous vows in partnership.

Implied question: Why did it mention that she was divorced that day and became Mekudeshes that day?

Answer: It is because we discuss when the Arus heard, or the father heard. Therefore, it is only that day;

However, the next day, no. Since one of them heard and did not annul, he affirmed her vow.

The Gemara discusses which of them heard - the Arus or her father.

Mishnah: The general rule is, as long as she did not enter her own Reshus for a time.

Explanation: She did not become Bogeres, and she did not have Nisu'in, for if she became Bogeres or had Nisu'in, she left the father's Reshus, and the Arus cannot annul alone.

Explanation - Question: Since it taught that she was divorced that day and became Mekudeshes the same day, you are forced to say that this is when he heard. If not, why must it be the same day?

Granted, we can reject and say that perhaps the Mishnah discusses when the father heard, and this is why it taught the same day;

However, if the Arus heard, really I can say that the last Arus cannot annul.

Even so, Shmuel received from his Rebbi that the Tana taught "the same day" due to the Arus hearing. Therefore, he asked "what is the source of this?"

The Gemara did not ask "what is the source of this", rather, it is all from Shmuel's words;

It is as if it says "so said Shmuel. What is the source that the last Arus can annul vows that were Nir'eh to the first?"

Support #1: We find like this in Bava Metzi'a (21a) regarding scattered Peros. "How much [must they be scattered, in order that the finder may keep them]? R. Yitzchak said, a Kav in four Amos."

It is proven there that R. Yitzchak himself asked the question.

Support #2: Also in our Sugya it is proven that Shmuel himself taught this law. He did not teach only the proof from the verse;

If it were true that the law [is evident] from our Mishnah, and Shmuel did not say anything [that is a Chidush law], just he brought a proof from the verse, how did the Gemara bring the Beraisa of Na'arah Me'orasah to support Shmuel?

The Beraisa does not derive this law from Shmuel's verse;

If Shmuel was not Mechadesh this law, rather, it is [evident from] our Mishnah, why is the Beraisa stronger than the Mishnah [to support Shmuel]?!

Conclusion: Rather, surely it is because Shmuel himself taught this law.

Implied question: Shmuel taught this regarding our Mishnah! (This implies that our Mishnah teaches it! Why do we support him from the Beraisa?)

Answer: We could reject [the support from] our Mishnah, and say that it discusses when the father heard. Therefore, we support [Shmuel] from the Beraisa, which one cannot reject.

Explanation: He did not hear them. However, Nedarim that the first Arus heard, the last Arus cannot annul them;

Since the first heard them, the last Arus does not receive authority. Only the father does, like is proven above (70b) from the Hekesh of Kidushins;

Possibility #1: Therefore, we should say that regarding Nedarim that the first Arus heard, it is as if the last Arus does not exist, and the father annuls [alone].

Possibility #2: Alternatively, we should say that since there is an Arus, and he cannot annul, also the father cannot annul, for when there is an Arus, a father cannot annul alone.

Gemara: "Aleha" is extra.

Explanation: It teaches that all her vows are upon her, even those that were Nir'eh to the first Arus.

Gemara: A Beraisa supports Shmuel.

Explanation: That even vows that were Nir'eh to the first Arus, the last Arus can annul them.

Gemara: If her father heard and annulled [for] her, and her Arus died before he heard it, and she became Mekudeshes that day.

Explanation: The reason why it taught the same day, is because if she became Mekudeshes the next day, since when the husband died the father received authority and he did not annul that day, he affirmed her vow.

Explanation #1: Some Rishonim explained that all agree to this first clause. The argument of Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel is only in the other clause.

Question: According to Beis Hillel, who hold that [Hafarah of one of them] weakens...

Since her father heard and annulled and this vow was weakened, for the father is still alive, and his Hafarah is not Batel, how can the father and the last Arus annul?

Beis Hillel say in this case above when her father heard and annulled, and her husband did not hear until he died, that the father cannot annul;

In such a case we do not say that when the husband died, the father received authority, for since the vow was weakened, it is not eminent to bequeath [rights to annul] it to the father;

Also here, when there is the father and the last husband, why is this different?

Answer: It seems to me that according to their words, the reason is because above, there is Shinuy Reshus. The vow is uprooted from the Arus to the father. Whenever it was weakened, it cannot be uprooted;

However, here there is the last Arus. We view the last Arus like the leg (continuation) of the first;

Since [authority] goes from Arus to Arus, even though the vow was weakened, the father and husband can annul it;

Such a case is not uprooting.

Gemara: Her husband heard and nullified for her.

Explanation: Also this discusses when she became Mekudeshes. It discusses the case of the Reisha. The only difference is that in the Reisha, the father annulled, and here, the husband annulled.

Explanation: The father himself can annul, even though she became Mekudeshes to someone else, like we explain below;

Implied question: Why did it teach that he annuls [only] the husband's share?

Answer: Indeed, the father annuls also his own share. The Tana did not need to teach this, for it is obvious that the father's share is not uprooted without Hafarah;

He needs to teach about the husband's share. Even though the husband already annulled his share, even so the father returns to annul that same share of the husband;

This is because when the husband died, his Hafarah is Batel.

Gemara: However, Beis Hillel say that he cannot annul.

Explanation: The father [cannot annul alone] without the last Arus.

Explanation: Therefore, since regarding this vow, it is as if the last Arus does not exist, like it explains below, the father can annul.

Implied question: We should say that granted, it is as if the last Arus does not exist. However, when the father received the first Arus' authority, this is only for vows that were not Nir'eh to the Arus, but not for vows that were Nir'eh!

Answer: This is wrong. Even vows that were Nir'eh to the Arus, the father receives authority.

Therefore, granted, here they were Nir'eh to the first Arus, and his Hafarah is as if it does not exist, for once he died, his Hafarah is Batel...

Even so, since regarding this vow, the last Arus is as if he does not exist, for the reason we will explain below, the father can annul.

Question #1: I did not understand the Rishonim's words about this, why the father can annul alone according to Beis Shamai, who say that he cuts, more than according to Beis Hillel, who say that he weakens.

Question #2: Even if you will say that he cuts, when the husband dies, his cutting shattered (his Hafarah is Batel, so it does not help that he cut)!

Citation (above, 68b - Beraisa): If her father heard and annulled, and the husband did not hear it before the father died, about this it was taught that when the father dies, the husband does not receive authority.

Question: If it were true that the father's Hafarah is intact, why can't the husband annul after the father died?

Granted, the husband does not inherit the father's authority. Even so, the father cut his share. The husband should [be able to] cut his share!

Answer: You must say that granted, he (the father) cut. Even so, when he died his cutting was removed;

Also here [when the husband died], why is this different? (For the same reason, the father should not be able to annul alone!)

Answer - Explanation #1: It seems to me that the reason is, because Beis Shamai hold that he cuts, since when the husband annulled, half the Neder became totally Batel, his action is finished, and the Arus is totally removed [from the vow];

Implied question: When the husband died, his Hafarah is Batel!

Answer: Since the Arus is removed from here, this vow is no longer proper for the Arus at all, the father is now established [in a position to annul the vow] without an Arus;

We established above that whenever there is no Arus, a father can annul, for we equate before the second Kidushin to before the first Kidushin;

However, in the case above, her father heard and annulled;

Even if you will say that according to the opinion that he cuts, the father is removed, even so, when he dies, his Hafarah is Batel, and the Arus is left alone, without the father, and he cannot annul.

This is the reason of Beis Shamai, who say that the father can annul here without the last Arus.

Beis Hillel hold that her father and the last Arus annul her vows. The father cannot annul alone, because (one partner who annuls) does not cut;

When the husband annulled, half the vow was not removed. Rather, the entire vow was weakened. Weakening is not a full action. Therefore, it does not take effect at all, until the weakening [through Hafarah] of the other [partner] joins with it.

Therefore, as long as the father did not annul, the Arus is not removed from this vow. Therefore the last Arus merits [to annul with the father]. So it seems to me.

Question: Why do we say to explain [specifically] the reason of Beis Shamai that also vows that the Arus heard, the father received all authority, since Beis Shamai hold that it is as if the last Arus does not exist? (Beis Hillel agree to the first reason!)

All agree that even vows that the Arus heard, whenever there is no Arus, the father received authority!

Source: Also above (70b, when the Arus died, and before there is a second Arus), according to everyone we asked "perhaps this applies only to vows that the Arus did not hear, but vows that the Arus heard, the father cannot annul!", and we concluded that this is not true.

Inference: All agree that the father received authority, even for vows that the Arus heard.

Summation of question: Why must we say here [that the father receives all authority, specifically] according to Beis Shamai?

Answer: Perhaps we say as follows. Granted, here there are two [reasons to say that the father cannot annul]. Firstly, the first Arus heard them. And also, there is a last Arus;

One might have thought that since the first Arus merited, the father does not receive authority whenever there is a last Arus, for the last [Arus] is the leg [continuation] of the first regarding Nedarim that the first merited in them;

Granted, the [first] Arus is removed. However, since the last is here, he is Me'akev the father, that also he (the father) cannot annul! [The Gemara] teaches that this is not so; [it is as if the last Arus] is not here.

Implied question: Why did [the Gemara] say "also"? This connotes that when he did not hear them, there is more reason to say that the father can annul;

Just the contrary! When the first Arus did not hear, the father does not receive authority [when there is a last Arus]!

Answer #1: Rather, it is because regarding Zechiyah of the [first] Arus (the rights he acquires to annul), it is better (he acquires more) when he heard them than when he did not hear them;

Since the Arus has more Zechiyah [when he heard], we could say that the father cannot annul, like we said above (70b) "perhaps this applies only to vows that the Arus did not hear, but vows that the Arus heard, the father cannot annul!"...

Therefore, it says here "also", because Hafarah of the husband is what diminishes the [first] Arus' law (he lost power to affect the vow), and not because the Arus heard;

Really, Zechiyah of the Arus is greater when he heard than when he did not hear.

Answer #2: If you want, you can explain that due to the case when there is no last Arus, it says "also". When there is no last Arus, it is a bigger Chidush [that the father can annul after the Arus died]. So it seems to me.

Explanation: We bring this Beraisa to support Shmuel, because Beis Hillel say that the father and the last Arus annul vows that the first Arus heard;

Even Beis Shamai argue only when her husband heard and annulled. If he heard and did not annul, all agree that the father and the last Arus annul her vows.

Conclusion: This is how I understand this Sugya according to some Rishonim.

Explanation #2 (Tosfos): When R. Nasan said "this is Beis Shamai's opinion", he referred to both clauses of the Beraisa;

This is Beis Shamai's opinion in the Reisha, that her father and last husband annul her vows;

Since the father cuts, the other half of the vow is eminent to bequeath it to the last Arus together with the father.

Also in the Seifa, Beis Shamai say that the father returns to annul the husband's share, because they hold that Nedarim that the first Arus heard, the father receives authority, and not the last Arus;

This is because they hold that the last Arus is like the first. Just like the first can annul only vows that no [other] Arus heard, also the last Arus;

Since the first Arus heard, when he bequeaths them, the father acquires [rights to annul] them, and not the last Arus.

When we say that Beis Shamai hold that vows that the first Arus heard, the father receives authority, this gives the reason why Beis Shamai say in the Seifa that the father returns to annul the husband's share;

I.e. it suffices for the father alone without the Arus, for this reason.

When we say further [that Beis Shamai hold that] he cuts, this gives the reason for what they say in the Reisha that her father and last husband annul her vows;

Because he cuts, this is why both of them can annul. If he weakened, since the vow was weakened, it would not be eminent for the last Arus to acquire it with the father.

Summation: R. Nasan said "these are the words of Beis Shamai" and their reasons. "However, Beis Hillel say that he cannot annul." They argue about both clauses;

Beis Hillel say "he cannot annul" regarding Beis Shamai's opinion, both in the Reisha and in the Seifa. However, each is different;

In the Reisha, Beis Hillel hold that even the father together with the husband cannot annul at all;

This is because when the father annulled, he did not cut. Rather, he weakened. Since the vow was weakened, it is not eminent for the last Arus to acquire it along with the father. This is the reason why they argue in the Reisha.

Also in the Seifa they argue with Beis Shamai. [Beis Hillel hold that] the father cannot annul alone, like you say. [Rather], even vows that the first Arus heard, the last Arus acquires them;

When we say that Beis Hillel hold that her father and last husband annul her vows, this is the reason why they argue in the Seifa;

When we say that [Beis Hillel hold that] he does not cut, this is the reason why they argue in the Reisha. And we say that the Beraisa supports Shmuel, only from Beis Hillel's opinion. This is Tosfos' Perush.

Question: According to this, I do not understand the words "also Nedarim..."! (Beis Shamai say that the father can annul alone only if the Arus heard.)

Answer: Perhaps it means as follows. Nedarim that were made in the Reshus of the first Arus, and he heard them, also them, the first Arus acquired them so much that he heard them...

In such a case, he bequeaths them to the father, and not to the Arus. This is why it says "also Nedarim..." This still requires investigation.

Gemara: Is divorce (her Arus divorced her on the day he heard her vow) like silence, or like affirmation?

Explanation: Since the Arus knew that after divorce he cannot annul, and he did not annul before divorce, he is like one who affirmed the vow;

This is just like we say, that one who did not annul on the day he heard, is like one who affirmed it.

Explanation: The husband we discuss is specifically an Arus;

If there was Nisu'in, even if you would say that divorce is like silence, how could he annul?

If he remarried her and made Nisu'in, a Ba'al cannot annul Kodmin (vows from before the marriage);

If he was only Mekadesh her again, since an Arus can annul only together with the father, and here there is [Halachically] no father, for once she had Nisu'in, her father has no Reshus over her...

Even if you would say that [divorce] is like silence, he cannot annul!

Conclusion: Rather, surely we discuss an Arusah.

Gemara: He returned (remarried) her the same day.

Explanation: It mentioned the same day, for if he returned her tomorrow, obviously he cannot annul, for the day of hearing passed, and even though at the end of the day, she is not in the husband's Reshus.

Implied question: Why does it say that he returned her? We need not say so. The same applies if someone else [was Mekadesh her]!

Answer: It discusses a common case.