(Mishnah): The father and husband of a Na'arah (a girl in the first six months of adulthood) Me'orasah (after Kidushin but before Nisu'in) annul her vows;

If only one of them annulled the vow, it is not annulled. We need not say that if one affirmed the vow, it is not annulled.

(Gemara) Question: The Seifa merely reiterates what was learned in the beginning!

Answer: One might have thought that the Reisha says that either can annul by himself. The Seifa clarifies that this is not so.

(Mishnah): We need not say that if one affirmed the vow...

Question: What does this teach?

If only one of them annulled, this does nothing. It need not teach that if one affirmed (the vow stands)!

Answer: We need to hear the case when one annulled, and the other affirmed, and then he annulled his affirmation;

One might have thought that he uproots his affirmation. The Mishnah teaches that this is not so, both must annul together. (Ramban - now, they can annul together. Rambam - the vow can never be annulled.)

(Mishnah): The father and husband of a Na'arah Me'orasah annul her vows.

Question: What is the source of this?

Answer (Rava): "And if she will be to a man, and her vows are on her". (The verse discusses an Arusah, and says that the Arus (her husband) can annul. The word "And" equates the law of the previous Parashah, that a father can annul his daughter's vows.)

Suggestion: Perhaps this verse discusses a Nesu'ah (a fully married woman)!

Rejection #1: Another verse teaches that - "If she vowed in her husband's house..."

Suggestion: Perhaps both discuss a Nesu'ah.

Question: If so, why is the second verse needed?

Answer: It teaches that a Ba'al (a husband after Nisu'in) cannot annul vows from before (Nisu'in).

Rejection: We could learn this from the second verse alone!

Rejection #2: The expression "will be (to a man)" connotes Kidushin, not Nisu'in.

Suggestion: Perhaps the father can annul by himself!

Rejection: If so, why did the Torah need to say "if she vows in her father's house, her father can annul"?

If the father can annul (by himself) even when she is Arusah, all the more so when she is single!

Suggestion: Perhaps an Arusah's father cannot annul alone, but the Arus can.

Question: If this were true, why did the Torah mention the father at all? (It depends only on the Arus!)

Answer: It would teach that if the father affirmed the vow, the Arus cannot annul it.

Rejection: If so, why did the Torah write "If she vowed in her husband's house"?

If an Arus can annul by himself, all the more so a Ba'al can!

Question: Perhaps the latter verse teaches that a Ba'al cannot annul vows from before Nisu'in!

Answer: From this itself (that a Ba'al cannot annul prior vows) we can deduce (that an Arus cannot annul by himself).

Question: Why can an Arus annul prior vows, but a Ba'al cannot?

Answer: An Arus annuls together with the father (regarding the father, no vow is 'prior').