1)

(a)The Arus, as well as the girl's father, must participate in the Hafarah (annulment of the Nedarim) of a Na'arah ha'Me'orasah - even with regard to Nedarim that she declared before they became betrothed.

(b)This Din - extends to the Nedarim of an eleven year old girl, whose Nedarim are sometimes valid.

(c)The Tana adds that if one of them annulled the Nedarim without the other, the Neder is not annulled. We cannot learn this from the previous statement - which we could have interpreted to mean that either of them, not both, must participate in the nullification.

(d)Neither could he just say 've'Eino Mufar ad she'Yeferu Sheneihem' - because we might have interpreted that to mean that one of them cannot annul the Neder on his own (unless the other one does so too); but that the other one can annul it on his own (though which one, is unclear, since there is a Sevara for each one, as we shall see later in the Sugya).

2)

(a)We then ask why the Tana needs to conclude 've'Ein Tzarich Lomar she'Kiyem Echad Mehem'. This is not a standard case of 'Zu, v'Ein Tzarich Lomar Zu' - which is normally a different case (albeit more obvious), whereas here it is exactly similar to the first case, and there appears to be no point in mentioning it.

(b)We answer that the Tana speaks when the one who upheld the Neder subsequently nullified it. According to the Ramban, the one who made Kiyum and then nullified it, can then make Hafarah together with the other one. According to the Rambam however - as long as Hakamah took place between the two Hafaros, the Neder can no longer be revoked.

(c)Even though the Tana is informing us of the Chidush currently under discussion, he nevertheless says 've'Ein Tzarich Lomar she'Kiyem Echad Meihem' - because the key reason for his mentioning this Din here is because of the Halachah of Kiyum, as it stands. Only to justify its insertion, he needs to add the additional Chidush of someone who nullified the Kiyum.

3)

(a)If a man betrothes a woman on condition that she has not made any Nedarim, and then, after he discovers that she has, she goes to a Chacham and has them annulled - the Kidushin is valid, because when a Chacham annuls a Neder, he uproots it retroactively, from its inception.

(b)We answer the Rashba, who asks why our case should be any different, why we reckon with the first Hakamah at all, seeing as the Noder subsequently annulled it - by differentiating between Kidushin, which is a full-fledged act, which has the power to override any effect that the initial Neder may have made, and our case, where the second man's Hafarah, which, in the first place, only takes effect in conjunction with that of the first man, is not sufficiently powerful to negate the effects of the first man's Hakamah, which at the time that it was made, prevented it (the second Hafarah) from taking effect.

4)

(a)Rabah (or Rava) learns from the Pasuk in Matos ...

1. ... "v'Im Hayo Siheyeh l'Ish u'Nedarehah Alehah ... v'Yom Shemo'a Ishah Yani Osah" - that the Arus, as well as the father, must annul the Arusah's Nedarim.

2. ... "v'Im Beis Ishah Nadarah ... v'Im Hafer Yafer Osam Ishah" - that, once they are married, it is the husband alone who can annul them.

(b)We know that, in the former case, the father needs to participate in the Hafarah, too - because of the previous Pasuk, which reads " ... Ki Heini Avihah Osah", and then continues "v'Im Hayo ... ". The extra 'Vav' teaches us to connect the first Pasuk to the second one.

(c)An Arus is not able to annul the Arusah's Nedarim on his own - because an Arusah remains partially in her father's domain.

(d)We ask how we know that the first of the above Pesukim is referring to an Arusah and not to a woman who is married. We cannot answer that it must do, because if it referred to a Nesu'ah, how would we explain the extra 'Vav' in 'v'Im Hayo Siheyeh l'Ish'? - seeing as if the Pasuk did indeed refer to a Nesu'ah, we would ignore the extra 'Vav' (which we only Darshen because it is logical to do so).

5)

(a)We prove that the first Pasuk ("v'Im Hayo Sihyeh l'Ish") is indeed speaking about an Arusah and not a Nesu'ah - from the fact that the subsequent Pasuk "v'Im Beis Ishah Nadarah" speaks about a Nesu'ah, and we do not require two Pesukim to teach us the same thing.

(b)We query this however, by suggesting that both Pesukim refer to a Nesu'ah, and that the second Pasuk is needed to teach us that 'Ein ha'Ba'al Mefer b'Kodmin' - meaning that the moment they marry, the husband can no longer annul any Nedarim that his wife declared before the marriage.

(c)We answer this Kashya - by pointing out that we would know both the Din of a Nesu'ah and that the husband cannot annul her previous Nedarim, from the second Pasuk, so we would not need the first one to teach us about a Nesu'ah, only an Arusah.

6)

(a)Alternatively, 'Havayah' is a Lashon of Erusin which proves - that a girl's father can only annul the Nedarim of his betrothed daughter together with the Arus.

(b)According to the Sugya in Yevamos, the Pasuk "v'la'Achoso ha'Besulah Asher Lo Hayesah l'Ish refers to the Kohen's sister who is not married. This will not however justify explaining in our Sugya that "v'Im Hayo Siheyeh l'Ish" pertains to a Nesu'ah as well as to an Arusah, and that the husband needs to annul his wife's Nedarim together with her father, whether she is betrothed or married - because once a woman is married, she has left her father's jurisdiction completely.

7)

(a)If, as we suggest, the father alone is able to annul the Nedarim of his daughter who is betrothed, the Pasuk "v'Im Hayo Siheyeh l'Ish" (with the connecting 'Vav') will mean that - although the Arus has no power regarding the annulment of the Arusah's Nedarim, he can however, uphold them (thereby preventing the father from annulling them ...

(b)... and The Torah writes "v'Im b'Yom Shemo'a Ishah Yani Osah v'Hefer es Nidrah" - not for its intrinsic meaning, but to infer from there that if he has not annulled the Neder by the end of that day, it is considered upheld, and the father can no longer annul it.

(c)We refute this suggestion however - on the grounds that if the father has the sole right of annulling his betrothed daughter's Nedarim, then it goes without saying that he can annul the Nedarim of his daughter who is not yet betrothed. Why then, does the Torah need to write "v'Asrah Isar Beis Avihah ... Yani Osah"?

8)

(a)So we switch on to the other foot, placing the stress on the Hafarah of the Arus. In view of our current suggestion (that the Arus can annul the Arusah's Nedarim on his own) - we restrict the Derashah from the 'Vav', giving the father some jurisdiction over his betrothed daughter even after she is divorced, to his right to uphold her Nedarim, and prevent the Arus from subsequently annulling them (but not with regard to annulling them himself).

(b)We reject this suggestion on the grounds that, if so, we would not need the Pasuk "v'Im Beis Ishah Nadarah" - because if an Arus can annul the Arusah's Nedarim on his own, then how much more so a husband.

(c)We cannot answer that we need it to ...

1. ... teach us that even if the father upholds the Neder after she is married, the husband can annul the Neder on his own - because as we have already seen, the fact that once she enters her husband's domain, she leaves that of her father completely, is obvious and does not require a Pasuk.

2. ... extrapolate that if he upheld the Neder of his daughter who is an Arusah, the Arus can no longer annul the Neder - because seeing as she is still partially under her father's jurisdiction, this too is obvious, and does not require a Pasuk.

(d)Nor can we answer that we need "v'Im Beis Ishah Nadarah" to teach us that a husband cannot annul Nedarim that his wife declared before they were married (but not to preclude an Arus from annulling the Nedarim of his Arus on his own) - because that itself implies that an Arus can annul Nedarim that his wife declared before they were married, which in turn, is only because of his partnership with the father, proving once and for all, that the Arus together with the father, must annul the Nedarim for the Hafarah to be effective.