Gemara: If her father heard and annulled her, and her husband did not have time to hear until he died, the father returns and annuls the husband's portion.

Explanation: This that was taught 'returns' does not mean that he annuls what he already annulled, i.e. the father's portion;

Rather, the reason why it taught 'returns' is because he already annulled his portion, and now he returns and annuls the husband's portion.

This suffices. He need not return and annul his own portion, for since he did not die, even though the husband died, the father's Hafarah is not Batel..

Gemara: R. Nasan said, these are Beis Shamai's words.

Explanation: They hold that the father can annul in such a case, and it suffices to annul the husband's portion alone, since the father's Hafarah, because he did not die, it is not Batel.

Explanation: Even if he returns to annul his share and the husband's share [he cannot annul].

We give the reason, because according to Beis Shamai he cuts. When the father annulled first, he annulled only his share. The husband's share was not diminished at all. Rather, it is totally intact, and proper to bequeath it to the father;

According to Beis Hillel, he weakens. When the father annulled his share, the husband's share was weakened. It is not eminent enough to bequeath it to the father;

Since the father is still alive, his Hafarah is not Batel. The vow is still weakened. Since the husband's share was weakened, the father cannot annul.

Distinction: This is only if she did not become Mekudeshes to someone else;

If she became Mekudeshes to someone else on that day, her father and her new husband annul her vows, like a Beraisa teaches below (71a), like we will explain about this law with Hash-m's help.

Summary: This is the Perush of this Sugya that I rely on. I saw Rabanan explain many matters that are not clear in my eyes. I was not concerned to write them.

Gemara: Rabah asked, can one ask [a Chacham to permit] affirmation?

Explanation: If one was Mekayem a Neder, and that same day asked to permit his Hakamah, can he annul that same day, or not?

However, obviously he cannot annul the next day. [Kiyum and permitting his Kiyum] is no less than silence [for a day, after which he cannot annul].

Implied question: She'elah does not apply to Hafarah!

Granted, Hakamah is like a Neder [so She'elah could apply to it]. However, Hafarah is not [like a Neder]!

Answer: Even so, he asks whether She'elah applies to Hafarah, because Hafarah and Hakamah are equated to each other, like we say below (76b);

Citation (76): Here is different, for the verse says "Ishah Yekimenu v'Ishah Yeferenu" - what can be Mekuyam (it took effect) can be annulled. What cannot be Mekuyam (it did not yet take effect) cannot be annulled.

Therefore, we ask "if you will say that there is She'elah about Hakamah, what is the law about Hafarah?"

Do we say that granted, She'elah should not apply to it (Hafarah); even so, we say that there is She'elah, for they are equated?

Or, perhaps for a matter of Hafarah, which is not proper for it, they are not equated?

We conclude from R. Yochanan that for She'elah, they are not equated.

Gemara - Question (Rabah): If a father or husband said twice 'I affirm the vow', and he annulled the first affirmation, what is the law?

Explanation: Do we say that since when the second affirmation left his mouth, it did not take effect, it does not take effect later;

Or, perhaps, granted, at that time it did not take effect, i.e. because at the time there was the first affirmation, it did not let the latter take effect;

However, when he asked about the first, the latter found room, and it took effect!

Gemara: Come and learn. Rava taught that [f a man took the same oath twice, and he annulled the first, the second oath takes effect.

Explanation: Above (18a), Rava said so on our Mishnah of 'Shevu'ah that I will not eat. 'Shevu'ah that I will not eat';

Also here, when he asks about (nullifies) the first Kiyum, the second takes effect on him.

Remark: I saw regarding this question and its resolution, that early Meforshim said matters that not clear. Therefore, I explain like it seems to me.

Explanation: It is obvious to Rabah that Hakamah does not take effect, either way you say:

If Hafarah takes effect, Hakamah does not take effect.

Implied question: Below (70a), we are unsure about "it is Mekuyam for you for a Sha'ah (a short time), and annulled for a Sha'ah", whether or not both take effect!

Answer: There is different, for he set a limit for the Hakamah and Hafarah;

However, here he did not set a limit. It is obvious that if the Hafarah takes effect, the Hakamah does not take effect, like I wrote.

And if you will say that Hafarah does not take effect, also Hakamah does not take effect, for he stipulated and said that Hakamah will not take effect unless Hafarah takes effect.

Conclusion: Therefore, it is obvious to Rabah that Hakamah does not take effect. However, he was unsure about Hafarah;

Do we say that since he first said "it is Mekuyam for you", and afterwards said "it is annulled for you", this implies that he intended that Hafarah take effect after Hakamah, and Hafarah should not take effect unless Hakamah came first?

Implied question: [If so,] why did he stipulate that Hakamah not take effect unless Hafarah takes effect, and he did not stipulate also oppositely that Hafarah not take effect unless Hakamah takes effect?

Answer: Since he said "it is Mekuyam for you" before "it is annulled for you", he relies on his words that Hakamah take effect first, for he mentioned it first, and nothing will be Me'akev it;

Just the contrary, because he was concerned lest Hakamah take effect so much, to the point that it not leave room for Hafarah, he stipulated that Hakamah not take effect unless Hafarah takes effect;

It is as if he stipulated about both of them. Hakamah should take effect first, and afterwards Hafarah.

Or, perhaps even though he said "it is annulled for you" after "it is Mekuyam for you", he did not intend that Hafarah take effect after Hakamah. Rather, it is because one cannot say two matters at once;

However, this man is adamant that Hafarah takes effect, for he said that Hakamah should not take effect unless Hafarah takes effect. He wanted that they should take effect at once;

However, because he was more adamant that Hafarah take effect than Hakamah, he stipulated that if Chalos (taking effect) of Hakamah is Me'akev Chalos Hafarah, he revealed his intent that Hakamah not take effect.

However, even though Chalos Hafarah is Me'akev Chalos Hakamah, he did not stipulate that Hafarah not take effect. Therefore, Hafarah takes effect, and Hakamah does not take effect.

Explanation: They argue about such (a similar) case in Temurah (25b);

Citation (25b - Mishnah): R. Meir says, if one said "this is Temuras Olah Temuras Shelamim", it is Temuras Olah. R. Yosi says...

Citation (26a): All agree that when he said "this should take effect, and afterwards this should take effect", we follow his initial words;

Even R. Yosi agrees, for it is impossible that after Temuras Olah takes effect, Temuras Shelamim will take effect;

Citation (cont.): [If he said] "this should not take effect, unless this took effect", both Kedushos take effect;

Explanation: This is because there it is possible for Temuras Olah and Temuras Shelamim to take effect together. The animal will graze until it gets a Mum, [then it is redeemed] and we bring an Olah with half the redemption money, and a Shelamim with half.

Citation (cont.): They argue only one about who says 'Temuras Olah Temuras Shelamim';

Citation (cont.): R. Meir holds that since he should have said 'Temuras Olah and Shelamim', and rather, he said 'Temuras Olah Temuras Shelamim', it is as if he said 'this will take effect, and afterwards this will take effect';

Citation (cont.): R. Yosi holds that perhaps he said 'Temuras Olah Temuras Shelamim', mistakenly. He thought, if I do not say Temurah regarding each one, Temurah will not take effect on both of them. Therefore, we check him. (This is the text of Shitah Mekubetzes there. It is not in our text);

If he says that he intended for Olah and Shelamim, it grazes until it gets a Mum, and it is sold, and half the money is used for an Olah, and half the money is for Shelamim.

Inference: The argument of R. Meir and R. Yosi depends on one who says two things from his mouth;

Do we say that the latter will take effect after the former? Or, will both take effect, since he cannot say two matters at once?

Therefore, we say that according to R. Yosi, surely the question was resolved. When he said 'and it is annulled for you', he does not mean after Hakamah, rather, at once. Therefore, Hafarah takes effect.

Question: Even so, how does it take effect? We conclude below that whenever two matters cannot take effect one after the other, also at once not (neither takes effect)!

Answer: Here, Hakamah is not Me'akev Hafarah, for he stipulated and said that Hakamah will not take effect [unless Hafarah does]. Therefore, according to R. Yosi it is obvious that Hafarah takes effect;

Even according to R. Meir, we resolve like this. Even though he said there that when he said Temuras Shelamim, he means [that it should take effect] after Temuras Olah, and it (Temuras Shelamim) does not take effect, here is different;

Since he said that Hakamah will not take effect unless Hafarah takes effect, he revealed that he is adamant that Hafarah take effect, but not about Hakamah;

Therefore, when he said "and it is annulled for you", he does not mean after Hakamah, for how can [Hafarah] take effect after [Hakamah], since it is impossible for Hakamah to take effect!

Question: Why don't we say that even R. Meir said only there, since he should have said "Temuras Olah and Shelamim", and rather, he said Temuras Olah Temuras Shelamim, it is as if he said "this will take effect, and afterwards this will take effect, like the Sugya there?

However, here there are no extra words. He means [that they should take effect] at once!

Answer: This is wrong. There it is possible for "Temuras Olah and Shelamim" to take effect at once, so whenever there are no extra words, we say that he intended that they should take effect at once;

However, here it is impossible for Hakamah and Hafarah to take effect at once. Even without extra words, we say that [he intended that] one take effect after the other, unless he stipulated, and said that Hakamah will not take effect unless Hafarah takes effect.

Conclusion: It seems to me that it the Perush of the Sugya. It is a proper, correct Perush.

Explanation: "Kayam" by itself has no effect. "Lechi" (to you) includes both of them (Hakamah and Hafarah) like one.

Alternate text: Some texts say that he asked about one who said "Kayam Lechi u'Mufar Lechi b'Vas Achas."

Assertion: According to the latter texts, he must say explicitly "at once." This reveals his intent that he wants both to take effect at once.

Note: According to our text, he need not say "at once." Since "Lechi" includes Hakamah and Hafarah, this shows that he wants both to take effect at once.

Explanation: It seems to me that this is his Safek. Surely, both cannot take effect at once;

However, granted, if one of them is first, the other does not take effect at all. Here, [when they are] at once, regarding each of them we say that it is first, and it takes effect.

Alternatively, we could say that since it is not first, and since both cannot take effect at once, we are unsure whether Hakamah takes effect, and after this he cannot annul.

Explanation (cont.): We resolve this from Rabah's teaching in Kidushin (50b), regarding one who was Mekadesh two sisters at once;

Since he cannot be Mekadesh them one after the other, even at once, not one of them has [even] a Safek of Kidushin at all;

Also here, there is no Safek about Hakamah and Hafarah at all. After [he said this], he can annul or be Mekayem like he wants.

Remark: The Rambam's words in Hilchos Nedarim (13:22) are not clear to me. (He ruled that the Neder is Mekuyam.)

Gemara - Question (Rabah): 'It is affirmed for you today', what is the law? Do we say that it is as if he said 'it is annulled tomorrow'?

Explanation #1: He means, it is affirmed for you only today (but annulled tomorrow).

Explanation #2: Or, perhaps [it is fully affirmed, for] he did not tell her 'it is annulled for you tomorrow.'