Nedarim 137

שמע אביה והפר לה ולא הספיק הבעל לשמוע עד שמת חוזר האב ומפר חלקו של בעל א"ר נתן הן הן דברי ב"ש ב"ה אומרים אין יכול להפר

If the father heard and annulled it, and the husband died before he managed to hear of it, the father can again annul the husband's portion. R. Nathan said; That is the view of Beth Shammai; but Beth Hillel maintain: He cannot annul it [a second time]. This proves that according to Beth Shammai, he cuts it apart, whilst in the view of Beth Hillel he weakens it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence, according to Beth Shammai, when the father annulled it, the husband's portion remains, as it were, intact in all its stringency. The husband's right to annul the other half is sufficiently tangible, since that half is as stringent in itself as the whole, to be transmitted to the father. But in the views of Beth Hillel annulment by the father, as by the husband, merely weakens it; hence the husband's right to wipe off entirely a prohibition that is already weakened is too intangible to be transmitted to the father. — But in the first clause, where without the father having annulled his share, the husband annuls it and then dies, since the father can annul his own share he can annul too the weakened share of the husband (Asheri). ');">¹</span>

ש"מ לב"ש מיגז גייז לב"ה מקלש קליש ש"מ

This proves it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And since in all disputes between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel the halachah is in the latter, the final ruling is that the husband weakens the incidence of the whole vow. ');">²</span>

בעי רבא יש שאלה בהקם או אין שאלה בהקם את"ל יש שאלה בהקם יש שאלה בהפר או אין שאלה בהפר

Raba propounded: Can absolution be sought from confirmation,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' By a Sage, after expressing 'regret'. ');">³</span>

ת"ש דא"ר יוחנן נשאלין על ההקם ואין נשאלין על ההפר

or not? Should you say, no absolution can be sought front confirmation, is there absolution from annulment, or not?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The confirmation of a vow is as a vow; hence the question whether it can be revoked. The revocation of the annulment of a vow should not be in question, since it might be assumed that one cannot revoke in order to impose a prohibition, but that elsewhere (76b) we find the two likened to each other. ');">⁴</span>

בעי רבה קיים ליכי קיים ליכי ונשאל על הקמה ראשונה מהו

— Come and hear: For R. Johanan said: One can seek absolution from confirmation but not from annulment.

ת"ש דאמר רבא אם נשאל על הראשונה שניה חלה עליו בעי רבה קיים ליכי ומופר ליכי ולא תיחול הקמה אא"כ חלה הפרה מהו

Rabbah propounded: What if [he said], 'It is confirmed to thee, it is confirmed to thee,' and then sought absolution of his first confirmation? — Come and hear: For Raba said: If he obtained absolution from the first, the second becomes binding upon him.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 18a: just as there, so here too, and hence the second confirmation retains its full force. ');">⁵</span> Rabbah propounded: What if [he declares]. 'It be confirmed unto thee and annulled unto thee, but the confirmation be not valid unless the annulment had operated?'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Without the stipulation it is obvious that the annulment is invalid, for a vow once confirmed cannot be annulled. Since, however, one is made dependent upon the other, the question arises whether the annulment cancels the confirmation or not. ');">⁶</span>