Nedarim 143

ת"ש אימתי אמרו מת הבעל נתרוקנה רשות לאב בזמן שלא שמע הבעל או שמע והפר או שמע ושתק ומת בו ביום ואי אמרת גירושין כשתיקה דמו ליתני נמי או שמע וגירש מדלא תני הכי ש"מ גירושין כהקמה דמו

— Come and hear; When was it said that if the husband dies his authority passes over to the father? If the husband did not hear [the vow], or heard and annulled it, or heard it, was silent, and died on the same day.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. 68a, b, and notes. ');">¹</span>

אימא סיפא אבל אם שמע וקיים או שמע ושתק ומת ביום של אחריו אין יכול להפר ואי אמרת גירושין כהקמה דמו ליתני ואם שמע וגירש אלא מדלא קתני הכי ש"מ גירושין כשתיקה דמו

Now, should you say that divorce is as silence, let him [the Tanna] also teach, 'or heard it and divorced her'? Since it is not taught thus, it follows that divorce is as confirmation! — Then consider the second clause: But if he heard and confirmed it, or heard it, was silent, and died on the following day, he [the father] cannot annul it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The silence of a whole day is the equivalent of confirmation. ');">²</span>

אלא מהא ליכא למשמע מיניה אי רישא דוקא נסיב סיפא משום רישא אי סיפא דוקא נסיב רישא משום סיפא

But if you maintain that divorce [too] is as confirmation, let him also state, 'or if he heard it and divorced her.' But since this is omitted, it proves that divorce is tantamount to silence! Hence no deductions can be made from this; if the first clause is exact, the second clause is stated [in that form] on account of the first; if the second is exact, the first is so taught on account of the second.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one clause must have been taught with exactitude, and the omission of divorce is intentional; but the other has been stated inexactly, for though divorce could have been included therein, it was omitted for the sake of parallelism. ');">³</span>

ת"ש נדרה והיא ארוסה ונתגרשה ונתארסה בו ביום אפילו למאה אביה ובעלה האחרון מפירין נדריה ש"מ גירושין כשתיקה דמו דאי כהקמה דמו מי מצי מיפר ארוס אחרון נידרי דאוקים ארוס ראשון

Come and hear; IF SHE VOWED AS AN ARUSAH, WAS DIVORCED ON THAT DAY AND BETROTHED [AGAIN] ON THE SAME DAY, EVEN A HUNDRED TIMES, HER FATHER AND HER LAST HUSBAND CAN ANNUL HER VOWS; this proves that divorce is the equivalent of silence, for if it is as confirmation, can the second arus annul vows which the first arus confirmed?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely not! ');">⁴</span>

הב"ע בשלא שמע ארוס ראשון אי הכי מאי איריא בו ביום אפילו לאחר מאה ימים נמי

— No. This refers to a case where the first arus did not hear thereof. If so, why particularly state ON THE SAME DAY? The same holds good even after a hundred days! — This refers to a case where the arus did not hear thereof, but her father did; so that he can annul only on the same day, but not afterwards.

כשלא שמע ארוס ושמע האב דבו ביום הוא דמצי מיפר אבל מכאן ואילך לא מצי מיפר

Come and hear: If she vowed on one day, and he divorced her on the same day and took her back on the same day, he cannot annul it.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Now it is assumed that it refers to mere betrothal. ');">⁵</span>

תא שמע נדרה בו ביום גירשה והחזירה בו ביום אין יכול להפר שמע מינה גירושין כהקמה דמו

This proves that divorce is as confirmation! — I will tell you. This refers to a nesu'ah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., when she finally becomes married to him. ');">⁶</span>

אמרי הכא בנשואה עסקינן והיינו טעמא דאין יכול להפר משום דאין הבעל מיפר בקודמין:

and the reason that he cannot annul is because a husband cannot annul pre-marriage vows.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., in the case of a nesu'ah; v. supra 67a. ');">⁷</span>