Explanation: This is like we say below, that one can ask [to permit] Hakamah. One might have thought that he uprooted his confirmation [of the vow], and it suffices for the one who was Mekayem to annul [now], for the other already annulled;

The Mishnah teaches that this is not so. [The vow lasts] until both of them annul at once, i.e. without interruption between one and the other of something that prevents Hafarah, such as Hakamah of the other;

Since at the time he cannot annul, even the first Hafarah of the other is Batel, and both of them must annul now at once.

Opinion #1: However, this suffices. Do not say that there is no Hafarah after Hafarah, and since the first Hafarah is Batel, he cannot annul afterwards. This is wrong. Also the Rambam says so.

Opinion #2: However, the Rambam connotes that whenever Hakamah took effect between Hafarah of one and Hafarah of the other, they cannot annul.

Qualification: "At once" is not precise. Even if one annulled in the morning and the other at night, it suffices, as long as there was no interruption between them of something that prevents Hafarah.

Question: Since the Tana comes to teach this law, why did he teach "we need not say [when one of them was Mekayem]", for we infer this from the Reisha?

Just the contrary, this is [greatly] needed!

Answer: I can say that he teaches as follows. Since Hafarah of one without the other is nothing, we need not say that when one of them was Mekayem, the first Hafarah is nothing, for we learn this from the Reisha;

The Tana relies that we understand from his teaching that it is no longer able to join [to the other's Hafarah]. If it were able, why did he teach "we need not say", like the Gemara asked?

Question (Rashba): Why do we say that the first Hafarah was Batel? After he permitted his Hakamah, since a Chacham uproots a Neder from the beginning, it is as if he never was Mekayem at all!

This is like the Mishnah in Kidushin (50a), if one was Mekadesh a woman on condition that she has no Nedarim, and she was found to have Nedarim, she is not Mekudeshes;

If she went in front of a Chacham and he permitted her, she is Mekudeshes, for we consider her as if she had no Nedarim at all at the time of Kidushin.

Also here, after he permitted [his Hakamah], we should view him as if he was never Mekayem!

Answer: To me, this is not difficult at all. Since Kidushin is a total action, even though as long as she did not permit [her vows] it does not take effect, when she permits, we say that retroactively it is revealed that it took effect from the beginning;

However, Hafarah of one of them is weaker, for by itself it is nothing, except if it joins with the other;

Even when it joins with the other, it does not help as long as they are not proper to join together, like a Beraisa teaches, that if one of them annulled and died, his Hafarah is Batel;

Therefore, since Hafarah of one of them, even if the other was not Mekayem, is very weak, whenever the other was Mekayem, since at the time it is not able to join, it is totally Batel;

Since it is not able [to join] at the time, it is not able [to join] also afterwards.

Explanation: It seems to me that it means that as follows. Since another verse teaches about a Nesu'ah, i.e. "Im Beis Ishah Nadarah", like we explain below, you are forced to say that we establish this verse to discuss an Arusah. Why would we need two verses about a Nesu'ah?!

Since we establish it to discuss an Arusah, we are forced to say that Vav Mosif Al Inyan Rishon;

Above, it says "va'Shem Yislach Lah Ki Heni Aviha Osah", and afterwards it says "v'Im b'Yom Shemo'a Ishah Yani Osah" to teach that her father and husband annul her Nedarim;

It is fine to establish this to discuss an Arusah. Since an Arusah did not leave her father's Reshus, it is proper that the Arus cannot annul alone;

Support: We are forced to say so. If we would not say Vav Mosif Al Inyan Rishon, and an Arus can annul alone, why would we need a verse for a Nesu'ah?

During Eirusin, [her husband] can annul alone. Is there any question about during Nisu'in? Because he did Nisu'in, was his power weakened?!

Explanation (cont.): We then ask to explain the matter. We ask, perhaps the verse discusses a Nesu'ah, to teach that a husband annuls alone, for we say Vav Mosif Al Inyan Rishon only when it is proven from the verses;

If we establish the verse to discuss an Arusah, it is proven, like I wrote. However, regarding a Nesu'ah, it is not proven at all. Just the contrary, it is proper that the husband annul alone, for once she had Nisu'in, her father has no Reshus over her.

Therefore, we should say that for a Nesu'ah, her husband annuls alone, and for an Arusah, her father annuls alone, for through Eirusin she does not leave her father's Reshus.

We answer we cannot establish it to discuss a Nesu'ah, for another verse teaches about a Nesu'ah, i.e. "Im Beis Ishah Nadarah." Why would we need two verses?!

This is like we initially thought, just the Gemara explains the matter bit by bit.

Explanation: Therefore, b'Al Korchacha (against your will) you cannot say that a father annuls alone for an Arusah, for "Havayah" connotes Kidushin.

Inference: Na'arah Me'orasah needs [also] the husband. The father alone does not suffice.

Question: Granted, "Havayah" connotes Kidushin. It also connotes Nisu'in, for in Yevamos (60a) we say that a Kohen [has a Mitzvah to] become Tamei for his Arusah sister;

We establish the verse "ul'Achoso ha'Besulah ha'Kerovah Elav Asher Lo Haysah l'Ish" to discuss (exclude) a Nesu'ah. This shows that "Havayah" connotes also Nisu'in!

Therefore, we should say that both [after] Kidushin, and after Nisu'in, her father and husband annul her vows!

Answer #1: This is wrong. It is obvious to us that once she had Nisu'in, her father has no Reshus in her.

Answer #2: "Im Beis Ishah Nadarah" teaches that a Ba'al (after Nisu'in) annuls alone. (Surely the Torah taught a Nesu'ah separately because the law changed.)

Explanation: It seems that he asks that the father should be able to annul by himself. Since she did not leave her father's Reshus, like I wrote above, it is proper that he can annul;

However, an Arus cannot annul alone. The verse "v'Im Hayo Sihyeh" is written next to ["v'Im Heni Aviha..."] to teach that an Arus needs the father [to annul with him].

The Torah wrote about an Arus to teach that if he was Mekayem, the vow stands, like we say below about the father (if the Arus can annul by himself, the Torah wrote about the father to teach that if he was Mekayem, the vow stands).

Implied question: It says about her (an Arusah) "v'Im Hayo Sihyeh l'Ish... "v'Im b'Yom Shemo'a Ishah Yani Osah v'Hefer Es Nidrah"! (This shows that an Arus can annul.)

Answer: This does not show that his (an Arus') Hafarah helps at all. Rather, if he did not annul on the day he heard, it turns out that he was Mekayem;

Only for this the Torah established her in the Arus' Reshus (that he can be Mekayem), but not for anything else.

Since she did not leave her father's Reshus, we should award the Arus with the smallest rights.

Explanation: Once we see that the initial Hava Amina, that a Na'arah Me'orasah did not leave her father's Reshus at all, is wrong, for you are forced to say that after Eirusin, her father cannot annul alone...

We ask oppositely now. Since this is so (she left his Reshus), the verse connotes that the Arus is primary and the father is secondary!

Since the Torah toiled to teach that a father annuls before Eirusin, this implies that after Eirusin, she leaves his Reshus;

Since the verse explicitly wrote that an Arus can annul, this connotes that he can annul alone. We know the partnership of the father only due to Vav Mosif Al Inyan Rishon...

Therefore, it should suffice to establish [his partnership] to be that if he was Mekayem the Neder, it is Mekuyam, for surely the simple meaning of the verse connotes that an Arus can annul alone;

However, we cannot say that a father has no part in vows of an Arusah, and only the Arus is, for if so, why did the Torah write [this next to] Hafarah of the father?

Therefore, any way we can establish the father to have some [part in Hafarah], this suffices. We should establish it that if he was Mekayem, it is Mekuyam!

Explanation (cont.): We answer that if so, why does it say "Im Beis Ishah Nadarah"? A Kal va'Chomer [teaches that a Ba'al annuls alone after Nisu'in]!

Implied question: Why can't we say that the Torah wrote this to teach that if the father was Mekayem after Nisu'in, it is not Mekuyam?

Answer: We do not need a verse for this. Obviously, after Nisu'in, her father has no Reshus in her!

Implied question: Perhaps the Torah wrote this, for if not, one might have thought that an Arusah, even if the father was Mekayem, it is not Mekuyam!

Answer: We cannot say so, since she did not yet leave her father's Reshus;

According to letter of the law we should have said that her father can annul alone, if not for the question "if so, why do we need "v'Asrah Isar b'Veis Aviha"? ...

[Therefore,] we should diminish Hafarah of the father only as much as is proven from this question, but not that if he was Mekayem, it is not Mekuyam, which is not proven.

Explanation: From what you said that a Ba'al (of a Nesu'ah) cannot annul Kodmim (previous vows, i.e. from before Nisu'in), we learn that an Arus can annul only with partnership of the father;

The father and Arus annul Kodmim, like [the verse] connotes "u'Nedareha Aleha" - vows that she already had.

How is it possible that an Arus can annul, and a Ba'al cannot? Is it not due to partnership of the father that he can annul all vows, for regarding the father, there are no Kodmim. It seems to me that this is the explanation of our Sugya.