מקיש קודמי הויה שניה לקודמי הויה ראשונה מה קודמי הויה ראשונה אב מיפר לחודיה אף קודמי הויה שניה אב מיפר לחודיה

This verse juxtaposes the vows preceding her second instance of being betrothed, i. e., those that she took after her first husband’s death but before her second betrothal, to those vows preceding her first instance of being betrothed. Just as with regard to the vows preceding her first instance of being betrothed, her father nullifies them on his own, so too, with regard to those vows preceding her second instance of being betrothed, her father nullifies them on his own.

אימא הני מילי בנדרים שלא נראו לארוס אבל בנדרים שנראו לארוס לא מצי מיפר אב

The Gemara asks: Say that this halakha that the father nullifies vows on his own after the death of the betrothed applies only to vows that were not disclosed to the betrothed, i. e., those that he did not have the opportunity to either ratify or nullify, but with regard to vows that were disclosed to the betrothed, the father cannot nullify them on his own.

אי בנדרים שלא נראו לארוס מבנעריה בית אביה נפקא

The Gemara answers: If the verse is referring only to vows that were not disclosed to the betrothed, it would be unnecessary to teach that halakha, as that is derived from the words“ being in her youth, in her father’s house” (Numbers 30:17). As long as the young woman is in her father’s house, even after the death of her betrothed, her father has the authority to nullify her vows.

בזה יפה כח האב מכח הבעל כו׳ היכי דמי

§ The mishna states: In this matter, the power of the father is enhanced relative to the power of the husband. In another matter, the power of the husband is enhanced relative to the power of the father, as the husband nullifies vows during the woman’s adulthood, whereas the father does not nullify vows during her adulthood. The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances under which a husband can nullify his adult wife’s vows?

אילימא שקידשה כשהיא נערה ובגרה מכדי מיתה מוציאה ובגרות מוציאה מרשות אב מה מיתה לא נתרוקנה רשות לבעל אף בגרות לא נתרוקנה רשות לבעל

If we say that the mishna is referring to a cases where he betrothed her when she was a young woman, and she took a vow, and then she reached majority, that cannot be the halakha: After all, both the death of her father removes her from the father’s authority and attaining her majority removes her from the father’s authority, so the halakha in the two cases should be the same. Just as with the death of the father, his authority does not revert to the husband and the woman’s betrothed cannot nullify her vows on his own, so too, upon attaining majority the authority the father possessed when she was a young woman does not revert to the husband.

אלא שקידשה כשהיא בוגרת הא תנינא חדא זימנא הבוגרת ששהתה שנים עשר חדש

Rather, it is referring to a case in which he betrothed her when she was a grown woman, and then she took a vow. The Gemara asks: Didn’t we already learn that on another occasion, in a later mishna that states (73b): With regard to a grown woman who waited twelve months after her betrothal and then requested that her betrothed marry her, Rabbi Eliezer says: Since her husband is already obligated to provide for her sustenance, as he is obligated to have married her by then, he can nullify her vows by himself, as if he were fully married to her.

הא גופא קשיא אמרת הבוגרת ששהתה שנים עשר חדש בבוגרת למה לי שנים עשר חדש בוגרת בשלשים יום סגי לה תני בוגרת וששהתה שנים עשר חדש

The Gemara explains the cited mishna: This cited mishna is itself difficult: You said that a grown woman who waited twelve months is entitled to support. With regard to a grown woman, why do I need a twelve-month waiting period before her betrothed is obligated to marry her? For a grown woman, thirty days suffice for her to prepare what she needs for her marriage after she is betrothed. The Gemara answers: The mishna should be revised. Teach the mishna: A grown woman who waited thirty days and a young woman who waited twelve months.

מכל מקום קשיא איבעית אימא הכא דוקא ובוגרת קתני התם משום דבעי איפלוגי רבי אליעזר ורבנן

The Gemara returns to the question: In any case, the fact that the mishna here teaches a halakha that is addressed in a different mishna is difficult. The Gemara answers: If you wish, say that the mishna here is actually the primary source of this halakha, and the reference to a grown woman is taught there because it wants to present how Rabbi Eliezer and the Rabbis disagree.

איבעית אימא בוגרת דוקא ואיידי דנסיב רישא בזה נסיב סיפא נמי בזה

Alternatively, if you wish, say that the mishna that begins: A grown woman, is actually the source for this halakha. The mishna here repeats the halakha incidentally, since it needs to cite the first clause: In this matter the power of the father is enhanced relative to the power of the husband, therefore the mishna cites the latter clause as well, by writing: In this other matter, the power of the husband is enhanced relative to the power of the father.