QUESTION: The Beraisa says that when a Na'arah Me'urasah made a Neder and
her father heard it and annulled it, and then the Arus died before hearing
the Neder, and then the Na'arah became betrothed a second time on the same
day, her father may annul the Neder together with the second Arus.
The RAN (DH Shama Aviha) explains why this Halachah applies only when the
second Erusin occurred on the same day that she made the Neder. When the
Arus dies, "Nisroknah" tells us that the father inherits the Neder. Since
the father already heard the Neder, he must annul -- on that same day -- the
first Arus' portion of the Neder that he inheritted. If the Na'arah would
have become betrothed only on the following day, then the father either
completely annulled the Neder on the previous day (with his power of Hafarah
that he received through "Nisroknah"), or he was Mekayem the Neder by the
end of the previous day.
The Ran is assuming that even though the father was Mefer before the Arus
died, "Nisroknah" still applies. This is the opinion of Beis Shamai
mentioned in the Beraisa earlier (69a). The Gemara concludes that the
Beraisa here, too, is following the view of Beis Shamai. According to Beis
Hillel, though, based on the Ran's logic it would seem that the second Arus
*would* be able to be Mefer the Neder (with the father) in such a case even
if the Erusin took place on the following day, since the father did not
inherit the first Arus' portion of the Neder and he was not able to be Mefer
it or Mekayem it on the day of the Neder.
The problem is that the Ran himself (69a, DH Aval Beis Hillel) writes
clearly that even according to Beis Hillel, the father and second Arus may
annul the Neder *only* when the Na'arah becomes engaged on the same day as
the first Arus died! According to Beis Hillel, why should the ability to be
Mefer be limited to that day?
ANSWER: The Ran (69a) not only writes that the father and second Arus must
be Mefer the Neder on the *same day* as the first Arus died, he also writes
that both the father and Arus must be Mefer the Neder when she gets
remarried. Why must the father be Mefer the Neder again? He was already
Mefer his portion while the first Arus was alive! It is clear from the Ran
that the Hafarah of the father becomes Batel according to Beis Hillel.
Why, though, should it become Batel? The father did not die. His Hafarah
should remain intact!
We can explain why the father's original Hafarah is void based on what the
Ran writes earlier (67a, DH v'Chazar). If -- at any point after the Arus or
father was Mefer -- there was a time when it was impossible for the other
partner to be Mefer, then the Hafarah that was done becomes void. Similarly,
after the Arus dies it is impossible for there to be a Hafarah on the second
half (the Arus' portion) of the Neder, and therefore even the Hafarah of the
father becomes void. This is why, when she becomes remarried, both the
father and the Arus must be Mefer again. The father's earlier Hafarah became
void during the time that there was no one else (i.e. the Arus) to be Mefer
the other half of the Neder.
This also explains why the Hafarah must be done on the same day according to
Beis Hillel -- since the father must be Mefer again and his Hafarah is
limited to the day on which he first heard the Neder, which is the day on
which the first Arus died. By the arrival of the next day, he will have lost
his rights to be Mefer, since the day will no longer be "Yom Sham'o," the
day on which he heard the Neder. (Even though the father was not able to be
Mefer during the actual day of "Yom Sham'o" and therefore his silence is not
considered Hakamah, nevertheless he loses the rights to be Mefer, as we
discussed in Insights to 69:1.)