Ketubot 49A

ואימא: היכא דהדרא לבי נשא ⁠— הדרא למילתא קמייתא? אמר רבא: ההוא כבר פסקה תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל,

The Talmud asks another question: But say that in a case where she returns to her father’s house, she returns to the previous matter, i.e., her former status, as though she had never left her father’s authority. Rava said: That question has already been resolved by the tanna of the school of R' Yishmael.

דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל: ״ונדר אלמנה וגרושה כל אשר אסרה על נפשה יקום עליה״, מה תלמוד לומר? והלא מוצאת מכלל אב ומוצאת מכלל בעל!

This is as the tanna of the school of R' Yishmael taught: “But the vow of a widow or of a divorcée, everything with which she has bound her soul should stand against her” (Numbers 30:10). What is the meaning when the verse states this? Is it not already known that if she is widowed or divorced she has already been removed from the category of one under the authority of her father and she has likewise been removed from the category of one under the authority of her husband? Who, then, could possibly nullify her vows?

אלא, הרי שמסר האב לשלוחי הבעל, או שמסרו שלוחי האב לשלוחי הבעל, ונתארמלה בדרך או נתגרשה, היאך אני קורא בה: בית אביה של זו, או בית בעלה של זו? אלא לומר לך: כיון שיצאה שעה אחת מרשות האב ⁠— שוב אינו יכול להפר.

Rather, this is referring to a case where the father delivered his daughter to the husband’s messengers or where the father’s messengers delivered her to the husband’s messengers, and she was widowed or divorced on her way to the wedding canopy. How do I consider her? Is she a member of her father’s house, or a member of her husband’s house? Her status is entirely unclear. Rather, this verse comes to tell you: Since she has left her father’s domain for a short time her father is no longer able to nullify her vows, as she is considered a widow or a divorcée in all regards. The same applies to the issue at hand: She retains the status of a married woman even if she returns to her father’s house.