Gemara: A Beraisa supports R. Ami. (pertains to 74b)

Explanation: He established R. Eliezer's law to be in a case that he gave to her a Ma'amar.

Gemara: What [do we find] regarding a woman in whom he had no share before she came to his Reshus...

Explanation: A Stam woman.

Gemara: After she came to his Reshus.

Explanation: I.e. after he was Mekadesh her. This is called 'Ba li'Reshuso.' Nisu'in is called 'entering his Reshus' - 'until she enters his Reshus' (above, 73b).

Gemara: She is finalized to him.

Explanation: This refers to Hafaras Nedarim; he annuls in partnership with the father.

Gemara: A woman in whom he had a share before she came to his Reshus.

Explanation: I.e. a Yevamah. He had a share due to Zikah, before he gave to her a Ma'amar.

Gemara: After she came to his Reshus.

Explanation: I.e. he gave to her a Ma'amar. Is it not all the more so that she is finalized to him, and the Yavam has the right to annul her vows annuls in partnership [with the father]?

Gemara: Like other matters, so are vows.

Explanation: You learn from other matters that a Yavam cannot annul her vows, since for other matters she is not like an Arusah, even if he gave to her a Ma'amar, like it explains below;

Also for Hafarah of vows, it is so. She is not like his Arusah. He cannot annul her vows, even in partnership.

Gemara: Woe to you, Ben Azai!

Explanation: He was troubled about himself, that he did not serve R. Akiva (to learn from him. Ben Azai followed R. Akiva into the privy, and learned from him (Brachos 62a)! Still, he was pained over the years that he did not serve him. - PF)

Gemara: How does the Beraisa support R. Ami?

Explanation: He established [the Mishnah] when he gave to her a Ma'amar. How does the Beraisa support him?

Gemara: It teaches, whether he gave to her a Ma'amar...

Inference: R. Akiva heard that R. Eliezer discusses when he gave to her a Ma'amar.

Gemara: Alternatively, from the Reisha, which taught 'from when she entered his Reshus, she is finalized to him.'

Implied question: This wording is not precise. [The Gemara] should have brought 'and woman in whom he had a share before she came to his Reshus, after she came to his Reshus, it is not all the more so that she is finalized to him?!'

Answer: [The Gemara] cited the beginning of the matter [that supports R. Ami].

Gemara: What is the meaning of 'like other matters, so are vows' that was taught?

Explanation: What are these matters, from which we learn vows?

Gemara: They are not Chayav Skilah for her.

Explanation: They are not Chayav Skilah for a Yevamah, and even if he gave to her a Ma'amar.

Inference: A Ma'amar of a Yevamah is not better than [and it is not even] like Kidushin of an Arusah.

Gemara: Our Mishnah implies like this.

Explanation: It brings a proof from Skilah.

Explanation: An Arusah is stoned if she was Mezanah.

Ruling: We hold like R. Akiva, that he cannot annul, not when there is one Yavam, and not when there are two.

Implied question: We hold that Yesh Zikah, and above I explained that R. Akiva's reason is because he holds that Ein Zikah!

Answer: We can say that [we held that R. Akiva's reason is because Ein Zikah] before we brought this Beraisa;

However, after we brought it, we see that even if R. Akiva holds that Yesh Zikah, he can say that he cannot annul, since a Yevamah is not totally [acquired] to her husband, since one is not liable Skilah for her, like one is liable for a Na'arah Me'orasah.

Since Ben Azai praised R. Akiva, and [R. Akiva] prevailed against R. Eliezer and R. Yehoshua in the law, for they did not answer him at all, we hold like him. Also the Ramban ruled like this.

Question: I am unsure. Since a Yavam cannot annul, can a father annul when there is a Yavam from Eirusin? I do not know how to decide this.

Partial answer: Presumably, Nedarim that she vowed in her father's house or during Eirusin, he can annul, for whenever there is no Arus, if the husband died, the father received authority;

Here, since the Yavam did not merit [rights of Hafarah] in the Yevamah's vows, it is as if he does not exist.

Source: Based on what I explained above (71b) in the name of our teachers, the Tosafists, that Beis Shamai hold that also Nedarim that the Arus heard, the father received authority, I say so;

According to Tosfos, Beis Shamai's reason is because since the first Arus heard, the last Arus does not merit in them. Even though the Arus is alive, it is as if he does not exist;

Since it is as if he does not exist, it is as if the father is alone, and there is no Arus;

Also according to us (who rule like Beis Hillel), a Yavam, since he does not merit in Nedarim [vowed in the life] of the first Arus, the father can annul.

Distinction: However, Nedarim that she vowed in the Yavam's Reshus, I am unsure about them. So it seems to me.

Remark: In practice, this requires investigation in the words of the Rishonim.

Mishnah: If one told his wife '...from now until I come from Ploni (a certain place)'

Explanation: From the time that I leave from here, until I will come from the place Ploni.

Support #1: This is why it says 'from here', and it did not say 'from this day', for his intent is only from the day when he will leave from here;

Support #2: And this is why he does not annul for her now, for he is concerned lest while he is still by her, she will take vows that he wants to affirm them, like I explained above (73a) in the case of one who one who tells an overseer [to annul her vows in his absence].

Explanation: Only regarding Hafarah, R. Eliezer said that it is annulled, due to his Kal va'Chomer, like it proceeds to explain;

However, regarding Hakamah, just the contrary! This (they did not yet come to Isur) is a reason (why he cannot be Mekayem them)!

Note: Hagahos Yeshanos says that this ends this Dibur, and the coming words begin a new Dibur.

Explanation: If he can annul vows that came to Isur, which are stronger, for they already took effect, can he not annul vows that did not come to Isur, which are not so severe?!

However, regarding Hakamah, it is just the contrary;

Granted, we find that vows that took effect, which are severe, one can be Mekayem them. Who will tell us so about vows that did not take effect, which are not so strong?!

Gemara: What came to possibility of Kiyum.

Explanation: Vows that took effect.

Gemara: [What] did not come to possibility of Kiyum.

Explanation: Vows that did not take effect.

Gemara: [What] did not come to possibility of Hafarah.

Explanation: Even though there is a Kal v'Chomer, you are forced to say that the verse equated them.

Gemara: That others were Matfis others in this vow. (pertains to Amud B)

Explanation: E.g. she vowed to be a Nazir, and another came and said 'I am like her.'

Granted, they are immediately Batel. Even so, since they take effect, one can be Matfis in them;

When he said "I am like her", he refers to "Hareini Nezirah" that she said. If [her words] did not take effect, there is no effect [of his acceptance to be like her], therefore it is not Tefisah.

Question: Even if you will say that they take effect and are Batel, how can one be Matfis?

Why is this different than the question above (11b), when there was in front of him meat of Shelamim after Zerikah, and he was Matfis other meat in it, and said "this is like this"?

We asked whether he is Matfis in its initial status, and he is forbidden, or in its current Heter, and he is permitted. We concluded that he is Matfis in Heter! (Also here, now her vow is permitted!)

Answer: This is not a proper comparison. There is different, for he said "this is like this." Therefore, we say that he means "just like it is now";

However, here she says "I am a Nezirah", and this man is Matfis in her, and said "and I." Surely he is Matfis in the Nezirus that she said.

Support: This is proven from the Sugya of Nezirus that we will write below with Hash-m's help.

Question: Here, granted, Hatfasah took effect. Why does this matter? Since he was Matfis in her, when the first Neder is Batel, also this [Hatfasah] is Batel!

This is the law of one who is Matfis, like the Mishnah in Nazir (20b) [if one said] "Hareini Nazir", and his friend heard and said "and I" [and another heard and said] "and I", all of them are Nezirim;

If the first was permitted, all of them are permitted.

Also above (26a, 66a) it says that if they attributed their Isurim on each other, if the first was permitted, all of them are permitted.

Answer: This is not difficult at all. We say that if the first was permitted, all of them are permitted only regarding the Heter of a Chacham, who uproots the Neder from its source;

Therefore, whenever the first was permitted, it is revealed that there was never a Neder, and the latter's Hatfasah is Batel.

However, a husband does not uproot retroactively, rather, from now and onwards. Even if the first was permitted, the others are still forbidden. Their Hatfasah is not Batel through this.

Source: The Gemara says so explicitly in Nazir (21b);

Citation (21b) Question: Does a husband uproot, or cut? This affects a woman who vowed to be a Nazir, and her friend heard and said "and I", and the first's husband heard and annulled her;

If he uproots, also the other is permitted. If he cuts, his wife is permitted, but her friend is forbidden.

Implied question: Why does he understand that they do not take effect? The words of our Mishnah connote unlike this!

Answer: It is because granted, if you will say that they do not take effect, the Kal va'Chomer [of our Mishnah] exists: if Hafarah annuls Nedarim that already took effect, all the more so it stops Nedarim from taking effect;

However, if you will say that they take effect, and they are Batel, what is the Kal va'Chomer? Since they took effect, they came to Isur!

Explanation: The Gemara answers, if it is like you said, the Tana should have taught "that do not come [to Isur]." This expression implies that Hafarah blocks them, that they do not come;

[Our Mishnah] does not say so. It says "that did not come [to Isur]", which connotes that they did not come yet, but in the end they will come!

Therefore, you are forced to say that the Tana of our Mishnah holds that they take effect, and they are Batel. Even so, there is a Kal va'Chomer;

If Hafarah is Mevatel Nedarim that came to Isur, and there was no Hafarah with them, all the more so it can annul Nedarim that were "born with their blemish", i.e. [from the beginning there was] Hafarah of the husband.

Gemara: Come and learn. We find that in a place that one cannot annul his own vows after he vowed...

Explanation: This is like it is written "Lo Yachel Devaro", but others can profane (permit) him.

Gemara: He can annul his own vows before he vowed.

Explanation: This is like it says above (23b), one who wants that his vows will not be valid, he should stand on Rosh Hashanah and say 'all vows that I will vow will be Batel.'

Gemara: Is it not that his wife is like himself?

Explanation: In that case in which he permits his own vows, i.e. that they will not take effect at all, R. Eliezer makes a Kal v'Chomer to his wife's vows;

Just like [the vows of] him do not take effect, for it they took effect, he would need a Chacham to permit them, also [the vows of] his wife.

Implied question: R. Eliezer learned from a Kal va'Chomer from his own vows to his wife's vows! (This implies that they are the same.)

Answer: He does not totally equate them. His vows did not take effect at all, but his wife's take effect. Even so, he properly learns from the Kal va'Chomer.

Question: He should learn from his Kal va'Chomer also that his wife's vows do not take effect at all, just like his own vows do not take effect!

Answer: It seems to me that he cannot learn this, for the reason for his vows is because he stipulated from the beginning that they not take effect at all;

Since he forgot his Tenai at the time of his vow, it is a mistaken vow, and it does not take effect at all;

His wife's vows are different. We cannot say so about them;

Distinction: However, regarding that his wife's vows are Batel after they take effect, we can properly learn from the Kal va'Chomer.

Since regarding his own vows, we find that a Tenai before his vow is Mevatel his vows before he vows, and even so, that same way (a Tenai) is not Mevatel them after he vows;

This is because every vow permitted through a Pesach, it is a mistaken vow;

Question: What is the difference if we can say that had he known what he stipulated at the beginning, he would not have vowed, or if we can say that had he known [when he vowed] the Pesach that he knows now, he would not have vowed? Both of these are the same!

Answer: Rather, you must say that granted, in this way (through a Pesach) he cannot permit himself after the vow (a Chacham must permit him), whenever this way preceded the Neder (he stipulated), in that same way he permits to himself. (This shows that he has more ability to permit before the Neder than after it);

All the more so a husband, for whom it is proper that in the same way that he annuls after his wife vowed, i.e. he annuls her vows from Hafarah and onwards, and he does not uproot them from the beginning...

[All the more so] he can annul also before she vows, that they will take effect and become Batel. So it seems to me.

Version #1: This is the text in some Seforim, and in the Perush of R. Baruch;

They said to R. Eliezer "how did you learn a Kal va'Chomer that it is more proper that an Isur that did not yet take effect become Batel, than what already took effect?