Explanation #1 (Rashi): His ankle, called Kevila (in old French) is big.

Explanation #2 (Aruch): His foot is tall, and there is much flesh at the front of the foot, and at the heel, and its middle is [low], like an [inverted] dome.

Support: The expression Kesasos connotes like he explained, that we discuss flesh, and not the bone, like the case in Bereishis Rabah that says about man, that his anus is covered. His buttocks are like blankets for it, unlike an animal.

Inference: Since he challenged him, this connotes that he did not say "words of prophecy" for a praise.

Implied question: In Bava Basra (12a) it connotes that this was said for esteem, for it brings regarding this "even though prophecy was taken from the Nevi'im [it was given to Chachamim]"!

Reference: In Eruvin (60b DH Ein) I explained this. (Wherever it says "these are only words of prophecy", it is a praise. Here it says "they made their words like words of prophecy", i.e. to say them without a reason.)

Implied question: A Beraisa in Pesachim (14b) says that a Zar, Onen, Shikur, or Ba'al Mum is Pasul for Kabalah, Holachah and Zerikah. Why did it say Shikur? It should have said like we say everywhere, Shetuyei Yayin and Peru'ei Rosh (one who did not shave his hair for 30 days)!

Answer (R. Chaim Kohen): It discusses other intoxicants, and according to R. Yehudah, who says that he profanes the Avodah, like we establish "Shikur" here to discuss other intoxicants. (This is a bigger Chidush. Rashash - this also answers why it omitted Peru'ei Rosh, for we know that Peru'ei Rosh profanes the Avodah only from a Hekesh to Shetuyei Yayin.)

Reference: Rav Nachman and Rav Papa argue about this in Gitin (35b).

Pesak: It seems that the Halachah follows Rav Papa, that one must detail [the vow], for he is Basra (was after Rav Nachman).

Implied question: In some Seforim, the text says Rav Sheshes in place of Rav Papa. (When Rav Sheshes and Rav Nachman (who were colleagues) argue, the Halachah follows Rav Nachman in monetary matters, and Rav Sheshes in Isurim.)

Answer: [Even so,] the Halachah does not follow Rav Nachman, for it was not asked about monetary matters, to impose a vow on a widow when she comes to collect her Kesuvah (that she did not yet receive anything. If one need not detail it, one may not rely on this, lest she ask a Chacham to permit her vow!) Rather, it was asked about Isur, like it connotes there;

It says there "if you will say that one must detail it, sometimes one will truncate his words" (and the vow is not permitted, since the Chacham did not hear the entire vow)!

Support (for Pesak): Also Rav Huna, who was bigger in Chachmah and Minyan (number of Talmidim, than Rav Nachman) holds that one must detail it.

Explanation (Rashi): This is an argument in Gitin (46a) regarding one who divorced his wife due to a vow. R. Yehudah said that any vow that many knew about it, he cannot remarry her, for she vowed a vow that has no Heter;

If it was not known to many, he may remarry her. [R. Yehudah] is not concerned for ruin. (After she remarries, he will say 'I would not have divorced you had I known that the vow could be permitted', i.e. the divorce was mistaken and invalid.)

Question: What is the source that Rabanan argue with R. Yehudah about this, that they hold that it can be annulled? Perhaps they argue only about ruin!

Also in that Sugya there, it is obvious to the Gemara that Rabanan hold that it can be annulled. (R. Yehoshua ben Levi said that R. Yehudah learns from "Bnei Yisrael did not kill (the Giv'onim) because the heads of the tribes had sworn to them" [in public, so they could not permit it]. Rabanan say "there, did the Shevu'ah take effect at all?!" (It did not, for they were deceived. They did not kill them due to Kidush Hash-m.)

Suggestion: Rabanan do not distinguish between whether or not many knew about it. This implies that in every case he may not remarry her, for we are concerned for ruin. This shows that it can be annulled! (Ruin is through saying 'I would not have divorced you had I known that the vow can be permitted!')

Rejection: Also regarding [a vow] Al Da'as Rabim they do not distinguish, even though one could distinguish, for no matter what you will say [about a vow that many knew about it, Al Da'as Rabim] all agree that it cannot be annulled!

Answer #1: Al Da'as Rabim, which [Rabanan] and R. Yehudah did not discuss at all, there is no concern if they did not explain, even though one could distinguish;

However, a vow taken b'Rabim, which R. Yehudah distinguished, if it were true that it cannot be annulled, also Rabanan should have explained to distinguish, and say oppositely from R. Yehudah.

Answer #2: Also Al Da'as Rabim we can say that there is Hafarah with the consent of the Rabim that the vow was made on their Da'as, or for a Mitzvah there is Hafarah;

Therefore, [the Tana] could not uniformly teach that Al Da'as Rabim he may remarry her, according to the opinion that is concerned for ruin, for sometimes there is a Heter, and ruin applies;

However, b'Rabim it cannot be annulled, whether for a Mitzvah or for Reshus. In any case it cannot be annulled.

Proof: It connotes that the episode with the Giv'onim was for a Mitzvah [of killing the seven Kena'ani nations, and it could not be annulled].

Question: In Gitin (35b), regarding a widow, that R. Shimon ben Gamliel enacted that she vows to the orphans [that if she already received her Kesuvah, she forbids to herself] whatever they want...

And Rav Huna said that this is only if she did not yet remarry, but if she remarried, we do not impose a vow on her [to collect her Kesuvah], for her husband will annul her, even if she vowed b'Rabim;

What is the reason? Still, we can impose a vow on her Al Da'as Rabim, which cannot be annulled, like Ameimar says here!