Question: It is forbidden to suggest a Pesach (a reason to consider a vow to be mistaken) of Nolad (a turn of events that was unforeseeable at the time of the vow)!

Source (Nedarim 64a) Question: What are cases [of Nolad]? Reuven vowed not to benefit from Ploni, and Ploni became the scribe of the town...

Answer #1: Here it is not considered Nolad, since he went to a Rebbi's house to learn. It is normal that one who goes to learn becomes a great Chacham.

Answer #2: The case is, he made his vow dependent on the matter. He specified at the time he vowed "with intent that he not become a Chacham."

In such a case, it is not Nolad, like the Mishnah in Nedarim (65a) says "Konam I will not marry Plonis, for her father is evil", and they told him that he died or repented...

The Gemara asks that death is Nolad, and the same applies to repenting! Rav Huna answered that it is as if he made his vow dependent on the matter.

Implied question: R. Yochanan answered differently there! (How can we answer for him?)

Answer: He does not disagree about making a vow dependent on a matter. Rather, he does not consider this making his vow dependent on a matter.

Question: In Sotah (4b), the Gemara asks [how can you say that each Chacham gave the time he needed for Bi'ah?] One of the opinions was of Ben Azai, who did not marry!

Answer #1: This is fine according to the answer there that he married and separated. (However, how can we answer according to the other answers?)

Answer #2: Even though we say here that she did so to Ben Azai, he never had Nisu'in with her, only Eirusin.

Explanation: The Yerushalmi explains that this corresponds to the seven labors that a wife does for her husband;

Regarding Mored (a man who rebels against his wife), it explains that this corresponds to She'er, Kesus v'Onah.

Observation: The Bavli disagrees, for it asked what is the difference between Mored and Moredes, and gave a different reason (abstention from relations pains him more than it pains her).

Explanation: If she refuses to work for him, this is not rebellion.

Rav Huna teaches like he taught above (58b), that a woman can tell her husband "do not feed me, and I will not work for you";

R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina (who says that this is rebellion) holds like Reish Lakish [that she cannot say "do not feed me, and I will not work for you"].

Suggestion: Perhaps he holds like Rav Huna, that she can say..., and Moredes from Melachah is mixing his cup, making his bed (spreading the sheet) and washing his hands, feet and face!

Presumably, she is obligated even if she says "do not feed me, and I will not work for you", just like one who sits in a comfortable chair (and does not do other work at all), who must do these!

Answer #1: It is reasonable to be considered Moredes only for labors listed in our Mishnah.

Answer #2: It says below "can a sick woman do work?!" Even a sick woman can do these, for she is not so sick, since she is able to have relations.

Possibility: If one who says "do not feed me, and I will not work for you" uproots herself only from spinning wool, which is her primary work, but other labors such as grinding and baking she does, he could hold like Rav Huna!

Support: Above (59a), we call earnings a fixed matter, and there is no fixed amount for grinding and baking!

Rejection: It seems that this is not true. Rather, when she says "do not feed me, and I will not work for you", she is exempt from all seven labors;

When she does other labors, we deduct from how much wool she must spin, like the Mishnah (64b) says "if she was nursing, we deduct from her labors."

It seems that the same applies to grinding and baking (when she does them, we deduct from how much wool she must spin).

Implied question: If so, why does the Mishnah (64b) teach [that we deduct from her labors only] regarding one who nurses?

Answer: The Mishnah discusses one who feeds his wife through a third party. She cannot do other Melachos for him, since she is not with him in the house.

Rebuttal: We can say that the Mishnah teaches [that we deduct from her labors] specifically for one who nurses. Because toil diminishes milk, we reduce her labors.

Affirmation of rejection: It seems that in any case, when she says "do not feed me, and I will not work for you" she is exempt from all labors.

Proof: If she would do other labors, she will never have time to work for herself! How will she be fed?

Question: Why do we deduct from the Kesuvah of a Moredes? He should take a stick and sit [and force her to work]. According to Reish Lakish, he can force her to work!

Answer: Since she consents to work only through coercion, she is considered Moredes, and we deduct [from her Kesuvah], for one cannot live with a snake (one who seeks to vex him) in one basket.

Inference (R. Eliyahu): This shows that one must hire himself out to teach a child or do another job in order to feed his wife.

Proof #1: If you would not say so, how is this (refusal to feed) considered rebellion from work?!

Rebuttal (Rashi): Because feeding and supplying her needs correspond to her labors [this is called rebellion from work].

Proof #2: We write in the Kesuvah "I will work..."

Rebuttal: R. Tam explains that this refers to work in the field. I.e. I will plow, weed and hoe the field, and bring food to the house;

However, he need not hire himself to others.

Implied question: We could ask also against Shmuel, who argues with Rav below (77a) and says "rather than forcing him to divorce, force him to feed [her]!

Answer: We could not challenge Shmuel. For him, it is fine;

Even though we force him to feed her b'Al Korcho (against his will), in any case we add [to her Kesuvah], since he feeds her only through coercion, for one cannot live with a snake in one basket.

However, according to Rav, we force him to divorce her immediately. Adding does not apply!

Question: We can ask also according to the opinion that rebellion is from relations. You are forced to say that one who rebels from relations, we force him to divorce her;

Would we increase her Kesuvah forever, and she will be Agunah (deprived of relations) her entire life?!

Answer: We could have said "also according to you [this is difficult]."

Implied question: According to the opinion that [rebellion is] from work, why does it say "even a Nidah"?

Answer #1: This is a Chidush, because Stam Nidos are slightly sick.

Answer #2: She does not do [all] the Melachos that other women do, for she does not mix his cup...

Implied question: Above, we learned about one who vowed (for what duration of a vow against Bi'ah with his wife, do we force him to divorce her) from Nidah! (We should say that they are different, for Nidah is Pas b'Salo!)

Answer: This is because there is more Pas b'Salo regarding a vow, than regarding Mored. Perhaps he will find a Pesach for his vow.

Support: We add [to her Kesuvah] when he is Mored, but not when he vows [to forbid relations].

Implied question: Perhaps it means that we announce for four weeks, every day!

Rejection: The Tosefta explicitly teaches that we announce once a week.

Explanation #1: Rashi's text says "like whom does he hold", i.e. Rava, who said that it is an improper teaching.

Explanation: According to Rava, the Halachah does not follow Raboseinu, rather, like our Mishnah, that we reduce her Kesuvah until it is finished;

Also "we consult with her" also means that we reduce, and she does not lose everything after four weeks.

Explanation #2 (R. Tam): Rami bar Chama comes to add to the words of Raboseinu;

Even though [the Beraisa] taught that we send for her only after the announcements, Rami bar Chama says that similarly, they hold that we send for her also before the announcements.

Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda expounded that the Halachah follows Raboseinu, i.e. exactly like their words. They did not teach sending for her also before the announcements. He argues with Rami bar Chama.

Rava said that this is improper. Rather, the Halachah follows Rami bar Chama, that they send for her twice.

The text says "like whom do they hold." It says so in old Seforim and Bahag.

This does not refer to Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak and Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda, for they hold like R. Yosi b'Ribi Chanina, who was much greater than Rav Sheshes. Rather, it refers to Rami bar Chama and Rava.

[Rava said in the name of Rav Sheshes that] the Halachah is we consult with her, i.e. before announcing. [Rav Huna bar Yehudah said in the name of Rav Sheshes that] the Halachah is we do not consult with her. Also this refers to before announcing;

However, after announcing he agrees, like the Beraisa says explicitly in Raboseinu's words.

Support: R. Chananel's Perush connotes like this.

He rules that even though Rav Nachman bar Rav Chisda said that the Halachah follows Raboseinu, the Halachah follows Rava in the name of Rav Sheshes, that the Halachah is we consult with her;

This is because Rami bar Chama, who says that we send for her twice, supports him.

Pesak: However, the conclusion of our Sugya is "we delay the Get 12 months, and she is not fed" refers to Moredes of here, and not like R. Tam explains, that it is the Moredes who says "he is repulsive to me."

Source: Since [when she says "he is repulsive to me"] both of them desire divorce, like we will explain, why should we delay her from being divorced? Rather, it refers to the Moredes here.

Support: Rabbeinu Yehudah found in the writing of Rav Shrirah [Gaon] that in his days they enacted to give the Get to the woman immediately, unlike our Sugya of Rav Zevid's daughter-in-law.

Rabbeinu Yehudah also wrote that the Savora'im (Chachamim after the Gemara and before the Ge'onim) enacted to take from her what she seized, and give a Get to her immediately.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): We do not force her to be married to him. Rather, he gives a Get, and she leaves without a Kesuvah.

Explanation #2: Some say that we force him to divorce her.

Objection #1 (R. Tam): We should be concerned lest she put her eyes on another man [and says "he is repulsive to me" in order to be divorced]!

This is like the Mishnah in Nedarim (90b), regarding three women [who claim why it is forbidden or unfair that they remain married. At first,] they would be divorced and receive a Kesuvah. (The law was revised, lest she put her eyes on another man.)

Answer: We can say that only there, when they receive a Kesuvah, there is concern lest she put her eyes on another man, but not here, where she does not receive a Kesuvah.

Support #1: This is why [one who says "he is repulsive to me"] was not taught with those whom we force [her husband] to divorce her, for there he gives a Kesuvah.

Support #2: In Gitin (88b), a Mishnah says that a Get coerced through Nochrim is Pasul, lest a woman hire a Nochri, and uproot herself from her husband;

Implied question: If when one says "he is repulsive to me", we force him to divorce her, how did the enactment [to disqualify a Get coerced through Nochrim] help? She can uproot herself from her husband through saying "he is repulsive to me"!

Answer: When she says "he is repulsive to me", she does not receive a Kesuvah. She will not uproot herself to lose her Kesuvah.

Objection #2 (R. Tam) Citation (Gitin 49b) Suggestion: When she leaves [him], we should enact that he receives a Kesuvah from her!

Citation (cont.) Rejection (Mishnah): A man divorces only if he wants.

If we force him to divorce her when she says "he is repulsive to me", we should enact that he gets a Kesuvah from her!

Answer: We can say that she can say "he is repulsive to me" only when there are Raglayim l'Davar (supporting evidence) that it is true. For such women, we did not want to enact that he get a Kesuvah, since we cannot enact so for most women.

Implied question: Yehudis, R. Chiya's wife, had great pain in childbirth. It says in Kidushin (12b) that she told him "my mother told me that my father received Kidushin for me from another man when I was small"! (She lied, to try to get him to divorce her, and he did not agree. Why didn't she say that he is repulsive to her"?)

Answer #1: She did not want to say "he is repulsive to me." (She knew that he is very Kadosh and saw nothing bad in him.)

Answer #2: Based on what I explained (she can say "he is repulsive to me" only when there are Raglayim l'Davar that it is true), this is fine.

Question: In our Mishnah, according to R. Yosi, why do we reduce for her [so he can collect] from an inheritance that falls to her? She should claim "he is repulsive to me"!

Answer: Before her Kesuvah is finished, she would not willingly claim "he is repulsive to me", for she is sure that he will not want to wait and be unable to marry until her Kesuvah is finished;

As long as she is attached (married) to him, they will not give to him another [wife]. [Rather,] he will divorce her and give a Kesuvah.

However, after she already lost the entire Kesuvah, she will not claim this, for since she waited and did not claim it until her Kesuvah was reduced to nothing, [if she claims it now,] it is recognized that she schemes.

Question: Nedarim (91b) brings a case of an adulterer who was locked in a house with a woman. Her husband came home; the man broke through the fence and fled;

Citation (Rava): She is permitted to her husband. Had the man sinned with her, he would have been afraid [and hidden].

Inference: If he was afraid, she is forbidden!

It seems that the case is, she says "I am forbidden to you." If not, why would she be forbidden? A woman is forbidden to her husband only if witnesses see [her with another man] acting like adulterers!

Consequence: Since the case is that she says "I am forbidden to you", she wants to forfeit her Kesuvah. Presumably she [claims that] she had Bi'ah willingly, for it was in her house. Also, she did not scream;

Even so, when the man is not afraid, she is permitted, for we say that she put her eyes on another man, since he is not afraid;

Question: What is the reason? She should be believed through a Migo! If she wanted, she could have said "he is repulsive to me"!

Answer #1: Really, we do not discuss when she says "I am forbidden to you." It says that she is permitted, i.e. to the [suspected] Bo'el if her husband divorced her or died;

However, if the Bo'el was afraid, she is forbidden to him, like we say in Yevamos (24b) "since it is a horrible matter, she must leave";

R. Tam explains that she must leave the peddler (if she married him after she was widowed or divorced).

Support: When she says "I am Tamei to you", it seems totally unreasonable to permit her because he would have been afraid [had they sinned], since she made herself Chatichah d'Isura (she admitted that she is forbidden).

All the more so, according to the She'altos, who explains that when there are witnesses of a horrible matter, she must leave even her husband, this is fine. We cannot ask from there at all.

Answer #2: There we discuss when initially, when they asked her, she was silent, and afterwards she said that she is not Teme'ah, and gave a reason for her [initial] silence.

Objection #3 (R. Tam): In the entire Sugya, it does not mention forcing the husband. It mentions only forcing the wife. (This Tosfos continues on the coming Daf.)