Explanation: This is even if he (the one who commanded) was healthy, like is proven in Gitin (15a);

We say that Rav Asi establishes it to discuss a healthy person, and [we ask] "we hold that it is a Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased"!

Question: Since it is a Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased, how does it help that words of a Shechiv Mera (a sick person who fears lest he die) are as if they were written and handed over to the recipient?

Answer #1 (R. Tam): We say that it is a Mitzvah to fulfill the words of the deceased only when the property was given to him for this from the beginning.

Answer #2: [Mitzvah Lekayem Divrei ha'Mes] is only when the giver died in the lifetime of the recipient. Words of a Shechiv Mera are as if they were written and handed over, in every case.

Explanation (R. Chananel): This refers only to a sale, but their gift is valid;

Regarding a gift, there is no reasoning to distinguish between whether or not there is an overseer.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Hana'ah of relations with him is not forbidden to her, for he is obligated to her.

Inference: [If not for this reason,] these words ("she may not benefit from him" would) forbid Hana'ah of relations.

Question #1: The Gemara asks "since he is obligated to her, how can he be Madir her (forbid her through a vow)? A Mishnah teaches that if a woman said "what I produce is Konam (forbidden like a Korban) to your mouth [he need not annul it];

We could have asked from our Mishnah itself! He cannot forbid relations to her, because he is obligated to her;

If he were forbidden, he would need to divorce and pay a Kesuvah according to Beis Shamai after two weeks, and according to Beis Hillel after one week!

Question #2: When the Gemara establishes this to be that he was Madir her when she was Arusah, when he was not yet obligated to her, if so, the vow takes effect also regarding relations;

Our Mishnah should teach that he must divorce and pay a Kesuvah after one week according to Beis Hillel, and after two weeks according to Beis Shamai!

Answer (and Explanation #2 - R. Tam): "Benefit from him" connotes only Hana'ah of food.

Explanation #1 (Ri): In all cases that our Mishnah says "he must divorce her", we force him. Since he does improperly, we force him to divorce, like we find in Yevamos (39a);

Source #1: The Mishnah there says that if [the brothers] do not want [to do Yibum], we return to the oldest. The Gemara explains that we return to him to force him, since the Mitzvah is incumbent on him.

Source #2: Also, we say below (77a) that Rav said that one who says "I will not feed and I will not be Mefarnes (clothe) ", he must divorce her and pay a Kesuvah;

We conclude "rather than force him to divorce, we should force him to feed!"

Inference: The expression "he must divorce her" connotes that we force him to divorce.

Suggestion: Perhaps "forcing" there is verbal, but not with sticks.

Rejection #1: A slave is not disciplined through words.

Rejection #2: We asked above, according to the opinion that Moredes is from Melachah, from Rav's teaching that one who says "I will not feed, and I will not clothe", he must divorce her and pay a Kesuvah";

What was the question? Perhaps our Mishnah teaches that we increase her Kesuvah when he does not want to divorce her!

However, we understand [the question] if we force with sticks.

Question: If so, why wasn't it taught with those whom we force them to divorce (below, 77a)?

Answer: The Mishnah [there] teaches only cases such as a leper and Pulipus (a smell that comes from the nose or mouth), which come automatically. Here, the coercion is due to the husband's transgression, so it was not taught.

Implied question: The Mishnah there teaches Mekametz, Metzaref and Borsi (men who have a bad odor due to their professions, e.g. gathering dung of dogs, quarrying copper from its source, or smelting it and making pots, and tanning), even if they took these professions after Nisu'in [which was improper]!

Answer: This is fine, for they do not intend to anger and pain her.

Source #3: "He is Motzi" connotes coercion, since it says in Yevamos (65b) that an episode occurred in the Beis ha'Keneses in Kisari in front of R. Yochanan, and he said that he must divorce her and pay a Kesuvah;

It connotes there that we force him.

Question: Why don't we include the case of one who comes due to a claim [that her husband is impotent] among those whom we force them to divorce?

There, he is not negligent. What can he do if he is sterile?

Answer: It is because the Seifa taught whether these [blemishes] were there from before Nisu'in, or if they came after Nisu'in, and it is not applicable to say "I thought that I can bear it." This answer answers most [of the cases of those who must divorce].

Explanation #2 (R. Chananel, from the Yerushalmi): All these cases when we say Yotzi in the Mishnah, we do not force him.

Citation (Yerushalmi - Shmuel): We force [one to divorce his wife] only if she is Pasul (forbidden to him).

Citation (cont. - R. Shmuel) Support: Our Mishnah teaches this! If one was Madir his wife from benefit... This teaches that he must divorce. It did not teach that we force!

Pesak: R. Chananel derived from there that we force him only where it explicitly says that we force;

When Rabanan said Yotzi, we tell him "Chachamim already obligated you to divorce. If you will not divorce, one may call you a transgressor." However, we do not force him.

Below, regarding one who says "I will not feed and I will not clothe", according to R. Chananel the text explicitly says that we force him, and he must divorce her and pay a Kesuvah.

Implied question: In Yevamos (39a), it says that we return to the oldest to force him to do Yibum or Chalitzah!

Answer: This is because he withholds from her all matters of marriage, i.e. relations and food;

However, due to [withholding] only relations, or only food, we do not [force him].

Implied question: In Yevamos (65b, R. Yochanan said that he must divorce her and pay a Kesuvah). It connotes that he said to force him!

Answer: When the case came in front of him, he commanded them to divorce [but did not force].

Conclusion: It seems more that we force in all of these cases, like the Ri explained. However, the Yerushalmi holds that coercion applies with words;

However, we hold that a slave is not disciplined through words, so we must say that it is through sticks, since "Yotzi" connotes coercion when he does improperly to her.

Pesak: However, we should not force any man to divorce and [we should not] do an action until we find a clear proof.

Source: We say that a Get coerced improperly through Yisrael is Pasul. We should not permit an Eshes Ish due to Safek.

Question: We should establish the case to be that he made relations dependent on food! He said "Hana'ah of relations with you is forbidden to me if I feed you"!

Answer: If so, even Shmuel, who said below that even Stam, he delays, lest he find a Pesach for his vow, he should not have said that longer than this, he must divorce her and pay a Kesuvah;

Rather, after 30 days she benefits, and she is forbidden [to have Bi'ah with him] for one week according to Beis Hillel, and two weeks according to Beis Shamai.

Support: We ask like this below against the answer that he made relations dependent on her adornments.

Question: Why don't we say that he said "Hana'ah of relations with you is forbidden to me from now, if you benefit from me"?

Answer #1: Then, she is forbidden to benefit, for Rav Yehudah said in Nedarim (14b) that if one said "Konam my eyes (they may not benefit from) sleep today if I will sleep tomorrow", he may not sleep today, lest he sleep tomorrow;

Also here, he is forbidden to benefit, lest she benefit, for people are not careful about the Tenai, like it explains there.

Even according to Rav Nachman there, who says people are careful [about the Tenai], here he agrees that a woman is not careful, for she did not vow.

Answer #2: Tosfos of Rabbeinu Yosef, who explained in front of Rabbeinu Shmuel, who rests in honor, says that only below we establish that he made relations dependent on her adornments;

It taught "ha'Madir his wife not to adorn", and it did not teach "ha'Madir his wife from adorning." This properly connotes that he was Madir her from relations, because she will not adorn;

However, here it taught "ha'Madir his wife from benefit." This connotes that he was Madir her from actual Hana'ah.

Implied question: Why didn't we ask here "he did not say so!", like we asked above (58b)?

Answer: Here, we do not change the vow from how he vowed. Rather, it is a mere reason why he is Madir her, only because he wants her earnings to be hers;

There, regarding one who is Makdish his wife's earnings, it is not a good vow [because her earnings are Lo Ba l'Olam]. We need to fix his words, that he wants her hands to be Kodesh to their Maker. Therefore, we ask there.

Question: Why couldn't we say that our Mishnah here is R. Meir, who says that a person does not say vain words [to Hekdesh. We always interpret them in a way that Hekdesh takes effect], like we answered above (58b)?

Answer: There is different. Because a person does not say vain words, we should fix them;

E.g. there, he was Makdish her earnings. We say that he wants to say that her hands are Hekdesh to their Maker, which changes only one word;

However, due to this we should not add to his words what he did not say at all, since we should not say that this was his intent without any other utterance, like we initially thought. (I.e. the previous Tosfos explained that we do not change the vow from how he vowed. Rather, it is a mere reason why he was Madir her.)

Explanation #1: She did not pardon with intent that he will be Madir her. Therefore, he is Meshubad to her;

In any case, the vow takes effect, for at the time of the vow, he was not yet Meshubad to her.

Explanation #2: The vow takes effect without the reason of pardon, for as long as she is with him, she should manage with him [without the small matters];

Implied question: She does not descend with him! (She is entitled to what she was used to.)

Answer: This is not considered descent, for the case is that her family, who are as rich as her husband, are not used to this, just her father, amidst his wealth, was generous [and gave these small things to her]. Therefore, she should manage with him;

When she is not with him, she should (i.e. is entitled to) conduct like she used to in her father's house.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Mid'Oraisa, he is not obligated to her, therefore the vow takes effect.

Question #1: If so, also from Nisu'in the vow should take effect for this reason! We hold that a Nesu'ah is fed mid'Rabanan!

Question #2: When she said "what I produce is Konam to your mouth", why doesn't the vow take effect? All agree that her husband gets her earnings only mid'Rabanan!

Explanation #2: The time came and they did not marry, i.e. the Mishnah teaches that he sets up a Parnes (someone to feed her) when the time came and they did not marry.

Explanation #2A: However, when he vowed the time had not yet come. Therefore, the vow took effect.

This is only when the time came. However, if she married, he need not set up a Parnes, for she knew [about the vow] and accepted [to be married to him in spite of it], like it says below.

Explanation #2B: We can say that when he vowed, the time already came;

The vow took effect, because Rabanan did not strengthen her lien until Nisu'in. His vow uproots his obligation to her.

Explanation: Here, the reason of disgrace does not apply, since she did not have Nisu'in.

Question: He should make another solution, e.g. he gives to his friend for a gift, and his friend gives to her, like the case of one who is on the road [and needs to eat from one from whom he is Mudar Hana'ah], brought below!

Suggestion: Chachamim permitted this only for one who is on the road and has nothing to eat.

Rejection: Regarding the episode in Beis Choron, it connotes that had he given a full gift, his father would have been permitted! (Reuven's father was Mudar from him. Reuven was making a nuptial feast, and wanted his father to come. He told Shimon "I give the feast to you, so my father can come." Shimon said that it is Hekdesh. Reuven objected that he gave it only in order that his father can come.)

Answer: Indeed (he could give to a friend), but it is not common to give in such a case, for he is constantly afraid lest the recipient keep the money.

Question: He should make [the food] Hefker [and she will take it]!

Answer: Surely we permit this only for one who is on the road and has nothing to eat, since the food did not enter another's Reshus after it left the Madir. It looks like it is still in his Reshus.

Implied question: Why doesn't he use the solution of a grocer whom he normally buys from? (The grocer will feed her, and he will pay the grocer.)

Answer: Also this, it is not common to do so for more than 30 days, since the Madir does not tell the grocer that he will pay him [for what he gives to his wife].

Explanation: Now we are thinking that he said to him "supply her food, and I will pay."

Implied question: This should be like what we conclude in Avodah Zarah (63a), that one may tell a grocer whom he normally buys from "give Peros to my donkey-drivers and workers", and he is not concerned for Shevi'is or Yayin Nesech"! (We do not say that the grocer is his Shali'ach.)

Answer: There, he did not say to him to give to them Isur. Therefore, it is not his Shelichus if he gives to them Yayin Nesech;

However, here he does his Shelichus when he gives to her any food.

Implied question: Why don't we answer that he feeds her through a grocer he normally buys from?

Answer #1 (R. Yitzchak): "He sets up a Parnes" implies that he specifies to feed her. In the case of a grocer whom he normally buys from, he does not specify.

Answer #2 (R. Shmuel): Only in this case, when he says Stam "whoever feeds will not lose", we permit regarding Mudar Hana'ah (one who was forbidden to benefit through a vow);

However, one may not tell an individual "if you feed her, you will not lose", for he looks like his Shali'ach.

Source #1: Regarding one who is on the road, we do not permit to say so.

Source #2: Also at the end, when we conclude "not only anyone who feeds [is permitted. Rather, one may say "Ploni is Mudar Hana'ah from me. I do not know what to do..."]

If it were permitted to say to an individual [if you feed...], it should have taught [that he may say to] a grocer he normally buys from "if you feed, you will not lose", which would be a bigger Chidush.