Explanation: He does not forbid her from all Peros. If he did, it would not take effect, for she cannot exist [without eating], like it says in Nedarim (14b);

If one said Stam "Konam my eyes (they may not benefit from) sleep", the vow does not take effect to forbid sleep [since it is impossible to fulfill the vow].

Rather, [he said] that she will not taste from a [particular] species of Peros, like it says in the Tosefta, even if she never tasted this species.

Observation: However, according to the Hava Amina that he vowed and made it dependent on relations, it takes effect even if he forbade to her all Peros, since she can eat and be forbidden to have relations.

Source: We find like this in Nedarim (89b). A man forbade to himself all benefit from the world [if he marries before learning. Rav Acha bar Rav Huna tricked him into marrying; and] he tarred him, so he would not get any pleasure. This shows that the vow took effect!

Explanation (Ri, in Yevamos 48b): A Chodesh of the Torah is 30 days, like we expound there "Yerach" is 30 [days], and "Yamim" is 30.

Support: Also in Nazir (5a), we say "we should say 30 days, like it says "Ad Chodesh Yamim."

Explanation #1: However, in the words of Rabanan, it is only a Chaser month [of 29 days], like it says in Erchin (9b) and Rosh Hashanah (19b) "[we add 30 days to a leap year. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, if they want, they add a Chodesh. If they want, they add 30."

Question: Here we ask that [R. Yehudah] is like the first Tana. Also Abaye, who says that he comes to teach about a Kohen's wife, holds that "Chodesh" is 30 days!

Answer (Ri): Here, because we want to say that he keeps a Kohenes two [months], he mentioned Chodesh.

Implied question: The three months of Havchanah (a woman must wait three months between husbands, to avoid doubts about who is the father) and nine months of pregnancy are of 30 days!

Answer: It would be tedious to explicitly say 90 or 270 days, therefore we call them [three or nine] months.

Explanation #2: We can say that even in the words of Rabanan, a Chodesh is 30 days when it is not proven [that it is 29]. Where it is proven, is different.

The text: This is the text in all Seforim.

Implied question: The first Tzerichusa (reason why they needed to argue in both cases) sufficed!

Answer: The Gemara is wont to make two Tzerichusos, [one] for [each of] the two Amora'im, when it can.

Rashi's opinion: Rashi says that it is not in the text.

Observation: Above (61b; also there, these teachings of Rav and Shmuel were brought) it is not in the text in any Sefer.

Explanation: We are thinking that he made it dependent on relations, i.e. he said "Hana'ah of Bi'ah with you is forbidden to me if you taste this species."

Explanation #1 (Rashi): Why should he wait? If she is happy to receive a Kesuvah and leave, she need not seek a Pesach to [permit] her vow!

Objection: What was the question below "she should adorn and become forbidden, according to Beis Shamai..."? Since we already answered that she vowed, waiting does not apply!

Explanation #2 (Ri): Now we do not discuss when she made it dependent on relations. Rather, she vowed Hana'ah from a species of Peros as long as she is married to him;

If she vowed forever, she does not profit through divorce!

Implied question: Regarding a vow against relations, she waits (one or two weeks)!

Answer: Even so, regarding a vow of Peros, she cannot endure even one day.

Implied question: A Mishnah (below, 72a) says that if she vows and does not fulfill, she leaves without a Kesuvah;

Inference: If she [vows and] fulfills, we do not say so!

Answer: That refers to other vows. However, vows of Inuy Nefesh (affliction), even if she fulfills, she leaves without a Kesuvah;

There is a difference between those vows and other vows, like we say below (72b) regarding one who made Nisu'in on condition that she has no vows.

Explanation: According to Shmuel, you are forced to say that she vowed and he was Mekayem;

If he vowed to forbid her, Shmuel said that he waits to find a Pesach for his vow!

Question (R. Tam): Here, R. Meir holds that [when she vowed and he was Mekayem], she is to blame. Therefore, he divorces her without a Kesuvah;

Citation (72a - Beraisa - R. Meir): Anyone who know that his wife vows and does not fulfill, he should anger her so she will vow in front of him, and he will annul it!

Rabanan responded that one cannot live with a snake (one who seeks his harm) in one basket! I.e. therefore, he divorces her without a Kesuvah.

Inference: According to R. Meir, he does not divorce her. If he divorces her, he must pay a Kesuvah!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): Below, in the two Beraisos, we must change the text to R. Yehudah. One Tana taught both of them, for we say below "the one who taught [a counsel how to remain married] in this case (she does not separate Chalah), all the more so [counsels to stay married] in this case (she vows and does not fulfill).

Objection: This [change of text] does not help at all! This Sugya is according to Shmuel. According to Rav, we need not change the text of the Beraisa. R. Meir and R. Yehudah hold that she is to blame.

Answer #2 (Ri): R. Meir agrees that if he divorces due to this, he does not pay a Kesuvah;

However, because the Tana who argues with him holds that it is a Mitzvah to divorce...

In Sotah (25a), we ask only about whether or not it is forbidden to keep a wife whether is Overes Al Das (transgresses Torah laws), but obviously it is a Mitzvah to divorce her!

Therefore, R. Meir teaches that if he wants, he can keep her through this solution (angering her, so she will vow in front of him).

Inference: This connotes that bathing and adorning are not Inuy Nefesh according to R. Yosi, even if she vowed for several days.

Support (Rashba - Seifa): These are vows of Inuy Nefesh...

If [a vow] never to bathe were Inuy Nefesh, it should have taught bathing and adorning!

Assertion: The text in Nedarim (80a) does not say "R. Yosi holds that repulsiveness of one day is not considered repulsiveness. This would imply that never bathing is Inuy Nefesh!

Support: Based on the Sugya there, the text cannot say so. This is not the place to elaborate.

The text: The text does not say "these are vows of Inuy Nefesh: I will not eat meat, I will not drink wine."

Proof: This is a Mishnah in Nedarim (79b), and there the text says "these are vows of Inuy Nefesh: all Peros are Konam to me."

Suggestion: Perhaps what we brought here is a Beraisa, and not the Mishnah!

Rejection: Since we can ask from a Mishnah, we would not abandon the Mishnah and bring a Beraisa [to ask from it instead].

Explanation: He cannot annul due to Inuy Nefesh. This that R. Yosi says that these are not vows of Inuy Nefesh does not mean that her husband cannot annul them;

Rather, he cannot annul due to Inuy Nefesh. Rather, he annuls due to matters between them.

Explanation (cont.): There, the Gemara explains the difference. If he annuls due to Inuy Nefesh, they are annulled both for him others [who might marry her after it is widowed or divorced];

If there is no Inuy Nefesh, he annuls for himself, but not for others.

The Gemara asks "this is fine for Rav Ada bar Ahavah, who say that a husband can annul [matters between them]. It says so in old Seforim, and so it says in Nedarim. This is unlike Seforim that say oppositely.

Explanation (cont.): Rav Ada bar Ahavah and Rav Huna argue according to R. Yosi, who says that these are not Nedarim of Inuy Nefesh, whether he can annul due to matters between them;

Rav Ada bar Ahavah holds that he can annul, for bathing and adorning are matters between them;

Rav Huna holds that he cannot annul, for we do not find a fox [damaged in its hole].

The text does not say "what is the case? It is matters between them", i.e. a cosmetic that removes the hair [near the Ervah]. "This is fine for the opinion..."

This would imply that they argue about whether a husband can annul matters between them. This is wrong. No one ever argued about this, to say that a husband cannot annul matters between them;

A Beraisa in Nedarim (79b) says that he can annul. It learns from "Bein Ish l'Ishto Bein Av l'Bito" that a husband can annul matters between them;

Also here, we conclude that she made adorning dependent on relations. Relations are matters between them, like is clear from the last Mishnah in Nedarim (90b).

Question: Why don't we establish it that she made it dependent on forbidding all Peros? Then, we could not ask "let her adorn, and become forbidden, according to Beis Shamai [for one week...]!"

Answer (Rashba): It would still be difficult "let her adorn, and become forbidden, according to R. Yehudah for one day!"

Explanation: [Therefore,] why can he annul?

Suggestion: Perhaps we ask why he must divorce her and pay a Kesuvah, since she can bear not adorning!

Rejection: If so, this is difficult also for Rav!

Explanation: Granted, until now we thought that there is Inuy in [refraining from] adorning, and she did not make [adorning] dependent on relations;

He must immediately divorce her and pay a Kesuvah. She should not wait at all, and refrain from adorning.

Question: He should wait, lest he find a Pesach for [a reason to retract] his Kiyum [of her vow]!

One can [ask a Chacham to] permit Kiyum, like we say in Nedarim (79a).

Answer #1 (Ri): One can permit Kiyum only on the day he heard [the vow], when he said to her "[your vow] is affirmed for you";

However, if the day passed, he cannot annul, for he was silent. He cannot retract [his Kiyum].

Answer #2: Even if you will say that he can retract, this is fine. Surely, when he vowed, she should wait one week according to Beis Hillel, for it is not hard for her to wait;

She thinks that now he is angry, and afterwards he will be appeased;

However, here [when she vowed and he was Mekayem], she thinks that he hates her. She does not think that he will be appeased later. Chachamim did not enact that she wait, since it is hard for her.

Explanation: If so (he must divorce for a vow of three months), we would have asked about this in the Gemara (what is the law of two), like we asked about festivals.

Explanation (R. Chananel): The first festival, she normally goes to tell her praise in her father's house. The second festival, she is not so Redufah [prone to go to her father's house], even if she did not yet tell her praise.

The Mishnah teaches that [for a vow of] one festival, he keeps her. [The Gemara says that this is] when she is Redufah, i.e. on the first festival, for she never went until now to tell her praise;

It says that [for a vow of three he divorces her, and we infer that for] two festivals he keeps her, when she is not Redufah, even though she still did not tell her praise, since she delayed [and did not go] on the first festival.

Support: It says in all Seforim "for it says", and it says also "and R. Yochanan said" [for they show that a new Kalah is Redufah];

According to Rashi's Perush (some women are Redufah, and others are not. He does not distinguish between the first and later festivals), it does not say "for it says", and not "and R. Yochanan said", rather, "R. Yochanan said."