Question: You are forced to say that we do not discuss when she vowed and he was Mekayem, for the Seifa says "the same applies if she vowed";

He cannot vow [that she cannot go], unless he made it dependent on relations;

If so, according to Shmuel, why must he divorce her immediately? She should borrow and become forbidden, for one week according to Beis Hillel...

Answer: Really, he did not make it dependent on relations. Rather, he forbade to himself Hana'ah from what she borrows. Due to this, she cannot borrow [lest he come to benefit from it];

She cannot lend, for he forbade Hana'ah from his Kelim, so she cannot lend them.

Question: Why don't we establish it that he knew and separated, but she wanted to feed him [Isur], for she thought that he does not know?

Answer #1 (Ri): "She feeds him" connotes that she fed him. The Gemara is meticulous about how she fed him.

Objection: The Gemara was meticulous also about "she does not separate Chalah" (even though there is no connotation that he ate it)!

Answer #2 (Rashba): Wanting to feed him [Isur] is not a reason to be divorced without a Kesuvah. She can say "I was joking. Had you come to eat, I would have stopped you."

Implied question: We could have said that there are witnesses that she fed to him something not tithed!

Answer: This is not common.

Implied question: Why didn't we ask "if he did not know, how does he know [now that she was Nidah?]", like we asked above?

Answer: He can know through seeing her clothing dirty with blood;

Therefore, we ask that he should rely on her to say that they became dirty from elsewhere.

Question: Why doesn't a Zavah bless on counting [seven clean days], just like we bless on Sefiras ha'Omer? It says "she will count"!

Answer: We bless only for Yovel, which Beis Din blesses every year, for they can always count properly. The same applies to Sefiras ha'Omer;

However, if a Zavah sees [blood during the seven days], this wipes out [what she counted, and she must start again], therefore she should not bless.

Explanation: If he will not anger her, he will not know when she vows, that he will annul.

Implied question: It was a question in Nedarim (72b) whether or not a husband can annul without hearing [them! We should resolve this from here. If he can, there is no need to anger her in order to annul them!]

Answer: We did not ask whether he can annul what she will vow from now and onwards. If we did, we could resolve from here that he cannot annul without hearing them, from the need to anger her!

Rather, we discuss vows that she already vowed, and he did not hear them;

However, here, [even if he can annul without hearing], perhaps she did not vow yet, and afterwards she will vow and transgress immediately, before he annuls!

Implied question: How did we try to resolve it from the Beraisa "if one said to his wife 'all vows that you will vow from now until I come from the place Ploni, they are annulled', R. Eliezer says, they are annulled"? (This implies that we asked about future vows!)

Answer: This is not because we asked about vows that she did not yet vow;

Proof: We resolved from R. Eliezer. Just the contrary, we should have resolved from Chachamim, who say that it is not annulled!

Rather, there we learn from R. Eliezer to Rabanan. Rabanan argue only about this, that one cannot annul before the vow takes effect;

However, Rabanan agree about this, that if the vow took effect, he can annul, even if he did not hear it.

Explanation (R. Chananel): She spins Varad, i.e. red wool, so that will fall (reflect) on her face from its radiance. This is brazenness and lewdness.

Explanation: Even without a basket, this is not considered [the Isur of] an exposed head, for if not, no female descendant of Avraham (i.e. a Bas Yisrael, can fulfill this).

Explanation #1: Not only in front of her husband, like our Mishnah teaches. Rather, [even] in front of Molidav, i.e. the husband's children, she may not curse the husband's father in front of them.

Explanation #2: Some say that Yolidav in front of Molidav is the husband's father in front of the husband, so "in front of him" in our Mishnah is precise.

Rejection: This is wrong. Rabah explains that she says "a lion should eat the grandfather" in front of the son. This connotes the husband's son!

Question (Ri): Why did he need to say "on condition"? Even Stam [if she has Nedarim, it is Kidushei Ta'os]!

Above (57b), we decree that an Arusah Bas Yisrael may not eat Terumah. This is a decree due to Simpon (lest she has a blemish that invalidates Kidushin)!

Answer #1: According to Rav, who says in the Gemara that if he was Mekadesh her on condition, and made Nisu'in Stam, she needs a Get, it mentioned Kidushin on condition due to the Seifa, to teach that even though he was Mekadesh on condition, she needs a Get;

Also according to Shmuel, it mentioned on condition to teach that in every case she is not Mekudeshes, even if afterwards he made Nisu'in Stam, like it says in the Gemara.

Answer #2: Even though Simpon applies even when he was Mekadesh Stam, and she does not eat Terumah, in any case she needs a Get mid'Rabanan, or mid'Oraisa due to Safek;

However, all agree that she has no Kesuvah, even if he was Mekadesh Stam like the Beraisa above "if he said 'I do not want a wife who vows', she leaves without a Kesuvah."

Even the one who argues, he argues only because he holds that [when she vowed and he was Mekayem], he is to blame. If not for this, he would agree that she has no Kesuvah.

Question: Why does the Mishnah say that he made Nisu'in? Even without Nisu'in she needs a Get!

Answer: It mentions Nisu'in to teach that even so, she has no Kesuvah;

According to Rav, who establishes the Seifa when he was Mekadesh her on condition and made Nisu'in Stam, the same applies even if he was Mekadesh her Stam and made Nisu'in Stam. She leaves without a Kesuvah;

It mentioned Kidushin on condition to teach that even so, she has no Kesuvah, but she needs a Get.

Question: Based on what I explained that when he was Mekadesh Stam, she needs a Get, why is it different when she is found to be an Ailonis? Then she does not need a Get!

Citation (Yevamos 2b - Mishnah): All of these (Arayos who fell to Yibum), if they were found to be Ailonis, the Tzaros are permitted [to do Yibum].

Inference: She does not need a Get even mid'Rabanan. If she needed a Get, even mid'Rabanan, the Tzarah would not be permitted. She would do Chalitzah, but not Yibum.

Source: We find that if [an Ervah] could have done Mi'un, but did not do Mi'un, the Tzarah does Chalitzah, but not Yibum.

Answer: We must distinguish between the Mum of Ailonis and other Mumim.

Implied question: In Gitin (46b), it connotes that an Ailonis needs a Get!

The Mishnah says that one who divorces his wife due to Ailonis, he may not remarry her. This is due to Kilkul. (If later it will be found that she is not an Ailonis, his divorce was a Ta'os. If she remarried, her children are Mamzerim!)

If she does not need a Get, how does it help that Chachamim said that he may not remarry her? She is ruined if she expelled her without a Get [and it is found that she is not an Ailonis]!

Answer: There we discuss a Safek Ailonis. They were not able to clarify whether or not they are absolute signs [of being an Ailonis]. Therefore, she needs a Get due to Safek;

In any case, she has no Kesuvah. We do not take money from someone due to Safek.

Proof: If she is a Vadai Ailonis, how can he ruin her? She will never have children, for a Vadai Ailonis has no cure.

[When her husband died without children], she leaves without Chalitzah. If there was a cure for her, she would need Chalitzah, like a Seris Chamah (a eunuch from birth);

A Mishnah (Yevamos 79b) says that a Seris Chamah does Chalitzah, and they do Chalitzah to his wife, for they are cured in Alexandria of Mitzrayim.

Implied question: A Mishnah below (100b) says that a Mema'enes, Sheniyah or Ailonis has no Kesuvah...

We should infer that she has no Kesuvah, but she needs a Get, like the Gemara inferred from our Mishnah here!

Answer #1: Due to the case of a Sheniyah, it says that she has no Kesuvah, to infer that she needs a Get.

Support: You are forced to say that a Mema'enes does not need a Get!

Answer #2: The Gemara [here] inferred that she has no Kesuvah [but she needs a Get] because the Reisha taught "she is not Mekudeshes", and the Seifa taught "she leaves without a Kesuvah."

Answer #3: From our Mishnah we can infer that she needs a Get, since it did not mention "she does not need a Get", which would have taught us that all the more so, she has no Kesuvah;

However, there it taught "no Kesuvah, no Peros, and no Bala'os." Had it taught "she does not need a Get", we would not know that she has no Peros and no Bala'os;

Therefore, there we cannot infer that she needs a Get.

Explanation: Rav Papa holds like Shmuel, who establishes the Seifa to be when he was Mekadesh her Stam and made Nisu'in Stam.

Explanation: It seems that this is when he stipulated Stam that she has no Nedarim, and did not specify which vows;

Then, Rav Ashi says that something people are not adamant about, his Hakpadah is not Hakpadah (it does not invalidate the Kidushin);

However, if he specified "on condition that you do not have this vow", surely he can stipulate about all vows, even if [other] people are not adamant about them.