Question #2 (against R. Chanina - Rav Chisda - Beraisa): There are stringencies of affirmation over annulment, and vice-versa. The following are stringencies of affirmation:

Silence affirms a vow, but does not annul it;

If he thought in his heart to affirm, it is affirmed. If he thought in his heart to annul, it is not annulled.

If he affirmed, he cannot annul. If he annulled, he cannot affirm. (This is not a stringency of either one.)

Suggestion: Silence affirms, even if he was silent to vex her!

Answer #1: No, he was silent with intention to affirm.

Objection: If so, that is the same case as 'he thought in his heart to affirm'!

Answer #2: Rather, he was silent without any specific intent.

Question: The Beraisa said that there is a stringency of annulment over affirmation. What is it?

Answer (R. Yochanan): One can permit (nullify) affirmation. One cannot permit annulment.

Question #3 (Rav Kahana - Beraisa): "If her husband will be silent (her vow is affirmed)" - this discusses silence with intent to vex.

Suggestion: Perhaps it discusses silence with intent to affirm!

Rejection: The Seifa of the verse "for he was silent" teaches this, so the Reisha must discuss silence with intent to vex.

This refutes R. Chanina.

Question: Perhaps the Reisha discusses silence without specific intent, and the Seifa discusses silence with intent to affirm!

Answer: We learn these two from the Reisha, for it says "Hacharesh Yacharish". Therefore, we learn a third case from the Seifa, i.e. silence with intent to vex. (Even though he was already refuted, we seek other refutations.)

Question #4 (Rava - Mishnah): If she vowed shortly before nightfall, he can annul only until nightfall. If he did not annul before nightfall, he can no longer annul.

This is like silence with intent to vex (since he wanted to annul)!

Question #5 (Rav Ashi - Beraisa): If a man says 'I knew about vows, but I did not know that they can be annulled', he can annul (on the day he learned about annulment);

R. Meir says, if he says 'I knew about annulment, but I did not know that this is a vow', he cannot annul;

Chachamim say, he can annul.

This is like silence with intent to vex (since he wanted to annul)!

(Mishnah): The following vows may be annulled:

Vows of affliction, e.g. 'if I will wash, or not'; 'If I will adorn myself, or not'.

R. Yosi: These are not vows of affliction. Rather, if she said, 'Peros of the world are forbidden to me', he can annul;

If she said 'Peros of this province are forbidden to me', (he cannot annul. Rather,) he brings her Peros of a different province;

If she said 'Peros of this grocer are forbidden to me', he cannot annul. If he gets all his Peros from that grocer, he can annul; this is R. Yosi's opinion.

(Gemara) Question: He can also annul vows that are not of affliction!

(Beraisa): "Between a man and his wife, between a father and his daughter" teaches that a husband can annul vows (that disrupt the relationship) between them.

Answer #1: He can also annul vows between them. The Mishnah teaches only vows of affliction, for these he annuls permanently;

Vows between them are annulled only for the duration of the marriage. If he divorces her, the vows take effect.

Objection (Mishnah - R. Yochanan ben Nuri): He should annul, in case he will divorce her, and will not be able to remarry her.

This shows that annulment helps even for after he divorces her!

Answer #2: Rather, he can annul either type of vow permanently. The Mishnah teaches only vows of affliction, for he annuls them permanently, even if she will marry someone else;

Vows between them are annulled while she is married to him. If she marries someone else, they take effect.

The Mishnah means as follows. He can annul the following vows, and she is permitted no matter whom she is married to: vows of affliction...

(Mishnah): If she said 'if I will wash...'

Question: How did she vow?

Suggestion: She said 'Peros of the world are forbidden to me if I wash.'

Rejection #1: If so, why can he annul? (This is not affliction!) She can avoid washing, and she can eat!

Rejection #2: If so (the first Tana considers it affliction, for perhaps she will wash), why does R. Yosi say 'this is not a vow of affliction'? Perhaps she will wash, and she will be forbidden to eat Peros!