1)

(a)Rav Huna learns from the fact that the Tana of our Mishnah says ' ... Harei Zeh Yafer, Divrei Rebbi Yosi ', after having already said earlier 'Rebbi Yosi Omer, Ein Eilu Nidrei Inuy Nefesh' - that Rebbi Yosi is the author of all the Mishnahs from now until the end of the Perek.

(b)Shmuel quoting Levi says that ...

1. ... all Nedarim except for 'Hana'asi al Peloni' - can be annulled by the husband.

2. ... 'Hana'as Peloni Alai' - can be annulled by him.

(c)Shmuel is referring to - Nedarim that constitute Inuy Nefesh.

2)

(a)Our Mishnah states 'Konam Peiros Medinah Zu Alai, Yavi Lah mi'Medinah Acheres' - implying that she is not permitted to eat the fruit of that Medinah [even by means of her husband's Hafarah], in which case, he should certainly not be able to annul the Neder 'Hana'as Peloni Alai').

(b)To resolve the Kashya on Shmuel, Rav Yosef initially establishes the Mishnah - when she said 'Peiros Medinah Zu Alai Im Tevi'em Atah', leaving an opening for the fruit to be brought by someone else.

(c)The Mishnah does not say that someone else should bring fruit from another country, rather than that her husband should bring her fruit from that one - because if there was not a way for her husband to bring her fruit, he would be allowed to annul her Neder. This is evident from the Reisha, which permits him to annul 'Konam Peiros Peloni Alai', even though it too, must speak when she said 'Tevi'em Atah, leaving the possibility for others to bring her fruit, and yet the Tana says there 'Yafer'.

(d)The problem from the Seifa of our Mishnah 'Peiros Chenvani Zeh Alai, Ein Yachol Lehafer' is - from the final statement 'Lo Hayesah Parnasaso Ela Mimenu, Harei Zeh Yafer', which must also speak when she said 'she'Tavi Atah'. Seeing as it is possible to benefit from the fruit should someone else bring it, and in addition, for her husband to bring her other fruit, on what grounds would he then be permitted to annul the Neder?

3)

(a)Having retracted from the suggestion that our Mishnah speaks when she said 'she'Tavi Atah' (and speaks even when she brings the fruit herself) Shmuel accounts for the Reisha 'Peiros Chenvani Zeh Alai, Ein Yachol Lehafer' by citing Rav Huna - who establishes all the remaining Mishnahs in the Perek like Rebbi Yosi, who holds that this is not considered Inuy Nefesh (though the husband can annul it because of Beino l'Veinah), whereas he holds like the Rabanan, who say that it is Inuy Nefesh.

(b)We need to cite Rav Huna here, despite the fact that the Tana himself quotes the case in Rebbi Yosi's name - in anticipation of a Kashya from the following Mishnah 'Konam she'Ani Neheneh la'Beri'os, Eino Yachol Lehafer' (see answer to 4.).

(c)In order to answer Shmuel, it is necessary to add that although the husband cannot annul the Neder because of Inuy Nefesh, he can annul it because of Beino l'Veinah - because whenever the Rabanan consider a case Inuy Nefesh, Rebbi Yosi concedes that it is at least Beino l'Veinah. If it is not Beino l'Veinah according to Rebbi Yosi, then it will not be Inuy Nefesh according to the Rabanan.

(d)We prove from Shmuel, who rules like the Rabanan, that the Halachah is like the Rabanan, and not like Rebbi Yosi, even though the author of all the Mishnah's in the Perek from now on is Rebbi Yosi. They are not considered Stam Mishnahs - because they are all based on 'Divrei Rebbi Yosi' in our Mishnah, which, as we explained earlier, is superfluous. Consequently, it is as if was mentioned specifically by each Mishnah.

4)

(a)Some commentaries explain that when Shmuel rules 'Hana'as Peloni Alai', he is speaking about Beino l'Veinah like Rebbi Yosi (in which case the Halachah will be like Rebbi Yosi). We refute this explanation however - on the grounds that unless Shmuel holds like the Rabanan, it would have been superfluous to add 'Masnisin Rebbi Yosi Hi, d'Amar Rav Huna, Kulei Pirkin Rebbi Yosi Hi'. All we need to know is that Shmuel permits the husband to annul the Nedarim because of Beino l'Veinah, whereas the Mishnah is speaking about Inuy Nefesh (This explanation appears to override the answer to 3b.).

5)

(a)Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel rules that if a woman declares a Neder on two loaves, one, a loaf of white bread (which causes her Inuy), the other, one of black bread (which does not), her husband may even annul the Neder on the black loaf - because the Torah writes "Ishah Yeferenu", which refers to Nidrei Inuy Nefesh, and from which we will later learn that the husband is obligated to annul the entire Neder, and not just half. According to Shmuel, our case is considered one Neder, and if the husband was not able to annul the second half, he would not be able to annul the first half either.

(b)If he were to annul only the half of the Neder pertaining to the white loaf, according to Shmuel - the Neder would not be annulled at all.

(c)Rav Asi Amar Rebbi Yochanan says - that he cannot annul the Neder on the black loaf.

(d)He disagrees with Shmuel on the grounds that the Neder on the black loaf is not subject to Hafarah, and is therefore considered like a separate Neder. The Derashah from "Ishah Yeferenu", he maintains, is confined to the parts of a Neder that the husband is able to annul, and does not pertain to those that he is not.

6)

(a)According to others, Rav Asi asked Rebbi Yochanan in the form of a She'eilah what the Din would be in the case of the two loaves - to which he gave the identical reply as his ruling in the first Lashon.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan speaks even when the husband or the father annulled the loaf of black-bread specifically.

(c)Despite Shmuel's interpretation of "Ishah Yeferenu", the Mishnah rules 'Netulah Ani min ha'Yehudim, Yafer Chelko ... ' - because that Derashah is confined to Nidrei Inuy Nefesh, and does not pertain to Nedarim she'Beino l'Veinah.

(d)The logic behind the distinction between Nidrei Inuy Nefesh and Nedarim she'Beino l'Veinah is - that the Torah's permission for a husband to annul the former stems from his wife's sensitivity, and permitting him to annul only half her Neder will make her even more irritable; whereas the latter stems from his own sensitivity, and if he wishes to annul half her Neder, there is no reason why he should not do so.