Mishnah: We may be Pose'ach with Yamim Tovim.

Explanation: We say to him, had you known that it is forbidden to be pained on Shabbos, would you have vowed? If he says no, we permit him.

Mishnah: Any vow that was partially permitted is totally permitted.

Explanation: The Yerushalmi learns this from "k'Chol ha'Yotzei mi'Piv Ya'aseh", which implies only when the entire [vow] is intact.

Mishnah: What is the case? If he said 'Konam, I will not benefit all of you' if one of them was permitted, all of them are permitted.

Explanation: According to one opinion, this is when he changes (says that had he realized, he would have vowed differently), and according to one opinion, this is [even] when he is Ma'amid (sustains his first expression; he says that had he known, he would have used the same expression to forbid, just he would have detailed the exception), like it says above (26a).

Mishnah: That I will not benefit this one and this one.

Explanation: We establish it there, that he made them dependent one on the other. Therefore, if the first was permitted, all of them were permitted, for all of them depend on the first.

Mishnah: If the last one becomes permitted, the last is permitted, and all are forbidden.

Explanation: The first ones do not depend on him.

Mishnah: That I benefit this one [is forbidden like] a Korban, and that I benefit this one a Korban, he needs a Pesach for each one.

Explanation: Each one is a vow by itself.

Explanation: Since it taught "to this one a Korban and to this one a Korban", he needs a Pesach for each one, this shows that they are Peratim (individual vows) only when he mentions "Korban" for every one;

If he did not, whether he said "to this one and to this one" with a Vov, or "to this one, to this one" without a Vov, it is a Klal (one encompassing vow);

Like whom is this? Rava taught that it is like R. Shimon, who says in Shevu'os (36b) regarding five who were claiming from him...

And he said "[I swear that] not to you [do I owe], not to you", that he is liable for each one only if he mentioned "Shevu'ah" regarding each;

Inference: If he did not [mention "Shevu'ah" to each], whether he said with a Vov, or without a Vov, it is a Klal.

Ruling: We hold like R. Shimon, for the Stam Tana here holds like him.

Support: Also in Kidushin (46a) the Stam Mishnah is like him regarding "be Mekudeshes to me with this date, be Mekudeshes to me with this..." (Only if he mentioned Kidushin regarding each date, they are separate acts of Kidushin, and she is Mekudeshes only if one of the dates by itself is worth a Perutah.)

Implied question: In Shevu'os (36b), regarding "Shevu'ah that I do not owe to you...", there is a Stam Mishnah unlike him. What is the difference if there is one Stam [Mishnah, like Rabanan], or two Stam [Mishnayos, like R. Shimon? Perhaps the Halachah follows the one Stam!]

Answer: Even so, since Amora'im discuss the opinion of R. Shimon in Kidushin, we hold like him.

Support: Also R. Chananel and the Ramban rule like him.

Mishnah: Konam is wine that I will taste, for wine harms the intestines', he is permitted old wine.

Explanation: This is without any Pesach at all. Similarly he is permitted Kufri [onions] without a Pesach, since he never intended for old [wine] and Kufri. I already wrote about this above (26b), with Hash-m's help .

Gemara - Question: It should suffice that it is not bad!

Explanation: Why must we say that old wine is good for the intestines? Even if it were not good, since it is not bad, he is permitted old, for he attributed his vow 'because wine harms the intestines!'

Gemara: It taught, and also wine is good.

Explanation: Firstly, it is not bad, and due to this it is permitted, and there is no need to teach [that it is permitted] when it is good!

Mishnah: We may be Pose'ach for a person with his own honor.

Explanation: One who was Madir his wife to the point that he must divorce her, we are Pose'ach for him with his own honor, and his children's honor, and we are not concerned lest he lie amidst shame.

Mishnah: This is not because she was ugly, and she became pretty.

Explanation: In such a case we do not say that it is like attributing his vow to a matter, and he would be permitted, like I explained above (65b DH Tana). He is not permitted even via a Pesach, for it is Nolad.

Mishnah: Rather, the vow is a mistake.

Explanation: And it does not need a Chacham to permit it.

Gemara: The case brought contradicts [the law of the Mishnah, that if she was ugly and became pretty, the vow is not permitted!

Explanation: How does [the Tana] bring an episode to contradict his words?! Initially he taught that if she was ugly, and she became pretty, he is forbidden. Afterwards he teaches an episode in which R. Yishmael permitted him!

Gemara: [The Mishnah] is abbreviated. It teaches as follows...

Explanation: Even if an ugly girl became pretty [this is a Pesach to permit], for [R. Yishmael] holds that we are Pose'ach with Nolad. He also did so in a case.

Ruling: Even so, we do not hold like him, rather, like Rabanan, who permit only when she was found to be pretty [when he vowed].

Gemara: An inserted tooth.

Explanation: A tooth fell out, and she inserted another tooth in its place.

Gemara: All sons of the widow should die.

Explanation: He cursed the husband that he should die and his wife should be a widow. He also cursed his sons, who will be called 'sons of the widow' after he dies, that they should die. (Note: Even if the husband is worthy to be cursed, why did he curse his sons?! Surely R. Shimon knew (perhaps via Ru'ach ha'Kodesh - R. Meir Eliyahu Shlita) that also his sons were evil, like we explain (Bava Basra 156b) why R. Eliezer cursed Bnei Rochel. - PF)

Gemara: Behold, this one intended for a disgrace!

Explanation: If so, he intended that she spit on R. Shimon ben Gamliel's body.

Gemara: On condition that you show something nice in you.

Explanation: He forbade her to benefit from him if she can show something nice in her to R. Yishmael b'Rebbi Yosi. 'Mum' is like Me'um, like "uv'Chapai Davak Me'um" (Iyov 31:7).

Gemara: And he permitted her.

Explanation: Because he did not find anything nice. (Note: Why did he strive to find something nice in her, in order to forbid her? Perhaps indeed, he hoped to forbid her, and force her husband to divorce her! This is better than having a husband who despises her, and vows. However, why did he say 'her name is nice, for she is filthy with Mumim'? It was not needed to permit her. This was Leshon ha'Ra and Ona'as Devarim! - PF)

Alternative text: Some texts say 'until you show something nice in you.' I.e. she is forbidden until she shows something nice in her body to R. Yishmael. When R. Yishmael saw that her name is proper for her, he permitted her.

Gemara: Segalgal (round).

Translation: 'Segalgal' means round.

Gemara: Terutos (round)

Translation: 'Terutos' means round.

Gemara: Balum (sealed).

Translation: 'Balum' means sealed, like 'Otzar Balum' (Bava Basra 58a).

Gemara: Kefulos.

Explanation: They are big. (Rosh - they look like they are Kefulos (doubled).)

Gemara: Shakut (short).

Translation: 'Shakut' means short, like a Mishnah (Bechoros 43b) 'his neck is Shakut.'

Gemara: Tzavah (inflated).

Translation: 'Tzavah' means inflated.

Gemara: Botzini (melons).

Translation: 'Botzini' is the Targum of Avatichim (Bamidbar 11:5. Note: in our text of Unkelos, it is the Targum of Kishu'im (gourds).)

Gemara: Shargi (lamps).

Translation: 'Shargi' means lamps. The Targum of Neros (Shemos 30:8) is Botzini.

Gemara: Break them on the Bava.

Explanation: Because he was angry at her deeds, he told her to break them on the door. She thought that she should break them on the head of Bava ben Buta.

Gemara: Two sons like Bava.

Explanation: He said two, correspond to two lamps. This episode is brought here to show the Chasidus of Bava ben Buta, just like it brings the episode of R. Shimon ben Gamliel and R. Yishmael. (The Ran understands that R. Shimon ben Gamliel told her to spit on his garment, even though the Gemara did not say so. - PF)

(Mishnah): A Na'arah (a girl in the first six months of adulthood) Me'orasah (after Kidushin but before Nisu'in), her father and husband of annul her vows.

Explanation: Even what she vowed when she was single, an Arus annuls previous vows in partnership with her husband, like it says in the Gemara.

It says 'Na'arah' to exclude a Bogeres, for her father has no authority over her; he does not annul her vows. Also the Arus, without partnership of the father, cannot annul.

However, the same applies to a [minor] girl above 11 years. Her vows are checked (if she knows to Whom she vowed, it takes effect). The father and Arus annul her vows.