Gemara: Also here, he told him 'when I will hear.'

Explanation: He told the overseer 'all vows that my wife will vow, annul [them], and the Hafarah will take effect when I hear';

Also the overseer told the woman this expression - 'it is annulled for you when your husband will hear.'

Distinction: However, if he told her Stam, no. The overseer is no better than her husband himself, and the husband himself must tell her explicitly 'it is annulled for you when I will hear', like I explained above (72b, DH Hacha).

Gemara: And we ask, when he will hear, he will annul for her!

Explanation: Since in the end Hafarah does not take effect until the husband hears, at that time, he himself can annul

Explanation: [Amidst distraction] I will not remember to annul her vows.

Reference: There, in Nazir (12b), we ask based on this that we establish this Beraisa to be like R. Eliezer, who says that a husband can annul his wife's vows even though they did not yet take effect...

Citation (12b) Question: Why must he appoint an overseer? He himself should annul her [vows] when he leaves!

Citation (cont.) Answer: He reasons that perhaps he will forget, or he will be angry or distracted at the time.

Question: Why doesn't he himself annul her [vows] now [when he commands the overseer]?

Answer: He does not want to annul her Nedarim that she vows when she is still by him, for perhaps she will vow something that he wants to be forbidden to her.

Question: Still, this is difficult. He himself should annul from now all Nedarim that she will vow from when he leaves until he returns! They left this difficult. (The Ran cites Tosfos Kesav Yad, which is printed in some modern editions of the Gemara.)

Answer: I say that perhaps the husband is concerned lest he want to retract this Hafarah. If he annuls from now, like R. Eliezer, he cannot retract;

When he appoints an overseer, at every time it is in his hands. If he wants to retract the Shali'ach's mission, he can.

Ruling: Even though this question was not resolved here, it is resolved from the question below, that a husband can annul without hearing, like I will explain with Hash-m's help.

Gemara: Rami bar Chama asked, can a deaf man annul for his wife?

Explanation: [He discusses] a Cheresh who speaks, but cannot hear.

Explanation: Since he is capable of hearing, hearing is not Me'akev.

Ruling: We conclude that for a Cheresh (deaf person), hearing is Me'akev, since the Beraisa says that "v'Shama Ishah" excludes a Cheresh's wife.

Ruling (Ramban): This is only for a Cheresh, who cannot hear. However, for a regular person, who can hear, hearing is not Me'akev;

Implied question: [If so,] why couldn't we resolve the previous question (whether one can annul without hearing the vow) from this Beraisa, which excludes a Cheresh's wife from "v'Shama Ishah"?

Inference: Since it mentioned a Cheresh, this implies that if a man can hear, hearing is not Me'akev!

Answer: We could reject this. Perhaps it discusses a normal case (he did not hear, because he is a Cheresh), and the same applies to any husband!

Proof: If we would not say so, above, why didn't we resolve the previous question from this Beraisa?!

Rather, you must say it is because we can reject this, like we rejected.

Ruling: Even so, since Rami bar Chama said "if you will say that a husband can annul without hearing", and he supports it from R. Zeira's law, that any [Korban Minchah] Ra'uy l'Bilah (it is not too big to be mixed with the oil) Ein Bilah Me'akeves Bo (it is Kosher even if it was not mixed), this implies that we hold like this.

Support: Also, the simple reading of our Mishnah and the Beraisos above is like this (that he can annul without hearing);

Even though we answered (rejected the proofs), we do not rely on the answers. Also the Rambam holds like this.

Gemara: They asked, can a man annul for his two wives at once?

Explanation: If both of them vowed, and he told them 'it is annulled for you (plural).'

Gemara: "Osah" (her) is precise.

Reference: "B'Yom Shemo'a Ishah Yani Osah."

Extrapolation: They asked about a husband. The same applies to a father, for also regarding a father it says "Osah."

Gemara: Because she is overly familiar with her colleague.

Explanation: Sometimes her colleague is Tehorah, and she is Temei'ah, and when she sees her colleague say 'I am Tehorah', she will be haughty, and will not admit, and Hash-m's name, written in Kedushah, will be erased. (It is properly erased for the Tehorah, in order to permit her to her husband. However, for the Temei'ah, no benefit comes from erasing it; she will die!)

Explanation: It is not due to this reason that they said that we do not give to two Sotos to drink at once;

Rather, it is because it says "v'Hishkah" with a Mapik Hei (there is a dot inside the final Hei, which shows that it is not part of the conjugation. Rather, it is a suffix,) and it is as if it wrote v'Hishkeh Osah (he will give to her to drink), and we expound "her" - alone.

Opinion #1: Some say that Ravina settled our question from Rabanan. They do not expound "her" specifically (i.e. alone), for they give the reason because she is too familiar with her colleague (and will refuse to admit her guilt);

Therefore, we hold that a husband can annul two wives at once.

Support - Citation (Tosefta 6:1): R. Yosi b'Rebbi Yehudah and R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon say, Hafaras Nedarim is me'Es la'Es (24 hours from when he hears);

Citation (cont.): How is this? If his wife had five Nedarim, or he had five wives and all of them vowed, and he said "Mufar Lachen (annulled for you, plural)", they are annulled. If he said [to one of them] "Mufar Leich", only hers is annulled.

Rebuttal #1 (Ramban): In Sotah (8a) we say "who is the first Tana? It is R. Shimon, who expounds [based on] the reasons for Mitzvos. He discusses the reason [for this law];

What is the reason for "Osah" (we give to her to drink) - by herself? It is because she is too familiar with her colleague.

Inference: All expound "Osah" - alone.

Rebuttal #2: Also in Yoma (43a) we say that "Osah" is precise. We say there that we do not slaughter two Paros [Adumos] at once, for it says "Osah", and not it and its colleague;

Since in our Gemara we hold that "Osah" is precise, we are not concerned for what is taught in the Tosefta. Perhaps it is mistaken, and it was not taught in the academy of R. Chiya and R. Oshaya.

Support: I agree. Surely, the simple reading of our Sugya is that "Osah" is precise;

We say below (86b) regarding our Mishnah of one whose wife vowed, and he thought that his daughter vowed... This shows that "Osah" is precise!

Our Sugya is like this, unless you will say that granted, Osah is precise regarding that he must know who vowed, but it is not precise regarding [annulling] her alone.

Ruling: It seems to me that just like one may not annul two wives at once, one may not be Mekayem both of them at once;

The Sugya below connotes that just like Osah written regarding Hafarah is precise, also Osah written regarding Hakamah is precise, like I will write in that Sugya with Hash-m's help.

Mishnah: If a Bogeres has waited 12 months

Explanation: I resolved this above (70b), a Bogeres or one who waited 12 months.

Mishnah: Since her husband must feed her.

Explanation: This is like the Mishnah in Kesuvos (57a) that we give to a Besulah 12 months [to prepare for Chupah], and after this, he is obligated to feed her, like the Mishnah (ibid.) 'if the time came and they did not have Nisu'in, they eat from his food.'

Mishnah: He can annul.

Explanation: Alone, without partnership of the father.

Mishnah: And Chachamim say.

Explanation: I.e. R. Yehoshua, who is the one who argues with R. Eliezer everywhere.

Mishnah: Until she enters his Reshus.

Explanation: Until she enters Chupah.

Gemara: R. Eliezer and the original Mishnah said one matter (they agree).

Explanation: When the time for Nisu'in came and they did not have Nisu'in, since her husband must feed her, we consider her to be Nesu'ah for some matters, even though she is not in her husband's house.

Gemara: R. Eliezer is this that we said.

Explanation: He said in our Mishnah that her husband annuls her vows without the father's partnership.

Gemara: A Yavam does not permit [the Yevamah] to eat Terumah.

Explanation: This is like we learn there in Kesuvos (58a). The Torah said "Kinyan Kaspo", and this is his brother's Kinyan.

Gemara: If she did six months in front of the husband.

Explanation: Six months passed in her husband's lifetime from the 12 months that Chachamim gave to her to have Nisu'in, from the time that the husband requested.

The text: This is the primary text.

Opinion #1: Rashi explained there in Kesuvos (57a) that "missing one day" is not precise. Even if all [the year] was in front of her husband, she does not eat in the Yavam's Reshus;

This is like we learn there, for it says "Kinyan Kaspo", and she is the Kinyan Kesef of his brother [and not of the Yavam himself].

Implied question: Why did it teach [a year] "missing one day"?

Answer: The Tana prefers to teach about a woman who never ate at all.

Opinion #2: R. Tam holds that "missing one day" is precise. If all [the year] was in front of her husband, and she ate, she eats from the Yavam.

Even though the Yavam does not feed [one who never ate from her husband], she does not lose at all due to him.

Support: The Yerushalmi says so explicitly. If the time came and they did not have Nisu'in, or their husbands died, they eat from him (in the latter case, the Yavam) and they eat Terumah (if the Arus was a Kohen).

Gemara: This is the original Mishnah.

Explanation: It holds that a woman (Kohen's wife) may eat Terumah before she enters Chupah.

Reference: There they explain their reason, whether it is due to Simpon, i.e. lest she be found to have a blemish, and it turns out that the Kidushin was a Mekach Ta'os (mistaken, and invalid), or if it is lest she give a cup of Terumah wine to her brother or sister to drink.

Implied question: Why do we bring the Seifa, and not the Reisha of the Mishnah?

Note: Below, the Ran says that some texts bring the entire Mishnah [like our text does]. The Ran's text brings only the Seifa.

[The Reisha] explicitly says that we give 12 months to a Besulah, and 30 days to a widow. If the time came and they did not have Nisu'in, they eat from him and they eat Terumah!

Answer #1: The Seifa explains more what is Mishnah Rishonah and what is Mishnah Acharonah.

Answer #2: Some texts bring the entire Mishnah.

Inference: Mishnah Rishonah holds like R. Eliezer, that since her husband is obligated to feed her, she is somewhat in his Reshus, and therefore she eats Terumah;

Now we are thinking that if Mishnah Rishonah did not hold like R. Eliezer, even though the Isur Terumah for an Arusah (Bas Yisrael to a Kohen) is only mid'Rabanan, who decreed due to Simpon, or lest she give a cup of Terumah wine to her brother or sister to drink...

Even so, if she were not in her husband's Reshus for a Torah law, like R. Eliezer, also for Terumah, even though it (its Isur) is mid'Rabanan, we would not establish her in his Reshus;

This is because Chachamim strengthened their words like Torah law.

Explanation: Since based on letter of the law, an Arusah eats Terumah, and Chachamim decreed either due to Simpon, or lest she give [Terumah to a sibling] to drink, whenever he must feed her, there is no concern for this, and she is permitted;

There is no concern for Simpon, for before he gives food to her, he checks her [for blemishes] through his female relatives, lest he waste his money [feeding one who is not his wife, for the Kidushin was a Ta'os]. External checking (not through Bi'ah with her) is called checking (we rely on it).

There is no concern lest she give [Terumah to a sibling] to drink, for since he feeds her, he designates a place for her [away from her siblings].

Distinction: However, vows, that mid'Oraisa an Arus cannot annul [alone] even after he is obligated to feed her, I can say that he cannot annul without partnership of the father!

Explanation: We heard that R. Eliezer said his law only regarding Nedarim. It is not because he considers her a Nesu'ah. Rather, it is like Rav Pinchas taught, that any [wife] who vows, she vows based on her husband's intent (it is contingent on his approval);

Therefore, R. Eliezer holds that since he feeds her, she vows with intent for him (only if he approves);

Distinction: However, she may not eat even Terumah mid'Rabanan. We can say that even though he feeds her, there is concern for Simpon, for they hold that external checking is not called checking (we may not rely on it);

Also regarding lest she give [Terumah to a sibling] to drink, there is concern lest he not designate a place for her.

Clarification: We said that R. Eliezer's reason is like Rav Pinchas. This does not mean that Rabanan disagree with Rav Pinchas.

Proof: We conclude in Nidah (46a) that if a minor's mother or brothers sent her to Nisu'in (after her father died, or she left his Reshus), her husband can annul her vows;

This is even though [in some cases] her vows are mid'Oraisa, for we hold that Mufla Samuch l'Ish (a minor shortly before adulthood, his vows are valid) mid'Oraisa, like it says there;

Nisu'in of an [orphaned] minor is only mid'Rabanan. Even so, Nisu'in mid'Rabanan [enables her husband to be] Mevatel vows mid'Oraisa, due to Rav Pinchas' law. We infer that Rabanan agree to his law!

Explanation: Rather, they argue about the following. R. Eliezer holds that since he feeds her, she vows only with intent for him (that he approve);

Rabanan hold, don't you agree to us that if someone else fed her, she would not vow with intent for him? Also when an Arus feeds her, she does not vow with intent for him, until she enters Chupah!

However, once she enters Chupah, even Chupah mid'Rabanan, like a minor whose mother or brothers sent her to Nisu'in, Chachamim agree that she vows with intent for him;

Therefore, Nisu'in mid'Rabanan [enables her husband to be] Mevatel vows mid'Oraisa, like I wrote.

Inference: Some learn from here that if one vowed Al Da'as Chavero (based on another's will), the latter can permit the vow without a Chacham;

This is just like we say here, that this is why a husband (Arus) can annul alone, because she vows based on his Da'as;

When one vowed Al Da'as Chavero, he can annul, for explicitly [vowing Al Da'as] Chavero is no worse than [a wife's] Stam intent for [Da'as of] her husband.

The reason here and there is because it is like a Neder on Tenai (conditional).

Rebuttal #1: This is a mistaken ruling. Even though it says that she vows Al Da'as Ba'alah, even so, the husband must annul with the expression that the Torah fixed;

This is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv. Therefore, not all expressions are the same (work), like it says below (77b);

If you will say that also when one vowed Al Da'as Chavero, the Chaver can annul, because it is like a Neder on Tenai, it is proper that the Heter of a husband or other be in any expression!

Conclusion: Rather, surely Rav Pinchas means as follows. Granted, Hafarah of the husband is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv. However, the reason the Torah awarded the husband Hafarah of her vows is because she vows based on his Da'as;

Therefore, whenever she vows based on his Da'as, this Gezeras ha'Kasuv that the Torah said applies.

However, when one vows Al Da'as Chavero, about which the Torah did not teach a new law, surely he cannot annul.

Distinction: However, if he explicitly stipulated, and said "I vow if my friend wants", his friend can permit him;

He does not need any special expression. Rather, any way in which he says "I do not want" suffices, even though for Hafarah it does not help, like it says below (78a). So it seems to me.