Explanation: All the Stam Mishnayos of our Perek, R. Yehudah taught them;

Source - Question: Since it taught that R. Yosi said that these are not Nidrei Inuy Nefesh, and he himself said "these are Nidrei Inuy Nefesh", why must the Mishnah teach further "he may annul. R. Yosi said so"?

Answer: This is to teach that our entire Perek is R. Yosi;

We can still ask according to Rabanan. Perhaps [refraining from] Bi'ah is Inuy Nefesh, and he can annul both for himself and for others.

Ruling: Since the question was not resolved, we are stringent, and he may annul only due to matters between him and her.

Alternate opinion: Some say that granted, it was not resolved here, but it is resolved from Shmuel's teaching brought below "but if she said 'Hana'ah from Ploni is forbidden to me', he can annul."

Rebuttal: This is no proof. [Shmuel] said that he can annul matters of Inuy Nefesh [that she forbade to herself from Ploni]. We can still say that Inuy does not apply to [refraining from] Bi'ah!

Gemara: Shmuel said in the name of Levi, a husband can annul all vows of his wife.

Explanation: This is if they are Nidrei Inuy Nefesh.

Gemara: Except for 'benefit from me is forbidden to Ploni.'

Explanation: This is not Inuy Nefesh for her.

Gemara: However, if she said 'Hana'ah from Ploni is forbidden to me', he can annul.

Explanation: Since there is Inuy Nefesh, even though she vowed only from someone else, he can annul.

Gemara: He brings from another state.

Explanation: However, Peros of that state are forbidden to her, and he cannot annul, and all the more so when she says 'Hana'ah from Ploni is Alai', he cannot annul.

Explanation: The case is, she said "Peros of this country are forbidden to me if you will bring them", but if someone else will bring them, she did not forbid them to herself;

Since she has a solution [to benefit from] Peros of that country through another, this is unlike "Hana'ah from Ploni is Alai". There, she has no solution to benefit from Ploni.

Question: If so, [our Mishnah] should have taught that another brings to her Peros of that country!

Answer: It taught that he brings to her Peros of a different country, because if she did not have a solution through her husband, even though she has a solution through another, he could annul;

Source: In the Reisha, she said "all Peros are forbidden to me", and it teaches that he can annul, we establish this when she said "that you will bring", just like the Seifa;

Even though she has a solution through another, since she has no solution through her husband, it taught that he can annul, for this is like one who says "Hana'ah from Ploni is Alai";

Therefore, the Seifa taught that he brings to her from a different country, to teach that the reason he can annul in the Reisha, it does not apply in the Seifa;

In the Reisha, because she has no solution through her husband, he can annul. In the Seifa, because she has a solution through her husband, he cannot annul.

Gemara: Come and learn from the Seifa... Here also, the case is, she said 'if you bring them.'

Explanation: Therefore, since she can benefit from Peros of that grocer himself via another, and [her husband] himself can bring to her from elsewhere, he cannot annul.

Gemara: And if you will say that she said 'if you bring them', why can he annul?

Explanation: She can benefit from that grocer through someone else.

Version #1: This is the primary text. It means as follows. Since the Seifa, which taught "he can annul", you are forced to establish it when she forbade his (the grocer's) Peros even if she brings them...

If she forbade them to herself only when her husband brings them, why can he annul? Rather, surely she forbade to herself in every case;

Also in the Reisha, which taught "Peros of this grocer are Alai", he cannot annul, is established in the same case. And even so, it teaches that he cannot annul;

The only difference between the Reisha and Seifa is that the Reisha discusses when his provisions were not only from him (that grocer), and the Seifa teaches "if his provisions were only from him."

Version #2: Some texts say "rather, since in the Seifa the husband does not bring, the Reisha is when she brings. It is all the same reasoning. (This is our text - PF);

It means as follows. Since the Seifa, you are forced to say that it discusses when she is forbidden even if her husband does not bring those Peros, also the Reisha discusses this very case;

Even though she herself brings them, they are forbidden to her.

Version #3: Another text says "since in the Seifa the husband brings, in the Reisha she brings.

Explanation: Since in the Seifa you are forced to say that she can benefit from the Peros only through the husband, e.g. the grocer is unwilling to give to her on credit through anyone else, except for him (her husband)...

In such a case she can benefit from the Peros only through transgressing her vow;

You, who established it when she said "that you bring", you are forced to say that we discuss such a case. If not, why may he annul?! Also the Reisha is [even] when she brings.

Also the Reisha, you are forced to say that it is like the Seifa, when she can benefit only through Isur, e.g. she vowed Hana'ah from the Peros, even if she herself will buy them.

Conclusion: All the texts are based on the same reasoning, but the first text is clearest.

Explanation: Yes, surely you are correct. The Reisha is established when she forbade to herself that grocer's Peros even when she brings them;

However, this is not difficult for Shmuel, for our entire Mishnah is R. Yosi, and according to R. Yosi, indeed, he cannot annul due to Nidrei Inuy Nefesh;

Shmuel, who said Stam that he can annul, and this connotes even due to Nidrei Inuy Nefesh, holds like Rabanan.

Implied question: Why did we need to say here that Rav Huna said that the entire Perek is R. Yosi?

This is not due to our Mishnah itself, for it concludes "these are R. Yosi's words"!

Answer: Rather, it is because the Gemara was concerned lest he ask from the other Mishnah, which taught 'if she said "Konam that I benefit from people", he cannot annul';

This was taught Stam, and it does not specify "the words of R. Yosi." Therefore, he preceded and said that the entire Perek is R. Yosi, so one cannot ask from it at all against Shmuel, who taught like Rabanan.

Implied question: Why did we need to elaborate and say "what does it mean 'he cannot annul'? [He cannot annul] due to Nidrei Inuy Nefesh, but he can annul due to matters between him and her"?

In order to answer for Shmuel, we needed to say only "this is like R. Yosi. Shmuel taught like Rabanan"!

Answer: It is because if R. Yosi holds that he cannot annul even due to matters between him and her, we cannot say that according to Rabanan it is a Neder of Inuy Nefesh;

Note: I do not understand this. Above, (81a), the Gemara said that R. Yosi told Rabanan, I hold that they are not even matters between them. You say that they are vows of affliction... (PF)

Source: "I will bathe" or "I will not bathe" is Inuy Nefesh according to Rabanan, and according to R. Yosi it is matters between him and her;

Therefore, we say that also according to R. Yosi it is matters between him and her, therefore we can say that according to Rabanan, he can annul due to Inuy Nefesh.

Opinion #1: [Since we conclude that] Shmuel taught like Rabanan, we hold like them.

Implied question: Our entire Perek is like R. Yosi!

Answer: These are not Stam Mishnayos. Since it says "these are the words of R. Yosi" an extra time, it is as if it taught in every Mishnah [in our Perek] "R. Yosi said."

Support: Also the Ramban holds like this. I already wrote this above (81a DH Ela).

Opinion #2: Others say that in the conclusion, we establish Shmuel like R. Yosi;

The Gemara means "our Mishnah is R. Yosi. 'He cannot annul' due to Nidrei Inuy Nefesh, but he can annul due to matters between him and her;

And also Shmuel taught that he can annul due to matters between him and her, like R. Yosi!

Rebuttal: If so, we should not have said that our Mishnah is R. Yosi, for Rav Huna taught that our entire Perek is like R. Yosi...

Since we say that our Mishnah, which taught 'he cannot annul' means due to Nidrei Inuy Nefesh, and Shmuel taught that he can annul due to matters between him and her, this suffices to answer for Shmuel;

Why do we care who taught our Mishnah?!

Conclusion: Rather, surely it is like we wrote (Opinion #1).

Gemara (Rav Yehudah citing Shmuel): If she vowed from two loaves...

Explanation: E.g. she said 'these two loaves are Alai.'

Gemara: She is pained due to [craving for] one of them.

Explanation: For it is clean bread, and she is not pained due to [the other] one, for it is coarse bread.

Gemara: Since he can annul due to the loaf she is pained over.

Explanation: For there is in it Inuy Nefesh.

Gemara: He annuls [also] for the one she is not pained over.

Explanation: Even though there is no Inuy Nefesh, since both are foods, he can annul the one that she is not is pained over, bi'Grara (along with) the one she is pained over.

And even if he annulled Stam, the entire Neder is annulled.

Explanation: He does not hold of this Grara. Therefore even if he explicitly annulled the one she is pained over and the one she is not pained over, there is no Hafarah for the one she is not pained over.

My Rebbeyim explained like this. I did not see one of them give a reason for the Grara of Shmuel.

Assertion: It seems to me that Shmuel and R. Yochanan argue about this. The verse says Stam "v'Ishah Yeferenu";

We learn from this verse below (87a) that the husband must annul the entire Neder. Yeferenu implies all of it;

If he annulled part, even what he annulled is not annulled. This is the primary text in that Sugya below, like we will write about it with Hash-m's help;

Therefore, he says that since she vowed from two loaves, it is like one vow, and he cannot annul half-way, for it says Yeferenu.

Therefore, since he must annul, and he can annul the one she is pained over due to Inuy Nefesh, he can annul also the one she is not pained over;

If you would say that he cannot annul [the one she is not pained over], even his Hafarah for the one she is pained over would have no effect;

Since the Torah gave him permission to annul Nedarim with Inuy Nefesh, you are forced to say that he can annul even the one that she is not pained over, for the one that she is pained over depends on the one that she is not pained over.

If you would say that he cannot annul, there is Inuy Nefesh!

Explanation: And Rav Asi said in the name of R. Yochanan, he can annul the one she is pained over, but he cannot annul the one she is not pained over.

Implied question: He should agree that the Torah said Yeferenu, which implies all of it, and not half of it!

Answer: This teaches that he must annul the entire Neder that he is able to annul. Yeferenu of the verse refers to Inuy Nefesh;

Therefore, as long as he annulled everything that has Inuy Nefesh, this suffices, and we apply "Yeferenu";

Therefore, he can annul the one that she is pained over, but he cannot annul the one that she is not pained over.

Question: If so, that Shmuel holds that Yeferenu applies to the entire Neder, and even the part that is not among the kinds that a husband can annul, and like I wrote...

We should challenge him from our Mishnah (90b), which teaches "if she said 'I am forbidden to Jews', he annuls his share, and she has Bi'ah with him, and she is forbidden to [all other] Jews!

What is the reason? We should say that since the Torah said Yeferenu, amidst that he can annul his share, he can annul also the share of [all other] Jews! It cannot be without this (for then it is partial Hafarah, which is invalid)!

Answer: Perhaps Shmuel holds that Yeferenu, which connotes all of it and not part of it, is written only regarding Inuy Nefesh. We do not find it regarding matters between him and her;

In the Mishnah below, and the Beraisa brought on it in the Gemara, it is brought regarding Nidrei Inuy Nefesh, and not matters between him and her.

There is a reason for this. Nidrei Inuy Nefesh are due to what she is adamant about. He can annul due to her Inuy. Therefore, it is improper that he could annul halfway, for this pains her more;

Note: Why does it pain her more if she cannot eat the one that she does not desire? Perhaps it is all psychological. It irks her that it is forbidden. (PF) I heard from R. A. Lopiansky that this is why everything that the Torah forbade, it permitted it in some case (Chulin 109b). And this is how Shlomo knew that Shim'i ben Gera would not be able to stay in Yerushalayim his entire life. Many Yerushalmiyim stayed in Yerushalayim their entire lives - but they had no Isur to leave.

However, matters between him and her are due to what the husband is adamant about. Therefore, what he is not adamant about, he is not adamant, and what he is adamant about, he permits to himself. So it seems to me.

Gemara: If a woman vowed to be a Nezirah [and drank wine and became Temei'ah], she receives 40 lashes.