Version #1: If the text does not say "and one day", this is fine. It is like R. Yosi;

Version #2: If the text says "and one day", we discuss when the hairs are on him in the 13th year. R. Yosi agrees when they fell out.

Consequence: According to this, we cannot prove that within the time is before the time, for this that she can do Mi'un is when they checked and did not find, or like we establish in the conclusion, that they did not check;

However, when there are hairs, we can say that it is like after the time, and she cannot do Mi'un.

Pesak: In any case, it seems that the Halachah is that within the time is like before the time, for the one who says that it is like after the time was refuted above;

Also Rav Nachman, who said above that Tana'im argue about this, the Gemara rejected him.

Also in Version #1, Rava explicitly ruled that within the time is like before the time.

Question: Rava holds here that she does not do Chalitzah until she is an adult;

In Gitin (65a), Rava taught three ages of minors. When he reaches the age of vows, his vows are binding. A corresponding girl (i.e. of this age) may do Chalitzah.

Inference: When a minor reaches her age of Onas ha'Nedarim, she may do Chalitzah. This is 11 years and one day;

Even if we discuss there when she brought [two hairs], we say here that within the time is like before the time (she is still a minor)!

Answer #1 (Rashbam): "A corresponding girl" refers to 12 years and one day, which is Onas ha'Nedarim of a boy.

Rejection: This is unreasonable.

Answer #2 (R. Tam): There, Rava said according to R. Yosi, who says that a minor can do Chalitzah. He (Rava) teaches that this is only when she reached Onas ha'Nedarim.

Support: In Yevamos (105b) it says that from R. Yosi's words, we learn that a minor does Chalitzah at the age of Pa'utos, like six or seven years old. Then, [she is mature enough so that] she can have intent for Chalitzah.

Rava says, until she reaches Onas ha'Nedarim, i.e. according to R. Yosi. The Halachah is, until two hairs. All this is from Rava's words.

Answer #3: There in Gitin (65a), the text says Rabah.

Source: There, it says that to sell his father's property, he must be 20 years old, whereas Rava holds in Bava Basra (155) that to sell his father's property, he must be 18!

The text must say so there, unlike Seforim in which the text is opposite, like is proven in the Sugya there.

Question: Why do we ask that obviously, he should be lashed? There are Amora'im who hold that the Neder is a Neder so that if others eat it, they are lashed, but he is not lashed, for he is a minor regarding punishments!

Answer: We ask that if Mufla ha'Samuch l'Ish is mid'Oraisa, and it is forbidden for the minor, he should also be lashed.

Question: If so, how did we think to obligate them a Korban because they let him transgress his vow?

Answer: We could have said "[also] according to you [this is difficult]", but in any case we asked well.

Question: Why don't we establish it when he himself ate, when he grew up?

This would be better, for Mezid [transgression] of a Shevu'ah is established only when he himself ate;

Even if he swore that others will not eat, this has no effect, as long as he did not forbid them through Konam, which is like Hekdesh!

Answer: He prefers to establish it when others ate it right after his vow.

Question: Reish Lakish holds that Hasra'as Safek is not considered Hasra'ah, in Zevachim (78a), regarding Nosar and Pigul that were mixed with each other;

Here, it is Hasra'as Safek, for perhaps he will not bring two hairs until two or three more years, and it turns out that he is still not Mufla ha'Samuch l'Ish!

Suggestion: We discuss when others ate after he grew up.

Answer: If so, it should have discussed when he himself ate! (See the previous Tosfos.)

Suggestion: We discuss when he brought two hairs.

Rejection: If so, he himself should be lashed if he eats it, for R. Yochanan holds above that within the time is like after the time!

Answer: We rely on the majority who bring two hairs in their time, i.e. 13 years and one day.

Question #1: According to Rav Huna, who say that he himself is lashed, how does his annulment help?

Question #2: What was the answer? R. Yochanan wanted to say in Yevamos (114a) that Beis Din is commanded to separate him!

Answer (to Question #1): According to the conclusion, that she vows with intent for her husband [that he approve], it is fine.

Answer (to Question #2): We could have said now "[also] according to you [this is difficult], for R. Yochanan holds that Beis Din is commanded to separate him", but [even] without this, we asked well.

Explanation: This is [a retraction,] as if it says "Ela", even though "Ela" is not written in Seforim.

Support: We find like this in Kesuvos (59a). Rav Huna brei d'Rav Yehoshua said, the case is, he said "your hands are Kodesh to their Maker." "Ela" is not written in Seforim.

In Nedarim (85b, it brings the Sugya in Kesuvos, and) it says "Ela" in Seforim.

Question: If so, why is it written in Parshas Nedarim that a husband can annul his wife's [vows]? Even if she is not his wife, e.g. here, he can annul, since she vows with intent for him!

Answer #1: We need it that if he said "it is affirmed", he cannot annul.

Answer #2: Because the Torah said that a husband can annul, [Rav Pinchas] said that she vows with intent for him;

Even though here the Nisu'in is only mid'Rabanan, and the Torah did not say that he annuls, she thinks that he can annul, just like other women, and she vows with intent for him.

Question: Rather, than ask from R. Yosi, we should bring a support from R. Yehudah, who said that his Terumah is not Terumah;

This shows that Mufla ha'Samuch l'Ish is mid'Rabanan. Therefore, he does not fix Tevel mid'Oraisa!

Answer: Also R. Yehudah holds that Mufla Samuch l'Ish is mid'Oraisa, [but] to be lenient to fix Tevel, he was not included to be like an adult.