1)

(a)Rebbi Yehudah said in our Mishnah 'be'Yisrael Chodesh Echad Yekayem ... b'Kohen Shenayim Yekayim ... '. According to Abaye, Rebbi Yehudah is coming to teach us that a Kohen waits two months. According to Rava, he holds that a month comprises twenty-nine days, whereas the Tana Kama considers it to be thirty.

(b)According to Rav, it is only if he specified a time up to thirty days that the husband is permitted to feed his wife through a trustee. If he did not specify a time (Stam) - he must divorce her immediately and pay her Kesubah.

(c)According to Shmuel - even if he did not specify any time-period he must feed her through a trustee for thirty days, in case he finds a way of nullifying his vow.

2)

(a)Rav and Shmuel already argued over this point in 'Af-al-pi' (regarding the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel about a man who makes a Neder forbidding his wife from having Tashmish with him) and for the same reasons, apparently duplicating their views here. Had Rav said his Din in 'Af-al-Pi' (but not here), we would have thought - that there (in the case of Stam) he must send his wife away and pay her Kesubah immediately, because it is not possible to appoint a trustee; whereas in our case, where it is, he will agree with Shmuel, that even by Stam, the husband may wait thirty days before divorcing her.

(b)We learned in our Mishnah that if a man made a Neder forbidding his wife to eat a certain type of fruit even for one day, he is obligated to divorce her immediately and pay her Kesubah. Rav resolves the discrepancy between the Reisha and the Seifa - by establishing (the Reisha when he specified the time-period as we just explained, and the Seifa by Stam.

(c)Shmuel (who does not differentiate between whether the husband mentioned a time-period or not) will resolve the discrepancy - by establishing the Seifa when the woman made the Neder, but her husband upheld it by remaining silent (and this Tana holds 'Hu Nosen Etzba bein Shinehah' (he is responsible for her Nedarim should he fail to nullify them - which is why he has to pay her Kesubah). In any event, there is no point in waiting, seeing as by virtue of her having made the Neder, she has indicated that she does not want to eat the fruit; whereas the Reisha speaks when he made the Neder, so we wait thirty days to see whether she will comply with the Neder or not.

(d)According to Shmuel then, the author of our Mishnah, who holds 'Hu Nosen Etzba Bein Shinehah'' - is Rebbi Meir (because Stam Mishnah, Rebbi Meir).

3)

(a)Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah say in a Beraisa that if a woman who took the Nazarite vow and her husband did not nullify it, he is entitled to divorce her (because he can argue 'I Efshi b'Ishah Nadranis') without a Kesubah, should he so wish. This ruling - is based on the principle 'Hi Nasnah Etzba bein Shinehah'.

(b)According to Rebbi Yosi and Rebbi Elazar - he will be obligated to pay her Kesubah, because they hold 'Hu Nasan Etzba bein Shinehah'.

(c)Based on the premise - Stam Mishnah Rebbi Meir, we now have a discrepancy between Rebbi Meir in our Mishnah and Rebbi Meir in the Beraisa.

4)

(a)In order to resolve the discrepancy - we switch the opinions in the Beraisa (Rebbi Meir v'Rebbi Yehudah Omrim Hu Nasan ... , Rebbi Yosi v'Rebbi Elazar Omrim Hi Nasnah).

(b)By doing so however, we have merely switched one problem for another, seeing as Rebbi Yosi now holds Hi Nasnah Etzba ... ', whereas in our Mishnah, he holds that if a poor woman made a Neder not to adorn herself, her husband divorces her immediately and pays her Kesubah (because 'Hu Nasan Etzba ... ').

(c)To resolve the problem - we amend the Beraisa again to 'Rebbi Meir v'Rebbi Yosi Omrim 'Hu Nasan', Rebbi Yehudah v'Rebbi Elazar Omrim 'Hi Nasnah'.

(d)The final problem still facing us, concerns Rebbi Yehudah - who holds in our Mishnah ('b'Yisrael, Yom Echad Yekayem ... ') Hu Nasan ... .

5)

(a)To dispense with all the discrepancies, we finally amend the Beraisa to read Rebbi Meir, v'Rebbi Yehudah, v'Rebbi Yosi Omrim, Hu Nasan ... , v'Rebbi Elazar Omer Hi Nasnah ... '.

(b)Alternatively, we prefer to learn the two opinions in the Beraisa as two pairs, in which case it will read 'Rebbi Meir v'Rebbi Elazar Omrim Hi Nasnah; Rebbi Yehudah v'Rebbi Yosi Omrim, Hu Nasan'. To reconcile this with our Stam Mishnah, which (as we established earlier) holds 'Hu Nasan Etzba ... ' - we will then have to concede that the author of this Stam Mishnah is not Rebbi Meir.

6)

(a)The Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Nedarim, listing Nidrei Inuy Nefesh (Nedarim that the husband is permitted to nullify due to the anguish that they cause his wife), includes Nedarim that concern the woman washing herself and adorning herself. Rebbi Yosi says - that these are not considered 'Inuy Nefesh', so he cannot nullify them.

(b)We initially reconcile this with Rebbi Yosi in our Mishnah, who penalizes a husband who upheld his poor wife's Neder not to adorn herself (by obligating him to pay the Kesubah (indicating that he is authorized to nullify Nedarim concerning a woman not wearing make-up) - by establishing the case there by a Neder not to apply hair-remover, which falls under the category of Nedarim that are 'Beino l'Veinah' (connected with intimacy, another category of Neder that a husband is permitted to nullify), and which he has the authority to nullify.

(c)Besides not to eat meat or to drink wine - Nidrei Inuy Nefesh according to Rebbi Yosi, includes a Neder not to wear pretty clothes, because it is degrading for a woman to walk around in plain clothes, and will cause her husband to detest her.

7)

(a)We query our current interpretation of Rebbi Yosi however, based on a Machlokes Amora'im. Rav Huna holds that a husband has the authority to nullify Nedarim she'Beino l'Veinah; whereas according to Rav Ada bar Ahavah disagrees however - because 'Who has ever heard of a fox suffocating in the earth of his lair?' (so too, is a man not in danger of coming to grief because his wife has pubic hair, since he is used to it).

(b)Rav Ada bar Ahavah will therefore establish Rebbi Yosi in our Mishnah - when she connects the Neder of not putting on make-up with Tashmish (forbidding his Tashmish on herself should she put on make-up).

(c)Such a Neder is valid (in spite of the fact that she is Meshubad to her husband for Tashmish) due a statement of Rav Kahana - who validates it (seeing as she forbade his Tashmish on her and not vice-versa (because one does not feed someone a thing that is forbidden to him).

(d)We do not then say ...

1. ... let her not adorn herself and she will not become forbidden to her husband (so how can her husband nullify it) - because then people will call her ugly, forcing her to adorn herself and become forbidden to him (turning it into a Neder she'Beino l'Veinah - and presumably, when it comes to a Neder that leads to not performing Tashmish, even Rav Ada bar Ahavah will agree).

2. ... let her adorn herself and become forbidden for one week, according to Beis Shamai, and for two weeks, according to Beis Hillel - because that speaks when her husband made the Neder. But here, when she made the Neder and he remained silent, she will believe that he hates her and living with him will become unbearable (even for one or two weeks).

8)

(a)According to Rebbi Yosi in our Mishnah, when the husband specifies a time-limit (regarding the Neder of a poor woman not putting on make-up) we do not force him to divorce his wife and pay her Kesubah for twelve months, according to Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel. Rav Chisda Amar Avimi gives the time limit as until the following Yom Tov - because it is customary for Jewish women to adorn themselves on Yom Tov (even if they are poor).

(b)Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan gives the longest time period of all - ten years.

(c)Rebbi Yosi gives the time-limit by a rich woman as thirty days - because that is the period of time that the aroma of the make-up that she applies generally lasts.

9)

(a)Our Mishnah rules that if a husband makes a Neder forbidding his wife to visit her father, the maximum time-period that he is permitted to remain with her and not pay her Kesubah, assuming that her father lives ...

1. ... in the same city as they do - is one month. After that, he is obligated to divorce her and pay her Kesubah.

2. ... in another city - is one Yom Tov (as we will explain shortly).

(b)If he forbids her to go to visit the mourners or to attend weddings - he must divorce her immediately and pay her Kesubah.

10)

(a)The Tana writes (with regard to a Neder forbidding his wife to visit her father who lives in another city) 'Regel Echad, Yekayem; Sheloshah, Yotzi'. The significance of Regel in this case, is - that a woman tends to visit her father on Yom Tov.

(b)Two Regalim appears to be a clash of inferences. Abaye answers that the Seifa refers to a Kohenes, and that the author is Rebbi Yehudah - who maintains (in our Mishnah) that we give a Kohen extra time (an extra month, with regard to Madir Hana'ah, and an extra Yom Tov here), because once he divorces his wife, he will not be permitted to take her back.

(c)Rabah bar Ula solves the problem by establishing the Reisha by a woman who feels the need to return to her father's house, because she is unhappy with her husband (or because she is happy with him, as we shall now see).

11)

(a)Rebbi Yochanan interprets the Pasuk "Az Hayisi b'Einav k'Mutz'eis Shalom" to mean - the relationship between Klal Yisrael and Hash-m will be like a Kalah who is content in the house of her father-in-law (happy with her husband) and who is eager to go home to her father and give him a report.

(b)Rebbi Yochanan or Rebbi Yonasan explains the Pasuk in Hoshei'a "v'Hayah ba'Yom ha'Hu Ne'um Hash-m, Tikre'i Ishi v'Lo Tikre'i Ba'ali" to mean - that, on that day, Yisrael will refer to Hash-m as 'Ishi', like a bride in her father-in-law's house (i.e. after her wedding when she is familiar with her husband), and not 'Ba'ali', like a bride who is still in her father's house (before her wedding, when she is still shy in his presence).