Explanation: This was to show him that he needs people immediately to launder his clothes;

He (Rav Acha) holds that just like Rabanan and R. Nasan argue about Hafarah, they argue also about She'elah. R. Noson holds also regarding She'elah that a Chacham cannot permit unless the Neder took effect already.

Implied question: Regarding the argument of R. Noson and Rabanan, we hold like Rabanan, for when an individual and a Rabim argue, the Halachah follows the Rabim, like we will write below! (Why was Rav Acha stringent like R. Noson?)

Answer: He did so (deceived him and put mud on him, to fulfill both opinions and) to avoid the argument.

Implied question: Why didn't Rava say that he holds that they argue about Hafarah, but all agree that a Chacham cannot permit the Neder unless it took effect, like Rav Papi said below [that the Tana'im argue only about Hafarah]?

Suggestion: Since Rava did not say so, this implies that he argues with Rav Papi.

Rejection: This is wrong. The Halachah follows Rav Papi, like we will write below with Hash-m's help, and it is possible that also Rava holds like this!

Answer: Rava did not say so because we cannot infer so much from this episode;

Granted, surely we may infer that Rav Acha bar Huna does not hold like the opinion below that they argue about Hafarah, but regarding She'elah, all agree that a Chacham can permit the Neder even though it did not take effect yet;

If he held like this, why did he deceive the man? (He should have taken him to Rav Chisda to permit him immediately!)

However, we cannot infer that regarding She'elah, he holds that all agree that a Chacham cannot permit the Neder unless it took effect. What would be the source for this?

It is possible that granted, he holds that they argue also about She'elah, and to [fulfill both opinions and] avoid the argument he did so (deceived him and put mud on him)!

Conclusion: So it seems to me. I saw someone who wrote oppositely.

Gemara: And Rav Papi said, they argue [only] about annulment, for it is written "He annuls the thoughts of the shrewd."

Inference: Hafarah applies to thought alone, that [their schemes] did not yet take effect.

Gemara: For it is written "Lo Yachel Devaro."

Explanation: He will not uproot Chalos (taking effect) of his word. And we infer, others may uproot it. This implies that a Chacham can permit only if it took effect.

Gemara: He asks [to permit] the first.

Explanation: About the Mudar, and amidst this he is forbidden to the Chacham who permits him. Therefore, he returns and asks [to permit] him.

Gemara: If he wants, he could ask about this first!

Explanation: He can go to a Chacham, and say 'I vowed to forbid my property to Reuven, and I vowed also [to forbid] the Chacham when I will ask him. Now I want to ask Ploni the Chacham, and I regret that I forbade him to benefit from me;

Inference: Since it is not possible to do so, this teaches that a Chacham cannot permit unless the vow took effect.

Gemara: Who knows which is first and which is last?

Explanation: The Gemara rejects the one who brought this support. Who knows whom the Tana calls the first or the last? Perhaps he taught 'first' and 'second' for asking;

He asks about whichever he wants first, and that is called first, and the other, which he asks about it afterwards, is called last!

Gemara: It is R. Nasan

Explanation: He rejects that for Hafarah, he needs that the vow take effect, and all the more so for She'elah, for it is written "Lo Yachel";

However, really I can say that according to Rabanan, just like they argue about Hafarah, they argue also about She'elah.

Gemara: For it is written "Lo Yachel Devaro."

Explanation: This says that there was no action; "Devaro" implies a mere word, and not Chalos of the vow.

Explanation: We hold like Rabanan, who argue with R. Noson, and say that a husband can annul even though the Neder did not take effect [yet].

Source #1: When an individual argues with a Rabim, the Halachah follows the Rabim.

Source #2: R. Akiva, who said above (89a) that if a married woman said "I will be a Nazir when I am divorced", and she was divorced, he can annul...

You are forced to say that he holds that a husband can annul even though the Neder did not take effect [yet].

Source #3: The Sugya at the beginning of our Perek regarding "if I will bathe or not bathe" is like Rabanan, like I wrote about it (80a DH v'R. Yosi).

Implied question: Rava said "who is Chacham to do like this, if not Rav Acha?"

Inference: He praised him, for he acted like R. Noson. Since he praised him, this shows that the Halachah follows him.

Answer: This is not a proof. He praised him for [fulfilling all opinions, and] avoiding the argument, like I wrote above (DH v'Sharkei).

Conclusion: We cannot reject all the proofs I brought, [just] due to Rava's praise, for we can reject this, like I wrote.

Ruling: Therefore, we hold that a husband can annul, even though the vow did not take effect. Also the Ramban holds like this.

Qualification: This [ruling, that a husband can annul, even before the vow took effect] is when she made the vow dependent on something that she is prone to transgress, similar to "if I do according to my father or your father";

Since she is pained if she does not do according to them, it is as if she [already] did.

However, if she made a Tenai about a matter that she is not prone to transgress, he can annul only if the vow took effect.

Support: This is why we said at the beginning of our Perek "why can she get Hafarah? She will not bathe, and all Peros will not be forbidden to her", like I wrote about it (80a DH v'R. Yosi), with Hash-m's help.

Ruling: Regarding She'elah, we hold like Rav Papa, who said that they argue about Hafarah, but all agree that a Chacham can permit only if the vow took effect.

Support: Rabanan of blessed memory ruled like him to be stringent.

Opinion #1: One opinion holds that even so, one who says "matter Ploni is Konam to me after 30 days", it is considered as if the vow took effect, and a Chacham can permit it;

R. Noson and Rabanan argue only about one who makes his Neder dependent on "if [something occurs]", for it is possible that the vow will never take effect;

However, if he makes his Neder dependent on days, since in the end the Isur will take effect, even though it did not take effect yet, a Chacham can permit it.

Opinion #2: One opinion holds that even in such a case, since in any case he is still not forbidden, a Chacham cannot permit it.

Decision: I prefer the first opinion.

Explanation: In the Gemara, we establish this to discuss a Kohen's wife;

If it were a Yisrael's wife, if she was [Mezanah] willingly, she has no Kesuvah. If it was Ones, why does he divorce her? She is not forbidden to her husband!

Rather, it is a Kohen's wife, in a case of Ones. Granted, she is forbidden to him. She has a Kesuvah, for she can say "I am here. His (my husband's) field was ruined";

His Kedushas Kehunah caused that she is forbidden to him, for Ones is permitted to a Yisrael!

Therefore, his Mazel caused [the Isur]. Therefore, she has a Kesuvah.

Explanation: It is proven from the Gemara that she means that his semen does not shoot like an arrow at the time of Bi'ah, so he cannot father a child;

We establish this when she comes due to a claim. She says that she needs someone to support her in her old age, and bury her after death;

If not for this, her words have no effect. We tell her "go (i.e. we will not force your husband to divorce you). You are not commanded [to have children]", like it says in Kesuvos (64a) and Yevamos (65b).

Implied question: We say in Agadah that Sarah Imenu said to Avraham 'Shamayim is between me and you', for it says "Yishpot Hash-m Beini u'Veinecha"!

Inference: It means that he is totally distanced from her, like Sarah, who claimed against Avraham that he distanced her due to Hagar.

Support - Citation (Yerushalmi): Like the distance between Shamayim and the land, so that woman (she speaks about herself in the third person) is distanced from her husband.

Answer: Perhaps the expression "Shamayim is between me and you" includes everything. However, here, it is proven in the Gemara that it means that his semen does not shoot like an arrow;

When she says to him 'Shamayim is between me and you', she means "Hash-m is a witness between me and you that I tell the truth." This matter, only [I and] Hash-m know. (We say below that even her husband does not know.)

Mishnah: I am removed from the Jews.

Explanation: She forbade to herself pleasure of Bi'ah with all Jews. It is proven that Bi'ah is harsh (painful) for her. It is as if she is Anusah (forced). Therefore, we force him to divorce her and give a Kesuvah.

Mishnah: They retracted to say [differently], lest a woman put her eyes on someone else, and ruin (forbid) herself to her husband.

Explanation: Perhaps she will go to a place where they do not recognize her and her vow, and marry. (This is needed to explain why they retracted also in the last case. - PF)

Mishnah: She must bring a proof to her words.

Explanation: That she was raped. Without this, she is not forbidden to her husband.

Mishnah: They do in the method of request.

Explanation: The Yerushalmi explains, he makes a meal and appeases her; this is a good counsel.

Question: Since mi'Dina (according to letter of the law), when she says "I am Teme'ah (forbidden) to you" she is forbidden to her husband, like Mishnah Rishonah, how did [Chachamim] permit her, due to concern lest a woman desire another man,? Where did the Isur go?

Answer #1: Some answer that even though mi'Dina she is forbidden, Chachamim permitted her, and uprooted Torah law, to fence a matter b'Kum Aseh (through permitting an action, i.e. he may have Bi'ah with her);

This is a great fence, lest a woman desire another man, and uproot herself from her husband.

[Chachamim] have authority to do so, like it says in Yevamos (90b) "fencing a matter is different."

Question: Beis Din stipulate to uproot Torah law only passively (refraining from an action);

Alternatively, [they may] permit an action only for a Hora'as Sha'ah (a temporary enactment for a special need), such as Eliyahu (offering a Korban outside the Mikdash) on Har ha'Karmel. They may not do so for all generations!

Answer #1: This is not difficult. Just like we say in several places (Gitin 33a) that anyone who is Mekadesh, is Mekadesh according to Chachamim's intent, and [if one sent a Get with a Shali'ach, and was Mevatel a Get not in front of the woman or the Shali'ach, the Get is valid, for] Chachamim uprooted the Kidushin from him (retroactively, so they were never married);

Also here, anyone who says to her husband "I am Teme'ah to you", Chachamim uprooted the Kidushin from the beginning, so it turns out that at the time she was raped, she was single;

Therefore she is permitted to her husband, and she may also eat Terumah, like it says in the Gemara. (If she was never married, why may she eat Terumah? Either she was permitted to eat Terumah even before this marriage (she is a Bas Kohen, or a Kohen's widow with a child from him), or she eats after her next Bi'ah with her husband (it makes Eirusin and Nisu'in). However, all the Terumah she ate before, it turns out it was forbidden to her! - PF)

Question: According to this, we must say that we say so only when she says that she was raped and had Bi'ah with a man of Kosher lineage;

However, if she says "I am Teme'ah to you, for I was raped by a Nasin (one of the seven Kena'ani nations) or Mamzer, she is not permitted to her husband. (They disqualify even a single woman from Kehunah.) The Gemara does not connote like this.

Answer #2: Some say that Mishnah Rishonah is not mi'Dina (according to letter of the law). Mi'Dina, surely she is not believed to say "I am Teme'ah to you" to uproot herself from her husband. She is obligated to him!

Rather, because this matter "I am Teme'ah to you" is embarrassing for her to say, Mishnah Rishonah enacted to believe her. If it were not true, she would not disgrace herself to say so!

When later Rabanan saw that there is concern lest a woman desire another man, they left the law like Dina.

Gemara: May she eat Terumah?

Explanation: Perhaps for her husband, she is not believed, lest she put her eyes on someone else, but for Terumah she is believed.

Gemara: Lest she besmirch [the lineage of] her children.

Explanation: Since they see that we forbid her to eat Terumah, they will think that when she said 'I am Tamei to you', she says the truth, and they will besmirch her children (future children that will be born. The Gemara will say that if she was widowed, Rav Sheshes agrees that she may not eat, for there is no concern. - PF)

Gemara: It is possible for her to eat Chulin.

Explanation: People will say that she does not have Terumah.

Gemara: Now she was raped.

Explanation: After she was widowed, she was raped and had Bi'ah with someone forbidden to her, and was disqualified from Terumah.