[73a - 44 lines; 73b - 38 lines]
1)[line 10]כל דמקדש אדעתא דרבנן מקדשKOL D'MEKADESH A'DA'ATA D'RABANAN MEKADESH
(a)Under certain specific circumstances, the Rabanan "uprooted" Kidushin which were valid mid'Oraisa in order to protect a man or woman from the effects of a Get or Kidushin that might cause them permanent torment. The reason the Rabanan are able to uproot Kidushin in this manner is because of the principle of "Kol d'Mekadesh...." This principle teaches that every man who is Mekadesh a woman (by means of Kesef, Shtar, or Bi'ah; see Kidushin 2a) bears in mind that if (either at present or in the future) the Rabanan do not approve of his Kidushin, it should retroactively (see Insights to Kesuvos 3:1) not be valid. (Even if a person claims, or announces, that he is an exception to the rule, and he does not have in mind such a condition, it makes no difference - RITVA to Kesuvos 3a.) It is for this reason that we announce, upon effecting a Kidushin, that the Kidushin is being done "k'Das Moshe v'Yisrael" (i.e., in accordance with Torah law and with Rabbinical enactments), as Rashi and the Rishonim (ibid.) explain.
(b)The Rabanan retroactively uprooted Kidushin with the principle of "Kol d'Mekadesh" only when a man gave a Get (divorce document) to his wife but for some reason it was not valid mid'Oraisa. When no Get at all was given, though, the Rabanan did not retroactively uproot the Kidushin (RASHBA and Rishonim ibid.). According to some (RASHI Shabbos 155b), the Rabanan also uprooted Kidushin (when necessary) in cases where evidence was presented that the husband died but the evidence was not acceptable mid'Oraisa.
(c)Sometimes the Rabanan saw reason to annul the Kidushin from its onset (that is, for the future, as opposed to retroactively) because the husband effected the Kidushin in an unjust manner. In such cases, they annulled the Kidushin even though no Get at all was presented. According to some, it is not even necessary to evoke the principle of "Kol d'Mekadesh" to revoke the Kidushin in such cases. Since the husband acted unjustly, the Rabanan were able to revoke his Kidushin by "overriding" the Torah law. (See Yevamos 90b, and TOSFOS Bava Basra 48b DH Teinach.)
2)[line 11]ואפקעינהו רבנן לקדושיןV'AFKE'INHU RABANAN L'KIDUSHIN- and the Chachamim uprooted the Kidushin [retroactively]
3)[line 16]הכישו נחשHIKISHO NACHASH- a snake bit him
4)[line 19]שלחו מתםSHALCHU MI'TAM- the Chachamim sent [a teaching] from there (from Eretz Yisrael to Bavel)
5)[line 19]אכלו ארי אין לנוACHLO ARI, EIN LANU- [in a case where] a lion ate him, we do not have [any reason to assume that the Get is valid] (RASHI). The RAMBAM (Hilchos Gerushin 9:18) says that although they had no reason to validate the Get, they also had no reason to invalidate it, and thus it remains a doubtful Get.
6a)[line 20]דזבין ארעא לחבריהD'ZAVIN AR'A L'CHAVREI- who sold land to his friend
b)[line 20]קביל עליה כל אונסא דמתילידKABIL ALEI KOL ONSA D'MISYALID- he accepted upon himself any accident that might come about
7)[line 21]אפיקו בה נהראAPIKU BAH NAHARA- they brought through it (the land) a river (at the king's order)
8)[line 22]זיל שפי ליהZIL SHAFI LEI- go be at peace with him (i.e. let the buyer have the land)
9)[line 24]אונסא דלא שכיחONSA D'LO SHECHI'ACH- it is an accident that is rare
10)[line 25]איגלגל מילתאIGALGEL MILSA- the matter went around (unanswered)
11)[line 30]לא מותבינן תיובתא מינהLO MOSVINAN TIYUVTA MINEI- we cannot ask a contradiction from it?!
12)[line 33]ומשבשתאU'MESHABESHTA- and it is faulty, incorrect
13)[line 33]סבראSEVARA- logic
14)[line 34]זבן שומשמי אגידא דנהר מלכאZAVAN SHUMSHEMEI A'GIDA D'NEHAR MALKA- bought sesame seeds on the bank of the River Malka
15)[line 35]אגור מלחי לעבורינהוAGUR MALACHEI L'ABURINHU- they hired boaters to transport them
16)[line 37]איסתכרISTAKAR- (O.F. escluse) [the river] became stopped-up
17)[line 37]אגורו חמריAGURU CHAMAREI- hire donkey drivers
18)[line 38]אפקעינהו ניהלןAFKE'INHU NIHALAN- bring them (the sesame seeds) to us
19)[line 40]קאקי חיורי משלחי גלימי דאינשיKAKEI CHIVREI MESHALCHEI GELIMEI D'INSHEI- you white geese (i.e. old men) who strip the shirts off of people's backs
20)[line 43]שלבה גס בהSHE'LIBAH GAS BAH- that she (the wife) is familiar with her (i.e. her maidservant, and thus would not be embarrassed to do private things in her presence)
21)[line 3]באפילהB'AFEILAH- in the dark
22)[line 4]תחת מרגלות המטהTACHAS MARGELOS HA'MITAH- beneath the legs of the bed
23)[line 11]באתננהB'ESNANAH- with her payment as the wage of a harlot
24)[line 18]מידי כספים קתני?MIDI KESAFIM KA'TANI?- does the Mishnah mention anything about money?
25)[line 31]דלא כחדD'LO K'CHAD- it is not like any of the opinions (that appear in the Beraisa)
26)[line 36]מעת שאני בעולםME'ES SHE'ANI BA'OLAM- from the [last] moment that I am in the world (i.e. alive)
27)[line 37]בעלה זכאי במציאתה ובמעשה ידיהBA'ALAH ZAKAI B'METZI'ASAH UV'MA'ASEI YADEHA- her husband is entitled to receive any objects that she finds (that a finder is allowed to keep) and her Ma'aseh Yadayim (her earned income)
28)[last line]ובהפרת נדריהUV'HAFARAS NEDAREHA (HAFARAS NEDARIM) - the annulment of her vows
(a)A man has the right to annul certain vows of his wife and his young daughter, as the Torah states in Bamidbar 30:6, 9, 13-14. He accomplishes this by stating, on the day that he hears the vow, "Mufar Lach" ("[the vow] is annulled"). There is an argument among the Tana'im whether the vow must be annulled before nightfall on the day the husband/father heard it, or before 24 hours pass from when he heard it (Nedarim 77a); the former is the Halachic opinion.
(b)A father may annul his daughter's vows while she is young, starting from the age at which her vows are valid (11 years old) until she becomes a Bogeres (six months after she becomes a Na'arah by growing two pubic hairs). If the father marries her off before she becomes a Bogeres, during the period of Eirusin both the father and the husband, or "Arus," must annul the vows in order for the annulment to be effective. After the consummation of the marriage through Nisu'in, the husband may annul the vows by himself. The father no longer has rights over her vows after her marriage, even if she is divorced before becoming a Bogeres.
(c)If the father or husband is "Mekayem" the vow even before the day is over (i.e., he upholds or endorses the vow; this is also referred to as "Kiyum" or "Hakamah"), by stating "[the vow] is endorsed," he can no longer be Mefer the vow. His wife or daughter must abide by her vow. (There is a disagreement among the Poskim as to whether the wife or daughter can remove the Neder through Hataras Nedarim after Hakamah, see Insights to Nedarim 69:1:a:1.)