Gemara: The silence affirms.

Explanation: As long as he was silent the entire day that he heard.

Gemara: If he affirmed in his heart, it is affirmed.

Explanation: He need not say it with his lips.

Assertion: We learn from silence on the day that he heard, which is Mekayem;

Why is it Mekayem? This is because since the day he heard passed, and he did not annul, he revealed his intent that he wants the Neder to be Mekuyam;

Inference: As long as it is in his heart to be Mekayem, this suffices, just the Torah gave the entire day for Hafarah, for until night, it is not proven that he wants to be Mekayem, for perhaps afterwards he will annul.

Since it depends only on his intent, from this we learn that whenever he was Mekayem in his heart, it is Mekuyam immediately. It is as if the day he heard passed;

Distinction: We say here that Hafarah in his heart is not Hafarah. This is only if he did not say "take and eat", but when he said so to her, this suffices, like I wrote above (77b DH Echad).

Gemara: If he affirmed, he cannot annul. If he annulled, he cannot affirm.

Explanation: For this matter, Kiyum is no stronger than Hafarah, and Hafarah is not stronger than Kiyum;

This was not taught due to strength, rather, since it teaches laws of Kiyum and Hafarah, it listed also this with them.

Gemara: Is it not that he was silent in order to vex?

Explanation: And even so, it taught that silence affirms, in any case that passed the day that he heard.

Gemara: No, he was silent in order to affirm.

Explanation: He wanted the vow to be fulfilled from now.

Gemara: A stringency of Hafarah - mina'Lan (what is the source)?

Explanation: Mina'Lan is not precise. We ask only what is the stringency of Hafarah (but not its source).

Gemara: One may ask to permit Kiyum.

Explanation: If he affirmed, he can ask about (permit) it on the same day, and he can annul that day.

Gemara: We do not ask to permit Hafarah.

Explanation: If he annulled, after he cannot ask to nullify that Hafarah.

Explanation: "Ki Hecherish Lah" refers to silence with intent to be Mekayem, i.e. intent to be Mekayem afterwards. He intends that it will be Mekuyam when the day that he heard passes.

Distinction: He does not intend that it be Mekuyam through this silence. If so, how could he annul the entire day that he heard?!

The silence with intent to be Mekayem here is unlike the cases of silence with intent to be Mekayem above.

Gemara: Extra words in the verse are written.

Explanation: There are three words [of silence] in the verse - "Hacharesh Yacharish" are two, and "Ki Hecherish Lah" is the third.

Gemara: Rava asked, if she vowed shortly before dark...

Implied question: [R. Chanina] was already refuted. Why do we challenge him further?

Answer: If we will find an answer to the above refutation, there will still be this refutation.

Gemara: If he did not annul and it became dark, he can no longer annul.

Explanation: This gives the reason why we annul on Shabbos, even if not needed for Shabbos, because the time [to annul] will pass, like I explained above (76b).

Explanation: If we say that one who is silent with intent to vex can annul, because the Hakamah was not with intent that the Neder be Mekuyam...

All the more so, if Rabanan would say that he cannot annul Nedarim not needed for Shabbos, he would be able to annul after dark!

He was silent on Shabbos not for the sake of Kiyum, rather, because he was unable to annul!

Conclusion: Rather, surely this implies that any silence is Mekayem.

Gemara: Rav Ashi asked, [if a man says] 'I know that there are vows...'

Explanation: That the vows that my wife took are vows.

Gemara: But I do not know that there is annulment.

Explanation: On the day that I heard, I did not know at all that a husband can annul his wife's vows.

Gemara: He can annul.

Explanation: On that day that he learned that a husband can annul. For him, that day is the day that he heard.

However, until now, no. It is called the day that he heard only when he knows the laws of Hafarah.

Gemara: But I do not know that this is a vow.

Explanation: That this is among the vows that a husband can annul.

Gemara: R. Meir says, he cannot annul.

Explanation: After the day that he heard. Since he knew that a husband can annul his wife's vows, it is called the day of hearing.

Explanation: Since he did not know that he could annul the Neder, this is not called the day that he heard;

If it is true that one who is silent with intent to vex can annul, why does R. Meir say that he cannot annul? He was silent only because he did not know that he can annul;

He should be like (or better than) one who was silent with intent to vex!

We find that Rabanan argue with R. Meir only because they hold that this is not considered hearing. If it were considered hearing, they would agree that he cannot annul!

Conclusion: Surely, this connotes that one who was silent with intent to vex cannot annul.

Ruling: Therefore, we hold that one who was silent with intent to vex is like Stam silence. He can annul only on the day he hears;

One who was silent with intent to be Mekayem immediately, after this he cannot annul, even the same day.

Mishnah: And these vows that he annuls.

Explanation: A husband can annul them. Also a father can annul for his daughter.

Mishnah: That they have in them affliction.

Implied question: The Gemara explains that likewise, he annuls matters between him and her. Why does it mention only these?

Answer: He annuls these totally, both for himself and for others [who will marry his wife after she is widowed or divorced]. This is unlike matters between him and her; he does not annul them for others, only for himself.

Mishnah: If I will bathe, if I will not bathe.

Explanation: The Gemara will explain how she said.

Explanation: This refers to adorning the face, e.g. Kechol (coloring the eyes) and Pikus (apply mudpacks to the face; some say, combing hair). Rabanan hold that he can annul this, due to Nidrei Inuy Nefesh;

However, lower adornment (the place of Bi'ah), even Rabanan agree to R. Yosi that they are not vows of affliction, rather, matters between him and her.

Proof #1: The Gemara proves like this, that we discuss adorning the face, for we say "the corresponding case taught is 'I will not adorn with kerosene.' This is sullying!"

Proof #2: It says also (81b) "whom have we heard that says that Kechol and Pikus are matters between him and her? It is R. Yosi." I.e. whereas according to Rabanan, they are Nidrei Inuy Nefesh. This is [learned from] our Mishnah. (Since R. Yosi says 'these are not Nidrei Inuy Nefesh', we infer that Rabanan say that they are. - PF);

However, adornment below is a matter between him and her.

Support: It says so explicitly in Kesuvos (71a) regarding "regarding poor girls, [one must divorce his wife if he forbade her from adorning through a vow, and] he did not limit the duration.

Gemara: R. Yosi says, these are not Nidrei Inuy Nefesh.

Explanation: The Gemara explains that according to R. Yosi, they are not Nidrei Inuy Nefesh, but they are matters between him and her.

Gemara: And these are Nidrei Inuy Nefesh.

Explanation: This is the conclusion of R. Yosi's words.

Gemara: He will bring to her Peros of a different state.

Explanation: Since she may eat Peros of a different state, this is not affliction.

Explanation: This grocer lets him buy on credit, and he cannot find another grocer that will give to him on credit. Sometimes he has no coins, and she will be afflicted (he cannot feed her)! Therefore, he can annul it.

Assertion: Presumably, also according to R. Yosi, when she vowed from Peros of the state she lives in, he can annul it. [A vow from Peros of] her state is no less [prone to cause Inuy Nefesh] than a grocer who lets him buy on credit!

Implied question: The Mishnah says that [he cannot annul, for] he can bring to her from another state!

Answer: That is when she did not vow from Peros of her state (rather, from a different state).

Gemara: These are R. Yosi's words.

Explanation: The Gemara explains why this is needed. [Seemingly, it is not needed,] for at the beginning of the matter it taught 'R. Yosi said.'

Gemara: When he will divorce her, they will take effect.

Explanation: And they are forbidden to her, even if he remarried her.

Explanation: This is a Mishnah in this Perek (85a). The Reisha teaches [that if a wife told her husband] "what I produce is Konam to you", he need not annul;

This is because she is obligated to work for him, and Chachamim strengthened a husband's lien, so that Konam will not uproot it.

R. Yochanan ben Nuri says, he annuls it, for if he does not annul, the vow will take effect when (i.e. if) he divorces her, she will be forbidden to remarry him, lest he benefit from her. Therefore, he should annul.

Inference: When he annuls initially, even after divorce her vow does not take effect, even though her earnings are matters between him and her.

Gemara: Both for himself.

Explanation: His Hafarah helps, whether it is proper for the one who annulled...

Gemara: Whether for others.

Explanation: Even if he divorced her, and she married someone else.

Gemara: But if there is no affliction.

Explanation: Rather, they are matters between him and her.

Gemara: He annuls for himself; for others, he does not annul.

Explanation: Since she married someone else, his Hafarah is Batel, and her vow takes effect.

It teaches as follows. And these vows, he annuls for himself and for others. Since it taught 'he annuls' Stam, this implies permanent Hafarah.

Gemara: How did she say?

Explanation: [We ask,] for Konam does not apply to 'if'!

Explanation: Since it did not teach that she vowed about bathing itself, this teaches that [not] bathing is not Inuy Nefesh;

Since there is no Inuy, why is there Hafarah for her?

Inference: Since we say this expression, "why is there Hafarah for her", and also we say "she should not bathe, and all Peros will not become forbidden to her", this implies that as long as she did not bathe, Peros are not forbidden to her, and we are not concerned lest she bathe.

Question: Rav Yehudah taught above (14b) that if one said "Konam (an Isur is upon) my eyes to sleep today if I will sleep tomorrow", he may not sleep today;

We are concerned lest he sleep tomorrow, for one is not careful about a Tenai (even if this causes that he transgressed his vow retroactively).

Also here, we should be concerned lest she bathe, and Peros should be forbidden to her now!

Answer: This is not difficult. If she explicitly said all Peros are forbidden to me from today if I bathe, indeed [we would be concerned];

However, since she made her vow dependent on "if" [she bathes], it connotes that her vow begins only after she transgresses the Tenai.

Explanation: He does not question R. Yosi's law. How could he challenge why he cannot annul, lest she wash? (I.e. this concern does not permit him to annul.)

We asked oppositely against the first Tana that [he should not be able to annul]. She should not bathe, and not be forbidden all Peros!

Rather, the wording is difficult. He said "these are not Nidrei Inuy Nefesh." This implies that he does not argue with what the first Tana is concerned for, lest she bathe;

Rather, he said that even so, these are not Nidrei Inuy Nefesh. This is surely difficult. Since he admits that perhaps she will bathe, there is Inuy Nefesh on the primary Neder;

If it were true that he does not agree to him [to be concerned], he should have said "he cannot annul due to Nidrei Inuy Nefesh"!