Explanation: [She vowed] on the day she had Nisu'in, like we established it above (72a) that she married, was divorced and remarried the same day;

He cannot annul, for the husband cannot annul Kodmim.

And if the remarrying is only Eirusin, he cannot annul with partnership of the father, for once she had Nisu'in, her father has no rights in her.

Implied question: Why does it say that she vowed that day [of Nisu'in? The same applies if she vowed long after Nisu'in!]

Answer: This teaches a bigger Chidush. Even though that same day she was in her father's Reshus before she vowed, even so, since she had Nisu'in, there is no solution [to annul the vow], even on that day itself.

Gemara: R. Yishmael says, he annuls.

Explanation: He holds that we follow when the vow takes effect, and not when it was said.

Gemara: R. Akiva says, he cannot annul.

Explanation: We follow when it was said.

Gemara: [The verse says that her vow will stand] only if the Neder is when she is a widow or divorcee.

Explanation: 'Neder' refers to when the vow takes effect. Therefore, both in the Reisha and in the Seifa, we should follow when it takes effect.

Gemara: [It will stand] only if Isur of the Neder [is when she is a widow or divorcee].

Explanation: When she forbids herself with the Neder. It all goes after the time that she vows.

Gemara: Like whom is our Mishnah? It is like R. Akiva

Explanation: He follows when it was said.

Explanation: R. Yishmael follows when the vow takes effect - this is when she made [her vow] dependent on Nisu'in or divorce;

Therefore, since the time of the Amirah (utterance) of the vow and the Chalos (when it takes effect) cannot be in one Reshus, R. Yishmael holds that we follow the Chalos;

However, [in] our Mishnah, she made it dependent only on days, and it is possible that the days will finish before she marries, or the days will finish before she is divorced, and it turns out that the Amirah and Chalos were in one Reshus...

Even when the Reshus changed, for she married or was divorced, R. Yishmael agrees that we follow the time of Amirah, and not the Chalos;

This is because at the beginning, it was possible for the Chalos to be in the same Reshus as at the time of Amirah.

Gemara: Regarding the Halachah.

Explanation: We hold like R. Akiva. Therefore, even if she says 'I will be a Nezirah when I marry' or 'when I am divorced', we follow the time of Amirah, whether this is a leniency or stringency.

Explanation: In Perek Na'arah Me'urasah (71a), a Mishnah teaches "the rule is, as long as she was never in her own Reshus for a moment, her father and husband annul her vows";

This includes when the father went with the husband's Sheluchim [bringing her to her husband for Nisu'in]. Even though she is with the husband's Sheluchim, since her father or his Sheluchim went with her, she did not leave her father's Reshus;

Her father and husband annul her vows.

Gemara: 'This is the general rule' that was taught regarding Elu Nedarim.

Explanation: I.e. in our Perek.

Explanation: Once [her father] handed her over to them, he has no authority over her;

This Mesirah (handing over) is like Nisu'in. Her husband annuls [alone] vows that she makes from Nisu'in and onwards;

However, he cannot [annul] vows that she already made, for the husband cannot annul Kodmim;

Also he cannot [annul] with partnership of the father, for through this Mesirah, she leaves her father's Reshus, and from now he has no rights in her.

Explanation: All nine of these are in three categories, i.e. an orphan in her father's lifetime (she was widowed or divorced from Nisu'in), a real orphan, and a Bogeres;

In each of these three ways, she leaves her father's Reshus.

Rabanan list only these three ways, like it says in the Gemara.

Note: On Amud B, Rav Yehudah says so according to Rabanan. "Rabanan" does not refer to the first Tana of our Mishnah. Also they divide each of the three into three! Rather, Rav Yehudah refers to Rabanan who argue with R. Yehudah and his first Tana. (PF)

However, R. Yehudah divides each of these three ways into three.

Citation (Yerushalmi): Even R. Yehudah said so only to sharpen the Talmidim.

Mishnah: A Bogeres, and she is an orphan.

Explanation: She vowed when she is a Bogeres, and an orphan in her father's lifetime, i.e. she had Nisu'in, and was widowed or divorced;

Once she had Nisu'in, her father has no rights in her.

Mishnah: A Na'arah, she became a Bogeres, and she is an orphan.

Explanation: She vowed when she was a Na'arah, and she became a Bogeres afterwards, and she is an orphan in her father's lifetime, and like I wrote [in the previous Dibur].

Mishnah: A Na'arah.

Explanation: She vowed when she was a Na'arah - she did not become a Bogeres yet - and she is an orphan in her father's lifetime.

These [first] three [cases, all] are included in an orphan in her father's lifetime.

Mishnah: A Bogeres, and her father died;

Explanation: When she vowed, she was a Bogeres, and her father died. She is a true orphan.

These [the second] three [cases, all] are included in when in her father died.

Mishnah: A Na'arah, her father died, and after his father died, she became a Bogeres...

Explanation: These [last] three [cases, all] are included in a Bogeres.

Mishnah: R. Yehudah says, even one who marries off his minor daughter... and she is still a Na'arah.

Explanation: He teaches that even if she was a minor when she had Nisu'in, she left her father's Reshus via this Nisu'in.

Implied question: Why does it teach 'and she is still a Na'arah'? The same applies even if she is a minor. Since she had Nisu'in, her father has no authority over her!

Answer: It taught a Na'arah, because vows of a minor have no effect. (Tosfos Yom Tov - if she is close to adulthood, we check her. If she knows to Whom she vowed, it takes effect! Indeed, 'Na'arah' merely comes to exclude a younger minor, whose vows are totally Batel. Beis She'arim (YD 313) - even close to adulthood, her vows take effect only if they forbid others (but she is exempt from Mitzvos). The Ran (68A DH Lomar) holds that also a father can annul only vows of Inuy Nefesh or matters between him and her. The former apply only to her, and also the latter (she cannot forbid her husband, for she is obligated to him), so they apply in adulthood! I (PF) question this. R. Akiva holds that she can forbid to her husband excess earnings; this is between him and her (Ran 85b DH R. Akiva)! And if she forbids her earnings to her father, is this not 'matters between him and her'?! Even though she is like a slave to her father (Kidushin 3b, according to Rashi), and he receives all her earnings, she is not obligated to work for him! Chazal never fixed how much a daughter must produce for her father!)

Gemara: However, Chachamim say, three Na'aros, their vows are a vow (they stand).

Explanation: These three include the nine of our Mishnah. Even R. Yehudah said [nine] only to sharpen the Talmidim, like I wrote in our Mishnah (89a, Sof DH Tesha).

Assertion: It seems to me that the Mishnah teaches "not only this, rather, even this";

Had it taught only the Reisha, one might have thought that therefore he can annul, because from now she is forbidden, either to benefit from her father due to her vow, or what she does based on his (her husband's) command due to her Tenai;

Since each of these ways has something no worse (less reason to permit Hafarah) than matters between him and her, therefore he can annul;

Therefore, we say that the vow took effect, since it is impossible that she will not be forbidden at least in matters between him and her.

Distinction: However, [in the Seifa, when she said] "that I will benefit from you [is forbidden] if I do based on the command of my father or your father, for in this Tenai of hers there is no Inuy Nefesh or matters between him and her, one might have thought that he cannot annul;

[The Seifa] teaches that this is not so. Since she made the vow dependent on a matter that she is prone to transgress, for a woman cannot withhold herself from doing [anything] based on the command of his father or her father, he can annul;

The Tana of our Mishnah holds that in such a case a husband can annul, even though the vow did not [yet] take effect.

Assertion: It seems to me that also the Tana of the Beraisa taught two ways for a bigger Chidush;

The first way is a Chidush according to Rabanan, and the latter for a Chidush in R. Noson;

The first way her vow is Inuy Nefesh, and like Rabanan, who hold that "Hana'ah from Ploni is forbidden to me" is Inuy Nefesh, like Shmuel said according to them above (82a);

The Tenai is matters between him and her, i.e. if I do based on your command.

One might have thought that since the Tenai is in one way, and the vow is in another way, even Rabanan hold that he cannot annul, since the Neder did not yet take effect;

The Beraisa teaches that this is not so. Even in such a case, according to Rabanan he can annul.

The other case, "I am withheld from Yehudim", was taught for a Chidush according to R. Noson;

Even though now she is forbidden matters between him and her, and the Tenai and Neder are in one way, for what can she do [and there will be no grounds for Hafarah]?

If she has Bi'ah [now with her husband], afterwards Bi'ah is forbidden. If she will not have Bi'ah, this is matters between him and her!

One might have thought that even R. Noson admits in such a case that he can annul, for it is called that the vow took effect;

The Beraisa teaches that this is not so. Even so, since the vow did not truly take effect, he cannot annul.

Gemara: A man said 'all benefit from the world is forbidden to me.'

Explanation: He forbade to himself benefit from people.

Gemara: If I will marry a woman before I learn.

Explanation: He wanted to learn Torah before marrying a woman, lest he be idle [from learning] due to her, like we say in Kidushin (29b) 'a millstone on his neck, and he will engage in Torah?!'

Gemara: He ran with his staff and sack.

Explanation: These are his staff and sack. He tried with all his strength to learn.

Gemara: He was not vigorous to learn.

Explanation: He did not succeed.

Gemara: He misled him.

Explanation: He tricked him, and said that he will not be forbidden afterwards, and married him to a woman in order that the vow will take effect.