תניא כוותיה דרבי אמי דקתני בין שעשה בה מאמר ובין שלא עשה בה מאמר

is it taught in the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami? The Gemara explains that support for Rabbi Ami’s opinion is found in that which is taught in the baraita, as Rabbi Akiva mentions the following distinction: Whether he performed levirate betrothal or whether he did not perform levirate betrothal. This indicates that Rabbi Eliezer’s statement is referring to a yevama with whom he performed levirate betrothal.

אי נמי מרישא דקתני משנכנסה לרשותו נגמרה לו ואי דלא קדיש מאי נגמרה לו תפשוט מיניה כשעשה בה מאמר

Alternatively, support can be derived from the first clause of the baraita, which teaches: Once she enters his jurisdiction, she is fully under his authority. If the baraita is referring to a situation where he did not betroth her in levirate betrothal, in what sense is she fully under his authority? Deduce from it that the situation is one in which he has performed levirate betrothal.

מאי וכשאר דברים כן נדרים דקתני אמר רבא הכי קתני אי אתה מודה שאין חייבין סקילה כנערה המאורסה

The Gemara then asks with regard to the baraita itself. What is the meaning of the phrase: And just as in other matters there is no such distinction, so too with regard to vows, that Rabbi Akiva teaches in the baraita? Rava said: This is what Rabbi Akiva is teaching: Do you not concede that one is not liable to be punished with stoning for adulterous relations with a yevama as he would be if she were a betrothed young woman? The status of the relationship is inferior to proper marriage, as one who engages in sexual intercourse with a yevama does not incur the death penalty. Accordingly, the authority of the yavam with regard to vows is also inferior.

אמר רב אשי מתניתין נמי דיקא אין יבמה גמורה לאישה כשם שארוסה גמורה לאישה

Rav Ashi said: The mishna (74a) is also precisely formulated to indicate this, as it teaches: A yevama is not her husband’s full-fledged wife in the same manner that a betrothed woman is her husband’s full-fledged wife.

מתני׳ האומר לאשתו כל הנדרים שתדורי מכאן עד שאבא ממקום פלוני הרי הן קיימין לא אמר כלום הרי הן מופרין רבי אליעזר אמר מופר וחכמים אומרים אינו מופר אמר רבי אליעזר אם הפר נדרים שבאו לכלל איסור לא יפר נדרים שלא באו לכלל איסור

MISHNA: One who says to his wife: All vows that you will vow from now until I arrive from such and such a place are hereby ratified, has not said anything, i. e., the vows are not ratified. However, if he states that all vows that she will take until then are hereby nullified, Rabbi Eliezer said: They are nullified, while the Rabbis say: They are not nullified. Rabbi Eliezer said in explanation: If one can nullify vows that have reached the status of a prohibition, i. e., that have already taken effect, shall he not be able to nullify vows that have not reached the status of a prohibition?

אמרו לו הרי הוא אומר אישה יקימנו ואישה יפרנו את שבא לכלל הקם בא לכלל הפר לא בא לכלל הקם לא בא לכלל הפר

The Rabbis said to him in response: The verse states:“ Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may ratify it, or her husband may nullify it” (Numbers 30:14). This teaches: That which has reached the status of eligibility for ratification, i. e., a vow that she has already taken, has reached the status of eligibility for nullification. However, a vow that has not reached the status of eligibility for ratification has not reached the status of eligibility for nullification either, and it cannot be nullified.

גמ׳ איבעיא להו לרבי אליעזר מיחל חלין ובטלין או דלמא לא חלין כלל למאי נפקא מינה

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to Rabbi Eliezer, do the vows that the husband nullifies in advance take effect momentarily and are then canceled immediately after? Or perhaps they do not take effect at all. The Gemara inquires: In what case is there a difference between these possibilities?