The Gemara raises a difficulty with Rabbi Ami’s explanation of Rabbi Eliezer’s opinion: We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Eliezer said: Just as with regard to a woman he acquired for himself through betrothal, he nullifies her vows, so too with regard to a woman acquired for him from Heaven, i.e., the yevama, isn’t it logical that he should be able to nullify her vows? Now if Rabbi Ami’s interpretation is correct, and the mishna is referring to a case where a yavam performed levirate betrothal, then it is actually a case where he acquired a woman for himself by performing levirate betrothal. The Gemara answers: Nevertheless, it is a case where he acquired for himself a woman who was imposed upon him by means of Heaven.

The Gemara raises another difficulty with Rabbi Ami’s interpretation, in that if it is correct, you can resolve the dilemma that Rabba raised: Does levirate betrothal, according to Beit Shammai, merely effect betrothal, or does it effect full-fledged marriage? According to Rabbi Eliezer, you can resolve the dilemma by proving that it effects marriage. The proof is as follows: Because if levirate betrothal effects only betrothal, why does the mishna mention only the yavam with regard to nullification of vows? Didn’t we learn in a mishna (Nedarim 66b) that with regard to a betrothed young woman, her father and her husband together nullify her vows? If levirate betrothal renders her betrothed to the yavam, the father should also be mentioned as a partner in the nullification.

Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: This does not resolve the dilemma, as what could be the meaning of nullify in the mishna? It could mean that he nullifies vows in partnership with the father.

The Gemara comments: It is also taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer is addressing a case where levirate betrothal has been performed, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Ami: With regard to a widow awaiting her yavam, whether she is waiting for one yavam, if her late husband had only one brother, or for two or more yevamin, Rabbi Eliezer says: The yavam can nullify her vows, and Rabbi Yehoshua says: He can nullify her vows only in a case where she is waiting for one yavam, but not if she is waiting for two. Rabbi Akiva says: Nullification is not possible at all, not if she is waiting for one, and not if she is waiting for two or more.

The baraita continues: Rabbi Eliezer said to his disputants: And just as if one accepts that a man cannot nullify the vows of a woman in whom he has no share until she enters into his jurisdiction through betrothal, yet once she enters into his jurisdiction, she is fully under his authority for the nullification of her vows, so too with regard to a woman in whom he has a share before she enters his jurisdiction, i.e., his yevama, once she enters his jurisdiction, is it not logical that she be fully under his authority for the nullification of her vows?

The baraita continues: Rabbi Akiva said to him: No, your a fortiori inference is refutable. If you spoke of a man having authority over the vows of a woman he acquired for himself through betrothal, that would be different: Just as he has no share in her before betrothal, so too others have no share in her. Will you say the same with regard to a woman who is acquired for him from Heaven, i.e., his yevama, for whom, just as he has a share in her, so do others, i.e., his brothers, also have a share in her, as they also are yevamin?

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: Akiva, your statement fits a situation with two yevamin, but what do you answer for the case of one yavam? Rabbi Akiva replied to him: Did we distinguish between one yavam and two yevamin, regardless of whether he performed levirate betrothal or whether he did not perform levirate betrothal? And just as in other matters there is no such distinction, so too with regard to vows.

The baraita adds a comment: Ben Azzai stated his response to hearing this discussion in this language: Woe [ḥaval] to you, ben Azzai, that you did not serve Rabbi Akiva properly.

Since this baraita was cited in support of Rabbi Ami’s interpretation, the Gemara asks: In what way