Previous daf

1)

(a) Rebbi Yehudah said in our Mishnah 'be'Yisrael Chodesh Echad Yekayem ... be'Kohen Sh'nayim Yekayim ... '. According to Abaye, Rebbi Yehudah is coming to teach us that a Kohen waits two months -according to Rava, he holds that a month comprises twenty-nine days, whereas the Tana Kama considers it to be thirty days.

(b) According to Rav, it is only if he specified a time up to thirty days that the husband is permitted to feed his wife through a trustee. If he did not specify a time (S'tam) - he must divorce her immediately and pay her Kesuvah.

(c) According to Shmuel - even if he did not specify any time-period he must feed her through a trustee for thirty days, in case he finds a way of nullifying his vow.

(a) Rav and Shmuel argue over the same point in 'Af-al-pi' (regarding the Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel about a man who makes a Neder forbidding his wife from having Tashmish with him) as they are here, and for the same reasons, apparently duplicating their views here. Had Rav said his Din in 'Af-al-Pi' (but not here), we would have thought - that there (in the case of S'tam) he must send his wife away and pay her Kesuvah because immediately, because it is *not possible to appoint a trustee*; whereas in our case, where it *is*, he will agree with Shmuel, that even by S'tam, the husband may wait thirty days before divorcing her.

(b) We learned in our Mishnah that if a man made a Neder forbidding his wife to eat a certain type of fruit even for one day, he is obligated to divorce her immediately and pay her Kesuvah. Rav resolves the discrepancy between the Reisha and the Seifa - by establishing (the Reisha when he specified the time-period as we just explained, and the Seifa by S'tam.

(c) Shmuel (who does not differentiate between whether the husband mentioned a time-period or not) will resolve the apparent discrepancy - by establishing the Seifa when the woman made the Neder, but her husband upheld it by remaining silent (and this Tana holds 'Hu Nosen Etzba bein Shinehah' (he is responsible for her Nedarim should he fail to nullify them - which is why he has to pay her Kesuvah). In any event, there is no point in waiting, seeing as by virtue of her having made the Neder, she has indicated that she does not want to eat the fruit; whereas the Reisha speaks when *he* made the Neder, so we wait thirty days to see whether she will comply or not.

(d) According to Shmuel then, the author of our Mishnah, who holds 'Hu Nosen Etzba Bein Shinehah'' - is Rebbi Meir (because S'tam Mishnah, Rebbi Meir).

(a) Rebbi Meir and Rebbi Yehudah say in a Beraisa that if a woman who took the Nazarite vow and her husband did not nullify it, he is entitled to divorce her (because he can argue 'I Efshi be'Ishah Nadranis') without a Kesuvah, should he so wish. This ruling - is based on the principle 'Hi Nasnah Etzba bein Shinehah'.

(b) According to Rebbi Yossi and Rebbi Elazar - he will be obligated to pay her Kesuvah, because they hold 'Hu Nasan Etzba bein Shinehah'.

(c) In order to resolve the discrepancy in Rebbi Meir - we switch the opinions in the Beraisa (Rebbi Meir ve'Rebbi Yehudah Omrim Hu Nasan ... , Rebbi Yossi ve'Rebbi Elazar Omrim Hi Nasnah).

(d) Rebbi Yossi now holds Hi Nasnah Etzba ... '. To resolve the discrepancy in Rebbi Yossi, who says in our Mishnah, that if a poor woman made a Neder not to adorn herself, he divorces her immediately and *pays her Kesuvah* (because 'Hu Nasan Etzba ... ') - we amend the Beraisa again to 'Rebbi Meir ve'Rebbi Yossi Omrim Hu Nasan, Rebbi Yehudah ve'Rebbi Elazar Omrim Hi Nasnah'.

(a) Rebbi Yehudah in our Mishnah, who says 'be'Yisrael, Yom Echad Yekayem ... ', forces us to amend the above Beraisa once more - because we now see that he holds 'Hu Nasan ... ', and not 'Hi Nasnah ... '.

(b) The Beraisa now reads Rebbi Meir, ve'Rebbi Yehudah, ve'Rebbi Yossi Omrim, Hu Nasan ... , ve'Rebbi Elazar Omer Hi Nasnah ... '.

(c) Alternatively, we prefer to learn the two opinions in the Beraisa as two pairs, in which case it will read 'Rebbi Meir ve'Rebbi Elazar Omrim Hi Nasnah; Rebbi Yehudah ve'Rebbi Yossi Omrim, Hu Nasan'. To reconcile this with our S'tam Mishnah, which (as we established earlier) holds 'Hu Nasan Etzba ... ' - we will then have to admit that the author of *this* S'tam Mishnah is not Rebbi Meir.

(a) The Tana Kama of the Mishnah in Nedarim, listing Nidrei Inuy Nefesh (Nedarim that the husband is permitted to nullify due to the anguish that they cause his wife), includes Nedarim that concern the woman washing herself and adorning herself. Rebbi Yossi says - that these are not considered 'Inuy Nefesh', so he cannot nullify them.

(b) We initially reconcile this with Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah, who penalizes a husband who upheld his poor wife's Neder not to adorn herself (by obligating him to pay her Kesuvah, an indication that he *is* authorized to nullify Nedarim concerning a woman not wearing make-up) - by establishing the case there by a Neder not to apply hair-remover, which falls under the category of Nedarim that are 'Beino le'Beinah' (connected with intimacy, another category of Neder that a husband is permitted to nullify), and which he has the authority to nullify.

(c) Besides not to eat meat or to drink wine - Nidrei Inuy Nefesh according to Rebbi Yossi, includes a Neder not to wear pretty clothes, because it is a disgrace for a woman to walk around in plain clothes, and will cause her husband to detest her.

6)

(a) Rav Huna holds that a husband has the authority to nullify Nedarim she'Beino le'Veinah - according to Rav Ada bar Ahavah, he does not, because 'who has ever heard of a fox suffocating in the earth of his lair?' (so too, is a man not in danger of coming to grief because his wife has hair, since he is used to it).

(b) We establish Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah according to Rav Ada bar Ahavah (who, we just saw, holds that a man cannot nullify Nedarim she'Beino le'Veinah) - when she connects the Neder of not putting on make-up with Tashmish (forbidding his Tashmish on herself should she put on make-up).

(c) Besides the fact that she is Meshubad to her husband for Tashmish - such a Neder is valid, provided she forbids his Tashmish on her and not vice-versa (since, as Rav Kahana explained), although a Neder forbidding her Tashmish on her husband would not be valid, one forbidding his Tashmish on her, is, because one does not feed someone a thing that is forbidden to him.

(d) We do not then say ...

1. ... Let her not adorn herself and she will not become forbidden to her husband (so how can her husband nullify it) - because then people will call her ugly, forcing her to adorn herself and become forbidden to her husband (turning it into a Neder she'Beino le'Beinah - and presumably, when it comes to a Neder that leads to not performing Tashmish, even Rav Ada bar Ahavah will agree).
2. ... Let her adorn herself and become forbidden for one week, according to Beis Shamai, and for two weeks, according to Beis Hillel - because that speaks when her husband made the Neder. But here, it is *she* who made the Neder and he remained silent, in which case she believes that he hates her and living with him becomes unbearable (even for one or two weeks).

(a) According to Rebbi Yossi in our Mishnah, when the husband specifies a time-limit (regarding the Neder of not putting on make-up of a poor woman) we do not force him to divorce his wife and pay her Kesuvah for twelve months, according to Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel. Rav Chisda Amar Avimi gives the time limit as until the following Yom-Tov - because it is customary for Jewish women (even poor ones) to adorn themselves on Yom-Tov.

(b) Rabah bar bar Chanah Amar Rebbi Yochanan - gives the time period as being ten years.

(c) Rebbi Yossi gives the time-limit by a rich woman as thirty days - because that is the period of time that the aroma of the make-up that she applies, lasts.

(a) If a husband makes a Neder forbidding his wife to visit her father, the time-limit that he is permitted to remain with her and not pay her Kesuvah, if her father lives ...

1. ... in the same city as they do - is one month. After that, he is obligated to divorce her and pay her Kesuvah.
2. ... in another city - is one Yom-Tov (see following question).

(b) If he forbids her to go to visit the Aveilim or to attend weddings - he must divorce her immediately and pay her Kesuvah.

(a) The Tana writes (with regard to a Neder forbidding his wife to visit her father who lives in another city) 'Regel Echad, Yekayem; Sheloshah, Yotzi'. The significance of Regel in this case, is - that a woman tended to visit her father on Yom-Tov.

(b) *Two* Regalim appears to be a clash of inferences. Abaye answers that the Seifa refers to a Kohenes, and that the author is Rebbi Yehudah - who maintains (in our Mishnah) that we give a Kohen extra time (an extra month, with regard to Madir Hana'ah, and an extra Yom-Tov here), because once he has divorced his wife, he will not be permitted to take her back.

(c) Rabah bar Ula solves the problem by establishing the Reisha by a woman who feels the need to return to her father's house, because she is unhappy with her husband, or precisely because she *is* happy with him, as we shall now see).

(a) Rebbi Yochanan interprets the Pasuk "Az Hayisi be'Einav ke'Mutz'eis Shalom" to mean - the relationship between K'lal Yisrael and Hashem will be like a Kalah who is content in the house of her father-in-law (happy with her husband) and who is eager to give her father a report.

(b) Rebbi Yochanan or Rebbi Yonasan explains the Pasuk in Hoshei'a "ve'Hayah ba'Yom ha'Hu Ne'um Hashem, Tikre'i Ishi ve'Lo Tikre'i Ba'ali" to mean - that, on that day, Yisrael will refer to Hashem as 'Ishi', like a bride in her father-in-law's house (i.e. after her wedding when she is familiar with her husband), and not 'Ba'ali', like a bride who is still in her father's house (before her wedding, when she is still shy in his presence).