Previous daf

1)

(a) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Pasuk "Bein Ish le'Ishto, Bein Av le'Bito" - that a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah needs to annul the Nedarim of the Arusah together with her father?

(b) He knows that this Pasuk is referring to a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah and not to a Nesu'ah - because the same Pasuk contains the phrase "bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah".

(c) Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns from "ve'Im Hayo Sihyeh le'Ish" (from which Rabah derived that both the Arus and the father need to annul the Arusah's Nedarim) - that the 'second Havayah is compared to the first', like Rabah (which will be explained later).

(d) The Rabbanan (who argue with Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael) learn the Hekesh of the second Kidushin to the first - from the same Pasuk (in addition to their basic Din that the Arus and the father both need to annul the Arusah's Nedarim).

3)

(a) Rabah (or Rava) learns from the Pasuk "Bein Ish le'Ishto ... " - that the husband may only annul Nedarim which affect their personal relationship (which will be explained in the following Perek).

(b)

1. Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns this - from the same Pasuk (in addition to his basic Din that the Arus and the father both need to annul the Arusah's Nedarim).
2. We know that, in addition, a husband can annul Nedarim which cause his wife pain - from the Torah, which explicitly writes "Le'anos Nafesh".

(c) The Sifri learns from the Hekesh of "Bein Ish le'Ishto Bein Av le'Bito" (comparing a man's daughter to his wife) - that a father is permitted to annul only those categories of Nedarim that a husband is permitted to annul.

(d) The Rambam however - is of the opinion that a father may annul all of his daughter's Nedarim.

(a) We ask a She'eilah whether an Arus cuts the Neder or whether he weakens it - meaning that we are unsure whether the Hafarah of the Arus annuls half of the Arusah's Neder quantitatively or qualitatively.

(b) The same She'eilah will apply to the father - should he annul his half of the Neder?

(c) The ramifications of this She'eilah are when the woman made a Neder not to eat two olives, the Arus annulled the Neder and she went and ate them. If his Hafarah cuts the Neder, then he would have nullified only one of the olives, whilst the Neder on the other one remained intact, in which case, she will receive Malkos for having contravened her Neder. Whereas if he weakened the Neder (on both olives), the Neder will remain intact, and she will not receive Malkos for having contravened it.

(d) Despite the fact that, if the Arus cut the Neder, he would have removed one of the two olives, she would nevertheless need to eat both olives in order to receive Malkos - because there is no way that one could have known which of the two olives his Hafarah had covered.

6)

(a) The Tana of the Beraisa lists all the cases where one of the two partners (the father and the Arus) dies: 1. 'Lo Shama ha'Ba'al Kodem she'Yamus, O she'Shama ve'Hefer O she'Shama ve'Shasak u'Meis Bo ba'Yom ... Nisroknah Reshus le'Av'. The two cases when the father cannot annul his daughter's Nedarim are - 'Shama (ha'Ba'al) ve'Kiyem' and 'Shama ve'Shasak u'Meis be'Yom she'le'Acharav'.

(b) If, in the last of the listed cases, the Arus died on the following day - the father will not be able to annul his daughter's Nedarim.

(c) Despite the fact that if the Arus annulled the Neder and then died, the father is obligated to annul the part of the deceased Arus, as well as his own, the same distinction (regarding annulling the Neder and dying on the same day or on the next) - will not apply as in the previous case. Either way, he will be able to annul the Nedarim, because, unlike in the previous case, in no way can we refer to the Neder as having been upheld by the Arus.

(d) We prove this from the Seifa, where the Tana says 'Aval Im Shama ve'Kiyem, O Shama ve'Shasak u'Meis be'Yom she'Acharav, Ein Yachol Lehafer'. If the same distinction would apply to 'Shama ve'Hefer', why did the Tana not include it in the list, particularly as it would be a bigger Chidush than the two listed cases (seeing as he did not uphold it, as we just explained)?

7)

(a) 2. 'Shama Avihah ve'Hefer Lah ve'Lo Hispik Ba'al Lishmo'a ad she'Meis ha'Av', Zu Hi she'Shaninu Meis ha'Av Lo Nisroknu Reshus le'Ba'al'. The reason that the Tana mentions 've'Lo Hispik Ba'al Lishmo'a' is - because a Neder that one of the parties did not know about during the second one's lifetime is weakened. In the previous case, the Tana specifically mentioned that he is speaking even when both parties heard about it; nevertheless, (despite the fact that the Neder is still in full force) the father is permitted to annul it; here, he teaches us that even though the Arus did not get to know about the Neder before the father died, he is nevertheless not permitted to annul it.

(b) 3. 'Shama Ba'alah ve'Hefer Lah ve'Lo Hispik ha'Av Lishmo'a ad she'Meis ha'Ba'al, Zu Hi she'Shaninu, Meis 'ha'Ba'al, Nisroknah Reshus le'Av'. The Tana mention here 've'Lo Hispik ha'Av Lishmo'a' (in spite of what we just said in the previous case - that this is more reason to say that the other partner should be able to annul the Neder) - because one can also say the opposite (like Beis Hillel later in case 5.); that because the Neder has been weakened, the father does not have sufficient to annul.

(c) 4. 'Shama Ba'alah ve'Hefer Lah ve'Lo Hispik ha'Av Lishmo'a ad she'Meis, Ein ha'Ba'al Yachol Lehafer, she'Ein ha'Ba'al Meifer Ela be'Shutfus'. The Chidush of this case (as opposed to the case of 'Shama Avihah ... ', case 2.) is - that despite the fact that the Neder was weakened by the father's not having known about it before he died, in addition to the fact that the Arus had already annulled the Neder, thereby weakening it further, the Arus may still not annul it; whereas in the earlier case, the annulment of the father fell away with his death, thereby leaving the Neder fully intact (making it more obvious that the Arus cannot annul the Neder).

(d) The Tana does not conclude 'Lo Nisroknah ... ', like in the earlier case - because in the earlier case, where the father knew about the Neder and even though he nullified it, his Hafarah became nullified, it is feasible to say 'Nisroknah', whereas in this case, where the father had not been aware of the Neder prior to his death, the term 'Nisroknah' would be out of place (and the only reason that the Arus cannot annul the Neder is because 'Ein ha'Ba'al Meifer Ela be'Shutfus').

(a) We learned above that 'Shama Avihah ve'Hefer Lah ve'Lo Hispik Ba'al Lishmo'a ad she'Meis ha'Av', Zu Hi she'Shaninu Meis ha'Av Lo Nisroknu Reshus le'Ba'al'. This cannot be due to the fact that the father had first weakened the Neder by annulling it, but that, had the Neder remained fully intact, the Arus would have been able to annul it - because if the Arus could annul the Neder when the father has not annulled it, he would also be able to annul it when he has, like we see from the case that follows it, where the father under exactly similar circumstances, is permitted to annul the Neder even when the Arus has already done so.

(b) It is not possible to distinguish between the father and the Arus when it comes to annulling a weakened Neder (to permit the former and forbid the latter) - because we see from the last case, where Beis Hillel forbids the father to annul the weakened Neder, that a father is subject to the restrictions of a weakened Neder too.

(a) 5. 'Shama Avihah ve'Hefer Lah, ve'Lo Hispik ha'Ba'al Lishmo'a ad she'Meis, Chozer ha'Av u'Meifer Chelko shel Ba'al'. Beis Shamai say 'Chozer ha'Av u'Meifer ... ', not because the father is obligated to repeat the Hafarah - but because having annulled his own part, he is also now obligated to annul the part of the Arus.

(b) Rebbi Nasan explains that this is the opinion of Beis Shamai, but that according to Beis Hillel, the father cannot annul the Neder - because when the Arus died, the father was left with a weakened Neder (due to the father's having annulled it), which is not now sufficiently significant for the father to inherit, and which cannot therefore not be annulled.

(c) The basis of their Machlokes is - whether one of the two partners cuts his part of the Neder (Beis Shamai - in which case, the Arus' part remains intact), or weakens the entire Neder (Beis Hillel - in which case, the part of the Arus has been weakened by the father's annulment).

(d) By citing this Machlokes - we have resolved our original She'eilah (whether the one partner cuts the Neder or weakens it), which has now turned out to be a Machlokes Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel.

(a) In the case of 'Shama Ba'alah ve'Hefer Lah ... ' (case 3.), even Beis Hillel agree that the father can annul the Neder, even though the Arus (apparently) weakened the Neder when he annulled it prior to his death - because, seeing as the Arus death negates his Hafarah (unlike Beis Hillel's case, where the father who annulled the Neder, is still alive). Consequently, the Neder is not weakened at all.

(b) If, in the last case, after the Arus dies, the girl became betrothed again on the same day - Beis Hillel agree that the Arus together with the father, can annul the Arusah's Nedarim.