Previous daf

1)

(a) Assuming that, in the previous case of 'Kayam Lechi ha'Yom' we cannot infer 'u'Mufar le'Machar' (and the Neder is upheld), Rabah asks what the Din will be if he says 'Mufar Lechi le'Machar' only. We must then assume - that if he were to expressly say 'Kayam Lechi ha'Yom u'Mufar le'Machar', the Kiyum would take effect, and not the Hafarah.

(b) Even though the previous She'eilah ('Mufar Lach le'Machar) clearly implies that the Hafarah would take effect too - that is because Rabah himself is not even clear of *that*, so he uses both possibilities in forming his other She'eilos.

(c) Still on the case of 'Mufar Lechi le'Machar' the Hafarah might not take effect, because his words imply that, today he is upholding the Neder. On the other hand, it might take effect - because, seeing as he did not specifically uphold the Neder today, perhaps he really meant his Hafarah to come into effect already today.

(a) Assuming the first side of the previous She'eilah (le'Chumra), Rabah asks what the Din will be by 'Kayam Lechi Sha'ah'. 'Kayam Lechi Sha'ah' is better than 'Kayam Lechi ha'Yom', which we already resolved le'Chumra - inasmuch as the entire day is subject to Hafarah (whereas the following day, implied in the previous She'eilah, is not).

(b) The She'eilah then is - whether 'Kayam Lechi Sha'ah' implies Hafarah after an hour, or whether we will say here too, that seeing as he did not say so specifically, we do not make the inference on our own initiative.

(c) Rabah's final She'eilah assumes that, in the current one, seeing as he did not expressly say 'Kayam Lechi Sha'ah *u'Mufar le'Achar Sha'ah*', his Neder is permanently upheld. He therefore asks what the Din will be if he expressly says it - whether we go after his Lashon, and annul his wife (or daughter)'s Neder after the one hour, or whether we say that, once a Neder is upheld, it can no longer be annulled.

(a) The Beraisa says that if a woman undertook Nezirus, and the husband heard her and said 'va'Ani' - he can no longer annul her Neder.

(b) We try to prove from here - that once a man upholds the Neder of his wife or daughter (even for an hour), it is permanently upheld; otherwise, why does the Tana not permit him to annul the Neder after an hour?

(c) We refute the proof however - on the grounds that 'va'Ani' implies that he intends to uphold the Neder permanently, more than 'Kiyem Lechi', which implies no more than a temporary Kiyum.

(a) The power of the ...

1. ... father is stronger than that of the Arus - inasmuch as, when the Arus dies, he is able to annul his daughter's Nedarim on his own; whereas in the reverse case, the Arus is not.
2. ... Arus is stronger than that of the father - inasmuch as he is able to annul the Nedarim of his betrothed even after she becomes a Bogeres, whereas a father cannot.

(b) We learn that when the Arus' father dies, the Arus is not permitted to annul her Nedarim on his own - from the Pasuk 'bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah, which teaches that under no circumstances, does a Na'arah leave her father's jurisdiction (provided of course, she is not married).

(c) From the Pasuk "ve'Im *Hayo Sihyeh* le'Ish, u'Nedarehah Alehah" - Rabah learns that the Torah compares the period prior to the second betrothal to the period prior to the first (when the father may annul his daughter's Nedarim on his own), permitting him to do so even after the termination of the first betrothal.

(d) This D'rashah cannot be confined to those Nedarim which the girl made before she became betrothed - because those Nedarim we already know from the Pasuk "bi'Ne'ureheh Beis Avihah".

5) The father will not be permitted to annul his daughter's Nedarim on his own after the Arus has divorced her - once she becomes betrothed a second time (in which case he can only annul her Nedarim in conjunction with the second Arus, as we shall see later).

6)

(a) We learned in our Mishnah that the power of the Arus is stronger than that of the father, inasmuch as he is able to annul the Nedarim of his betrothed even after she becomes a Bogeres. This cannot refer to a case where the Arus betrothed her when she was a Na'arah and she became a Bogeres later - because (bearing in mind that death and Bagrus take her out of her father's domain) if, in spite of that, her father's death does not place her under the Arus' jurisdiction (as regards Nedarim), why should Bagrus be able to do so?

(b) The problem with establishing our Mishnah when he betrothed when she was a Bogeres - is that we already know that from a Mishnah later (as we shall now see).

(c) What is wrong with the Mishnah 'Bogeres she'Shahasah Sh'neim-Asar Chodesh ... Yafer' - is that (with the exception of the rare case when the betrothal took place on the day when she became a Bogeres), it is not after twelve months that the Arusah can annul her Nedarim, but after thirty days.

(d) So we amend the Mishnah to read 'Bogeres ve'she'Shahasah Sh'neim-Asar Chodesh'.

(a) The problem of two Mishnahs telling us that an Arus is able to annul the Nedarim of his Arusah on his own, we resolve initially by establishing *our* Mishnah Dafka, whereas the Mishnah later mentions the case - to teach us the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Chachamim (as to whether an Arus can annul the Nedarim of an Arusah or not).

(b) Actually, the Mishnah later is as necessary as our's - seeing as the Machlokes there (in conjunction with our Mishnah) creates the corollary of 'Machlokes ve'Achar-Kach S'tam'.

(c) When we say that it is 'La'av Dafka' - we mean that the Tana specifically placed our Mishnah first (and then the Mishnah which contains the Machlokes between Rebbi Eliezer and the Rabbanan), to teach us that it (our Mishnah) is not Halachah (because of the principle 'S'tam ve'Achar-Kach Machlokes, Ein Halachah ki'S'tam').

(d) According to the second answer, it is the Mishnah later that is Dafka - and the Tana mentioned the case of Bogeres in our's only because, having stated in the Reisha 'Yafeh Ko'ach ha'Av mi'Ko'ach he'Arus', he wanted to state the reverse case of 'Yafeh Ko'ach he'Arus mi'Ko'ach ha'Av (as is the way of Tana'im), despite the fact that that opinion is not Halachah.