Previous daf

1)

(a) If a betrothed girl who is divorced, becomes betrothed again - the second Arus in conjunction with her father annuls the Nedarim that she declared whilst she was betrothed to the first Arus (though this is not evident from the Mishnah itself, as we shall see).

(b) If she became a Bogeres before becoming betrothed the second time, or if the man who divorced her was her husband (and not just an Arus) - those Nedarim are no longer subject to annulment.

(a) Shmuel learns from the Pasuk "ve'Im Hayo Sihyeh le'Ish u'Nedarehah *Alehah*" - that the second Arus may even annul the Nedarim that the Arusah declared whilst she was betrothed to the first Arus.

(b) Shmuel himself asked the Kashya 'Minalan', which prompted his answer.

(c) Even if our Mishnah was speaking in a case when the first Arus was not aware of the Arusah's Nedarim, the Tana would need to stress that she was divorced on the same day - in a case when *the father* was aware of his daughter's Nedarim.

(d) What makes us so certain that Shsmuel is not merely finding the source for the Din mentioned by the Tana of our Mishnah - is the statement 'Tanya Kavasei di'Shmuel', seeing as the Beraisa proves Shmuel's statement, not the source that he brings.

(a) We suggest that the Pasuk "(u'Nedarehah *Alehah*") might be confined to Nedarim about which the first Arus had been unaware. Those Nedarim that he knew about however, can only be annulled by her father ('Nisroknah'). The other alternative is - that, since the Arus cannot annul them, the father cannot annul them either.

(b) Shmuel in fact knows to include even Nedarim of which the first Arus was aware, from "Alehah" - because, in his opinion, the word is superfluous, and we Darshen from it 'all Nedarim that are on her' (even those of which the first Arus was aware).

(c) We learned a Beraisa in support of Shmuel. The case in the Reisha is exactly the same as that of Shmuel. The Tana Kama of the Beraisa says in the Seifa, where the first Arus heard about the Arusah's Neder, annulled it and then died - that the father, who did not hear about the Neder before, now annuls his own part as well as the part of the Arus.

(d) Despite the fact that the Arus already annulled his part of the Neder, the father needs to annul it again, because when the Arus died, his Hafarah became negated.

(a) Rebbi Nasan comments on the previous Beraisa - that the Seifa is the opinion of Beis Shamai, but that, according to Beis Hillel, the father cannot annul the Neder without the participation of the second Arus (concerning the Reisha, we shall now see).

(b) Some commentaries say that Beis Hillel only disagrees with the Din in the Seifa, but that he agrees with that of the Reisha (Shmuel's Din). The problem with this is - how can the father now annul the Neder, seeing as it has been weakened by the earlier Hafarah of the father himself. Why is this any different than the Beraisa that we learned earlier where, when the husband died before he had heard about the Neder, the father is not able to annul the Neder, because, due to his Hafarah, it has become weakened?

(c) We resolve this problem - by drawing a distinction between the earlier case, where the Arus died and the Arusash returned to the sole Reshus of her father (who cannot take over the weakened Neder from the Arus), and this case, where the second Arus takes over from the first one, and it is as if she has remained in the Reshus of the Arus.

(d) Tosfos however, disagree with those commentaries. According to them, Beis Hillel argue in the Reisha too. In the Reisha, where Beis Shamai permit the father to annul his daughter's Nedarim in conjunction with the second Arus - they hold that the father cannot annul his daughter's Neder, even in conjunction with the second Arus (since, when the father annulled the Neder, he weakened it, in which case the second Arus cannot 'inherit' it, and the father cannot annul it on his own either). Note; we have explained the entire Sugya like the other commentaries.

6)

(a) Beis Shamai holds that even Nedarim about which the Arus knew, 'Nisroknah Reshus le'Av'. The Neder is not weakened by the fact that the Arus annulled them - because, upon his death, his annulment is negated.

(b) We learned earlier that when the father annulled his daughter's Neder and died, the Arus, who only heard about the Neder after the father's death, cannot annul it ('Lo Nisroknah'). This seemingly clashes with Beis Shamai's opinion here - since if the reason there is because, even though 'Av Meigaz Gayaz', his Hafarah was negated with his death (and his part of the Neder remains intact), then why do we not say the same in our case, to prohibit the father from annulling the Neder because of the part of the Arus, which remains intact?

(c) We resolve this problem by re-learning the above case - it is not the father's death negating the Hafarah that prohibits the Arus from annulling the Neder, but because of the principle that an Arus can never annul the Nedarim of the Arusah on his own. In fact, the Hafarah of the father severed his connection with his daughter's Nedarim altogether (irrespective of his death). Consequently, in out case, the Arus' annulment severed his connection with the Nedarim, too. Consequently, the father is able to annul the Nedarim on his own (as he does before his daughter becomes betrothed).

(d) Beis Hillel's reasoning - is based on his opinion that the father or the Arus only weaken the Neder (not sever their connection with it). Consequently, in our case, when the first Arus annulled the Neder, it remained partially intact, in which case, the second Arus together with the father are able to annul it (According to Beis Shamai, the second Arus has nothing to do with the Nedarim that the Arusash made whilst betrothed to the first Arus).

(a) It was necessary to stress according to Beis Shamai, that even those Nedarim that the Arus knew about, end up with the father, in spite of our having established earlier that everyone agrees with that - to teach us that that is so even in this case where there is a second Arus, and we may have thought that *he* inherits the rights of the first Arus (like Beis Hillel holds).

(b) We say that *even* those Nedarim that the Arus knew about are annulled by the father ... ', as if Nedarim that the Arus did not about are certainly annulled by the father, despite the fact that they are not - because that speaks only when the father annulled the Neder. When he did not, then, when the Arus knew about the Neder, there is more reason to say that the father cannot annul the Nedarim after the Arus' death (even though we are speaking when the father did annul the Nedarim). Or because we are speaking when there is a second Arus, where Nedarim about which the Arus knew is a bigger Chidush.

(c) In any event, we see from Beis Hillel that both the father and the second Arus must nullify even those Nedarim about which the first Arus was aware (like Shmuel). This proof will go even according to Beis Shamai (who rules here that the father annuls the Nedarim on his own), because that is only due to the fact that the father had previously annulled the Nedarim; otherwise, he would agree with Beis Hillel.

(a) The B'nei Yeshivah asked whether, if the Arus divorced the Arusah, it has a Din of Shesikah (silence) - in which case if he were to take her back on the same day, he would still be able to annul her Neder, or of Hakamah (upholding the Neder) - in which case, he could not.

(b) Despite the fact that he did not say anything, it might it have the Din of Hakamah - because, since the Arus knew that after the divorce, he would not be able to annul her Nedarim, it is as if he had upheld them.

(c) The word 'Ba'alah' in this context can only mean Arus. If it meant husband, he would not be able to annul the Nedarim even assuming Gerushin to be like Shesikah, because 'mi'Mah Nafshach'; if he then remarried her, a married man cannot annul Nedarim that were made before the marriage, whereas if he only betrothed her (bearing in mind that when he married the first time, she left her father's jurisdiction), he would have to annul her Nedarim on his own, something which an Arus cannot do.

(d) They said ...

1. ... 'va'Ahadrah *be'Yomei'* - because otherwise, it is obvious that he would not be able to annul the Nedarim.
2. ... 'va'Ahadrah ... ' - only because it is more common, but not because it would make any difference if a second Arus would betroth her (seeing as Arus Meifer be'Kodmin).