Previous daf

1)

(a) Assuming that, in the previous She'eilah, we rule leniently, Rami bar Chama asked whether a Cheresh too, can annul his wife's Nedarim. 'Cheresh' in this context means - a deaf person who is able to talk (because if it meant a deaf-mute, like it usually does, how could he annul his wife's vows)?

(b) A Cheresh may well be worse than a husband who is unaware of his wife's Nedarim, due to Rebbi Zeira's principle 'Kol ha'Ra'uy le'Bilah, Ein Bilah Me'akeves Bo, ve'Chol she'Ein Ra'uy le'Bilah, Bilah Me'akeves Bo' ('A Korban that requires mixing with oil, must be at least mixeable, though it doesn't matter if the mixing was not actually performed').

(c) In spite of Rebbi Zeira's principle, even a Cheresh might be able to annul his wife's vows - because the Torah may have written "ve'Shama Iyshah" because it is the norm, and not because it is necessary.

(a) Rava resolves our She'eilah from a Beraisa, which precludes a Cheresh from annuling his wife's Nedarim - from "ve'Shama Iyshah" (ve'Lo Cheresh).

(b) We cannot categorically infer from there that a husband who is a Pikei'ach can annul the Nedarim of his wife even without hearing them - because the Tana (in similar fashion to the way we just explained the Pasuk) might mention the norm, but does not intend to preclude a husband who did not hear about his wife's Nedarim.

(c) We nevertheless rule that he can - because Rami bar Chama implied it when he said 'Im Timtzi Lomar Ba'al Meifer be'Lo Shemi'ah', and then went on to cite Rebbi Zeira (a further indication that that is Halachah). In addition, the straightforward explanation of our Mishnah and the Beraisos cited in our Sugya convey that impression.

(a) The Torah's use of the word "be'Yom Shemo'a Iyshah Yani *Osah*" gives rise to the She'eilah - whether a man is permitted to annul the Nedarim of his two wives simultaneously or not.

(b) This She'eilah extends to a father annulling the Nedarim of his two daughters, where the Torah also uses the word "ve'Im Heini Avihah *Osah*".

(c) The Tana Kama of a Beraisa forbids making two Sotos drink Mei Sotah at the same time - on the grounds that the one (who may be guilty) will take heart from the other one (who is innocent), and refuse to drink on the basis that she too, is innocent.

(d) Rebbi Yehudah disagrees with them - inasmuch as, according to him, it is not for logical reasons that one does not make two Sotos drink Mei Sotah at the same time, but because we learn it from the Pasuk "Hishkah", which has a Mapik 'Hey' (a dot in the 'Hey'), giving it the same connotations as "Osah".

(a) The Tosefta permits a man to annul the five Nedarim that his wife declared - as well as the Nedarim of his five wives, with one Hafarah.

(b) In that case, we would be ruling like the Tana Kama in the previous Beraisa, who does not Darshen "Osah".

(c) The Ramban disagrees with this ruling, on the basis of the Sugya in Sotah, which equates the Tana Kama with Rebbi Yehudah - by establishing the Tana Kama as Rebbi Shimon, who gives reason for Pesukim. Consequently, the reason given by the Tana Kama of Rebbi Yehudah, is the reason for the D'rashah of "ve'Hishkah", in which case, he too, holds of the D'rashah "Osah".

(d) Based on the Sugya in Sotah, the Ramban, who rules like Rebbi Yehudah (because the Tana Kama too, Darshens "Osah") - rejects our version of the Tosefta (which must be erroneous, because, if Ravina and Rav Ashi (in Sotah) rule against it, it was clearly not learned in the Beis-Hamedrash of Rebbi Chiya and Rebbi Oshiya, and is therefore not authentic.

(a) The Sugya in 've'Eilu Nedarim' says that if a man annulled the Neder of his wife, thinking that it was his daughter who had declared it - his Hafarah is invalid, because we Darshen from "Osah" that he must have the intention of annuling the Nedarim of the person who declared the Neder, and not of somebody else.

(b) This is not a clear-cut proof that we rule like Rebbi Yehudah, who Darshens "Osah" - because maybe we apply the D'rashah in the case of of 'Eilu Nedarim' but not that of Rebbi Yehudah ("Osah"... 'Levadah').

(c) Assuming that we rule like Rebbi Yehudah (and forbid annulling the Nedarim of two wives simultaneously) - the same will apply to upholding their Nedarim simultaneously (because Hakamah is compared to Hafarah).

6)

(a) Rebbi Eliezer says in our Mishnah that an Arus may annul the Nedarim of a Bogeres and a Na'arah who waited twelve months. The practical difference between the two periods in this regard is - that during the twelve-month period, the Arus may annul the Nedarim of the Arusah only in conjunction with the father, whereas after the twelve months, he may annul them on his own.

(b) He includes in his list - an Almanah after thirty days.

(c) Rebbi Eliezer's reason is - because he then becomes Chayav to feed her (see alo end of Sugya).

(d) The Chachamim say - that a husband cannot annul his wife's Nedarim until they are married.

(a) The Mishnah Rishonah says in Kesuvos that ...

1. ... a betrothed girl who has waited for twelve months from the time that she asked the Arus to go ahead with the marriage - is entitled to eat from the Arus property, and that she may even eat Terumah, if he is a Kohen.
2. ... a Yevamah who had waited eleven months and twenty-nine days for the Arus and one day for the Yavam - may not.

(b) According to Rashi, in the latter case, even if she would have waited all twelve months in the Reshus of the Arus, she will not be permitted to eat from the Yavam, in the event that the Arus dies. Rabeinu Tam (whose opinion is supported by a Yerushalmi), says that she may - because even though the Yavam is not obligated to start feeding her, he is obligated to ensure that she does lose the rights that she already has, on account of him.

(c) The Mishnah Acharonah says - that a woman may not eat Terumah until she is married.

(d) One of the reasons of the Mishnah Acharonah is because of Simpon (the fear that the Arus may find a blemish and cancel the betrothal retroactively). The other one is - because of the fear that she may hand a cup of Terumah-wine to her siblings.

(a) What makes Rabah equate the Mishnah Rishonah with Rebbi Eliezer - is because, if we did not have a source to be lenient d'Oraysa (like Rebbi Eliezer in our Mishnah), they would not have permitted an Arusah to eat Terumah (even though it is only an Isur de'Rabbanan). That is based on the principle 'Asu Chizuk le'Divreihem ke'shel Torah'.

(b) Abaye refutes Rabah's suggestion. According to him, we do not need to come on to a precedent mid'Oraysa. The Mishnah Rishonah would intrinsically not be afraid ...

1. ... of 'Simpon' - because before feeding her, the Arus has her examined externally by his relatives (so as not to waste his money for nothing).
2. ... that the Arusah may give a cup of Terumah wine to her siblings - because, since he feeds her, he designates a place for her to eat in his house (where her siblings have no business to be).

(c) The Mishnah Acharonah is nevertheless afraid ...

1. ... of 'Simpon' - because they do not consider an external examination sufficiently thorough.
2. ... that the Arusah may give a cup of Terumah-wine to her siblings - because they disagree with the argument that, once the time-limit expires, the Arus designates a place for the Arusah to eat.

(a) Rebbi Eliezer, says Abaye further, might permit the Arus to be Meifer the Arusah's Nedarim (even though it is d'Oraysa), and still hold like the Mishnah Acharonah (which is stringent by Terumah, even though it is only an Isur mi'de'Rabbanan) because he holds like Rav Pinchas mi'Shemei ds'Rava - who says that when a woman makes a Neder, she has in mind that it will only take effect with her husband's consent (and according to Rebbi Eliezer, this commences already from the time that the Arus begins to feed her.

(b) This does not mean that Rav Pinchas mi'Shemei Rava's statement is confined to the opinion of Rebbi Eliezer - because it is clear from a Gemara in Nidah that Rav Pinchas mi'Shemei Rava's statement is unanimous.

(c) The Rabbanan disagree with Rebbi Eliezer - insofar as, in their opinion, it only applies to after the marriage (because before the marriage, an Arus who feeds his Arusah is no different than a stranger who does so).

(d) Once they are married however, the Rabbanan also learn like Rav Pinchas mi'Shemei Rava - even in a case of Chupah de'Rabbanan, such as that of a Ketanah who was married off by her mother or brothers.

(a) Some commentaries extrapolate from Rav Pinchas mi'Shmei de'Rava that if someone who declares a Neder subject to his friend's consent - his friend's protest is sufficient to annul the Neder wihthout having to go to a Chacham.

(b) This is an error however - because the fact that the husband can uproot the Neder by protesting is a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv', which cannot be extended to other cases of Neder.

(c) We know that Hafaras Nedarim is a 'Gezeiras ha'Kasuv' - because the husband may only annul the Nedarim using the Lashon fixed by the Torah.

(d) Should the Noder make a firm condition, connecting his Neder with his friend's consent, and his friend responds with words such as 'I Efshi' - this would be effective, whereas by Hafaras Nedarim, it would not (because it is not the Lashon required by the Torah for Hafaras Nedarim).