Previous daf

1)

(a) If a betrothed girl who is divorced, becomes betrothed again, who annuls the Nedarim that she declared whilst she was betrothed to the first Arus?

(b) Who annuls them 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)?

(a) What does Shmuel learn from the Pasuk "ve'Im Hayo Sihyeh le'Ish u'Nedarehah *Alehah*"?

(b) Who asked the Kashya 'Minalan', which prompted Shmuel's answer?

(c) If our Mishnah was speaking in a case when the first Arus was not aware of the Arusah's Nedarim, why would the Tana then need to stress that she was divorced on the same day?

(d) What makes us so certain that Shmuel is not merely finding the source for the Din mentioned by the Tana of our Mishnah?

(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').
What is an alternative explanation?

(b) How does Shmuel in fact know to include even Nedarim of which the first Arus was aware, from "Alehah"?

(c) We learned a Beraisa in support of Shmuel. The case in the Reisha is exactly the same as that of Shmuel.
What does the Tana Kama of the Beraisa say in the Seifa, where the first Arus heard about the Arusah's Neder, annulled it and then died?

(d) Why does the father need to annul the Arus' part again, seeing as the Arus already annulled it?

(a) What does Rebbi Nasan comment on the previous Beraisa?

(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).
What is the problem with that?

(c) How do we resolve this problem (by drawing a distinction between the earlier case (where there was only one Arus) and our case (where there are two)?

(d) Tosfos however, disagree with those commentaries. According to them, Beis Hillel argue in the Reisha too.
What do they hold in the Reisha, where Beis Shamai permit the father to annul his daughter's Nedarim in conjunction with the second Arus?

6)

(a) Beis Shamai holds that even Nedarim about which the Arus knew, 'Nisroknah Reshus le'Av'.
Why is the Neder not weakened by the fact that the Arus annulled them?

(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').
Why does this seemingly clash with Beis Shamai's opinion here?

(c) How do we resolve this problem? What is the difference between the Arus being left with the father's portion to annul, and vice-versa?

(d) What is Beis Hillel's reasoning? What is the basis of their Machlokes?

(a) Why was it necessary to stress according to Beis Shamai, that even those Nedarim that the Arus knew about are annulled by the father, seeing as we already established earlier that everyone agrees with that?

(b) And why do we say that *even* those Nedarim that the Arus knew about are annulled by the father ... ', as if Nedarim that the Arus did not know about are certainly annulled by the father, when in reality, they are not?

(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.
Is this proof confined to Beis Hillel, or can we also prove it from Beis Shamai, who rules here that the father annuls the Nedarim on his own?

(a) The B'nei Yeshivah asked whether, if the Arus divorced the Arusah, it has a Din of Shesikah (silence) or of Hakamah (upholding the Neder).
What are the ramifications of the She'eilah?

(b) On what basis might it have the Din of Hakamah, seeing as he did not say anything?

(c) How do we know that the word 'Ba'alah' in this context means Arus and not husband?

(d) Why does they say ...

1. ... 'va'Ahadrah *be'Yomei'*?
2. ... 'va'Ahadrah ... '? Would it make any difference if a second Arus
3. would betroth her?

Next daf