Previous daf

1)

(a) The Beraisa lists the cases of Nisroknah Reshus le'Av: 'bi'Zeman she'Lo Shama ha'Ba'al, O Shama ve'Hafer O Shama ve'Shasak'.
How do we try to prove from there that divorce is like Hakamah?

(b) How do we counter this from the Seifa 'Aval Im Shama ve'Kiyem O Shama ve'Shasak u'Meis be'Yom shel Acharav, Ein Yachol Lehafer'?

(c) What do we mean when we say 'I Reisha Dafka, Nasiv Seifa Mishum Reisha'?
Why *did* the Tana then omit Gerushin from the Seifa?

(a) We try to prove that divorce is like Shesikah, from our Mishnah "Nadrah ve'Hi Arusash, ve'Nisgarshah ve'Nis'arsah Bo ba'Yom, Afilu le'Mei'ah, Avihah u'Ba'alah Mefirin Nedarehah'.
What makes us think that the Arus must have heard about the Neder?

(b) What is then the proof from there?

(c) How do we refute it proof? Why does the Tana then say 'Bo ba'Yom'?

(a) 'Nadrah Bo ba'Yom, Girshah ve'Hichzirah Bo ba'Yom, Ein Yachol Lehafer'. How do we try to prove from this Mishnah in 've'Eilu Na'aros' that Gerushin is like Hakamah?

(b) We refute this proof by establishing it by a Nesu'ah, and the reason that he cannot annul the Nedarim is because 'Ein ha'Ba'al Meifer be'Kodmin'. What is the case?

(c) What would be the reason if the Mishnah was speaking when they were married the first time, and only betrothed the second time?

(d) Then why does the Mishnah give the reason as 'de'Ein ha'Ba'al Meifer be'Kodmin'?

(a) Since the She'eilah remains unresolved, the Ramban rules 'Gerushin ke'Hakamah' (le'Chumra, like in most cases of Isur). The Rashba however, disagrees.
How does the latter extrapolate his ruling from Shmuel, who asked earlier 'Mina Hani Mili, de'Arus Acharon Meifer Nedarim she'Nir'u le'Rishon'?

(b) So why does our Sugya not resolve the She'eilah from Shmuel?

5)

(a) What did fathers and betrothed men who were Talmidei-Chachamim used to say to the Arusah before the marriage?

(b) Why did they do that?

(a) What She'eilah did Rami bar Chama ask with regard to the Pasuk "ve'Shama Avihah es Nidrah"?

(b) Does Rami's She'eilah also pertain to an Arus and to a husband, or is it confined to a father?

(c) We try to resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah ('Derech Talmidei-Chachamim ... Kol Nedarim she'Nadart').
How do we know that the Tana is not referring to Nedarim which they know about?

(d) We refute the proof by establishing our Mishnah, not by the final Hafarah, but when the father and the Arus intend to repeat the nullification when they get to hear about it.
Then what is the point of annulling the Nedarim in advance (seeing as the Hafarah is not effective anyway)?

(a) We try to bring the same proof from the Seifa of our Mishnah 've'Chein ha'Ba'al ad she'Lo Tikaneis li'Reshuso ... '. According to some texts, we answer like we answered in the case of the father. Other texts read 'le'Chi Shama'na'.
What does this mean? Is 'le'Chi Shama'na' a part of the quotation, or does it simply mean that 'when he hears about the Neder' it will become Bateil automatically?

(b) Why can we give this answer with regard to the Arus but not with regard to the father?

(c) What does the Mishnah later say about a man who says 'Kol Nedarim she'Taduri ad she'Avo mi'Makom P'loni' ...

1. ... Harei Hein Kayamin'?
2. ... Harei Hein Mufarin' (according to Rebbi Eliezer)?

(d) What do the Rabbanan hold?

(a) We try to prove from Rebbi Eliezer that a husband can annul Nedarim which he has not heard about.
Is this proof confined to Rebbi Eliezer?

(b) We answer that here too, the Tana speaks when he said 'Lechi Shama'na'. In that case, what is the point of annulling the Nedarim in advance? Why does he not wait until she declares the Neder and he gets to hear about it?

(a) What does Rebbi Yashiyah in a Beraisa learn from the Pasuk "*Iyshah* Yekimenah, *ve'Iyshah* Yefeirenu"?

(b) On what grounds does Rebbi Yonasan object?

(c) We attempt to resolve our She'eilah (whether the husband needs to have heard about the Neder before annulling it or not) from this Beraisa, because, according to Rebbi Yonasan, the agent is able to annul the Nedarim, even though the husband himself did hear about them.
Does this proof extend to Rebbi Yashiyah too?

(a) How do we refute the above proof?

(b) What must the agent say to the woman when he annuls her Nedarim?

(a) The Sugya in Nazir establishes the Beraisa of Rebbi Yashiyah and Rebbi Yonasan like Rebbi Eliezer.
Seeing as, according to Rebbi Eliezer, a husband can annul his wife's Nedarim in advance, even before they come into effect, why does he need an agent? Let him annul her Nedarim ...

1. ... before his departure?
2. ... immediately, before he forgets?

(b) How could we circumvent this problem? How could he annul his wife's Nedarim now without implicating himself?

(c) In that case, why does he not do that? What does he gain by appointing an agent?

Next daf