ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 70
(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
(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
(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
(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.
(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).
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.
(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
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
(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
(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
(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.