ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 72
(a) We try to prove from the Beraisa which lists the cases of Nisroknah
Reshus le'Av as 'bi'Zeman she'Lo Shama ha'Ba'al, O Shama ve'Hafer O Shama
ve'Shasak' that divorce is like Hakamah - because if it was like Shesikah,
the S'vara of Nisroknah should apply to it too, in which case the Tana
should have included it in the list.
(b) We counter this from the Seifa 'Aval Im Shama ve'Kiyem O Shama ve'Shasak
u'Meis be'Yom shel Acharav, Ein Yachol Lehafer' - implying that Gerushin
does not belong to this list (because 'Gerushin ki'Shesikah').
(c) When we say 'I Reisha Dafka, Nasiv Seifa Mishum Reisha - we mean that
the Tana deliberately omits Gerushin from the Reisha, because Gerushin is
like 'Hakamah'. And it omits it from the Seifa, because it only mentions in
the Seifa cases which have an opposite number that can be included in the
(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'Me'ah, Avihah
u'Ba'alah Mefirin Nedarehah'. We think that the Arus must have heard about
the Neder - because otherwise, what is the significance of 'Bo ba'Yom'?
(b) The proof (that divorce is like silence) from there is - from the fact
that in spite of the Gerushin, the father and the second Arus can still
nullify the Neder (which they could not, if it was like Hakamah).
(c) We refute the proof however - by ascribing 'Bo ba'Yom' to the fact that
the father (not the Arus) heard the Neder.
(a) Assuming that the Tana is speaking about an Arusah, we tried to prove
from the Mishnah in 've'Eilu Na'aros', 'Nadrah Bo ba'Yom, Girshah
ve'Hichzirah Bo ba'Yom, Ein Yachol Lehafer' that 'Gerushin is like Hakamah,
because if it was like Shesikah, why should he not be able to annul the
(b) We refute this proof by establishing it by a Nesu'ah and the reason that
he cannot annul the Neder is because 'Ein ha'Ba'al Meifer be'Kodmin' -
meaning that when the Arus took her back, he married her and consequently,
he cannot annul the Nedarim that she made before (even those that she made
whilst under his jurisdiction).
(c) If the Mishnah was speaking when they were married the first time, and
only betrothed the second time - then the reason would be because, from the
time that he married her, she was no longer under her father's jurisdiction,
in which case, when he then betrothed her, he could no annul her Nedarim,
because an Arus can never annul the Nedarim of the Arusah on his own.
(d) The Mishnah gives the reason as 'de'Ein ha'Ba'al Meifer be'Kodmin' -
because this principle is also based on the fact that the father loses the
jurisdiction that he had over his daughter when she declared the Neder (not
because of a deficiency in the husband, because it would make no sense to
say that a married man should be worse than an Arus, who can annul the
Arusah's Nedarim that she declared before in conjunction with her father).
(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. He extrapolates from Shmuel, who asked earlier 'Mina Hani Mili,
de'Arus Acharon Meifer Nedarim she'Nir'u le'Rishon' - that the Tana of our
Mishnah mentions 'Bo ba'Yom' on account of the Arus, and not the father, yet
the Tana concludes 'Avihah u'Ba'alah ha'Acharon Mefirin Nedarehah',
reinstating our earlier proof that Gerushin is like Shesikah (le'Kula).
(b) Our Sugya does not resolve the She'eilah from Shmuel - because we are
looking for a source from a Mishnah or Beraisa, and not just from an Amora.
(a) Fathers and betrothed men who were Talmidei-Chachamim - used to annul
any Nedarim that the Arusah had declared whilst in her father's and Arus'
domain respectively, some time before the marriage.
(b) They did that - because, once the marriage took place, they would no
longer be able to do so.
(a) Rami bar Chama asked - whether the Pasuk "ve'Shama Avihah es Nidrah"
should be taken literally, or whether the girl's father can annul even
Nedarim which he had not heard, only the Pasuk is speaking in a common case.
(b) Rami's She'eilah also extends to an Arus and to a husband.
(c) We try to resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah 'Derech
Talmidei-Chachamim ... Kol Nedarim she'Nadart' - implying *all* Nedarim,
even those which the father did not know about (otherwise the Tana ought to
have said 'Neder P'loni u'P'loni').
(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. The point of annulling the Nedarim in
advance (despite the fact that the Hafarah is not effective anyway) is -
because by doing so, he will remind her of any Nedarim that she made, which
in turn, will encourage her to divulge them.
(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' - which means that the Tana speaks when the Arus annuls the Neder
now, but specifically states 'le'Chi Shama'na', that it should only take
effect when he hears about it (after the marriage).
(b) We can give this answer with regard to the Arus - because at the time
when he hears it, she is under his jurisdiction, in addition to the fact
that the father has already annulled his part of the Neder (dispensing with
the problem of 'Ein ha'Ba'al Meifer be'Kodmin', as we explained earlier).
The father, on the other hand, cannot annul his daughter's Neder in advance
(for after she is married), because by the time he hears about the Neder,
she will have left his jurisdiction completely.
(c) The Mishnah later says that a man who says 'Kol Nedarim she'Taduri ad
she'Avo mi'Makom P'loni' ...
1. ... Harei Hein Kayamin' - Lo Amar K'lum'.
(d) The Rabbanan hold that a man cannot annul Nedarim prior to their having
2. ... Harei Hein Mufarin' (according to Rebbi Eliezer) - Mufar'.
(a) We try to prove from Rebbi Eliezer that a husband can annul Nedarim
which he has not heard about. In fact - the Rabbanan also agree with Rebbi
Eliezer in this point, and they only argue with him regarding annulling
Nedarim prior to their having been declared.
(b) We answer that here too, the Tana speaks when he said 'Lechi Shama'na' -
because he is afraid that, when the time arrives, he will be occupied and
not find the time to see to the Hafarah (and the same reasoning applies to
the earlier case).
(a) Rebbi Yashiyah in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "*Iyshah* Yekimenah,
*ve'Iyshah* Yefeirenu" - that the husband must annul his wife's Nedarim
personally, and not through an agent.
(b) Rebbi Yonasan objects - on the basis of the principle 'Shelucho shel
(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 annuls the woman's Nedarim
even though the husband himself did hear about them. And the proof extend to
Rebbi Yashiyah - who, were it not for the Pasuk (of "Iyshah Yekimenu ... ")
would agree with Rebbi Yashiyah in principle.
(a) We refute the above proof too - by establishing the Beraisa when the
husband added 'le'Chi Shama'na'.
(b) When the agent annuls the woman's Nedarim - he must say that the Hafarah
will take effect only when her husband gets to hear about the Neder (just as
the husband himself would have had to say had he annulled it).
(a) The Sugya in Nazir establishes the Beraisa of Rebbi Yashiyah and Rebbi
Yonasan like Rebbi Eliezer. Despite the fact that, according to Rebbi
Eliezer, a husband can annul his wife's Nedarim even before they have been
declared, he nevertheless needs an agent. He does not want to annul her
1. ... before his departure - in case he forgets, or he is angry with her or
occupied with other matters.
(b) We could circumvent this problem - by annulling now any Nedarim that she
declares whilst he is away.
2. ... immediately, before he forgets - in case she subsequently declares a
Neder that he would prefer her to keep.
(c) The reason that he appointed an agent rather than annulling now any
Nedarim that she declares whilst he is away is - because he may want to
retract from the Hafarah. This he will not be able to do should he annul the
Nedarim now, but which he will be able to should he appoint an agent, by
retracting from the appointment.