ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 75
(a) Having just established that the Halachah is like Rebbi Akiva, and that
a Yavam cannot annul the Nedarim of the Shomeres Yavam, the Yevamah's father
can most probably annul the Nedarim that she declared whilst still in her
father's domain, or even whilst she was betrothed to the Yavam's brother -
because wherever there is no second Arus, when the first Arus dies, the
woman returns to her father's domain.
(b) On Daf 71a. (with reference to Beis Shamai, who say there that even when
it comes to Nedarim that the Arus knew about before he died, the Arusah
returns to her father's domain) - Tosfos explain that Nedarim which entered
the domain of the first Arus, are not passed on to the second one. In that
case, the same will apply here with regard to passing on the Nedarim that
she made in the Arus' domain, to that of his brother, after his (the Arus')
(c) With regard to the Nedarim that she declares whilst she a Shomeres
Yavam - we remain uncertain as to whether her father can annul them or not.
(a) A husband cannot uphold his wife's Nedarim in advance of her having
declared them - according to anyone.
(b) In this regard, the Tana of our Mishnah uses the Lashon 'mi'Ka'an ad
she'Avo ... ', and not 'me'ha'Yom ad she'Avo' - because (regarding Hafarah,
which the Tana also covers by this Lashon) the husband will not want his
Hafarah to take effect before he is due to depart, in case his wife declares
Nedarim which he would like annulled.
(c) Rebbi Eliezer permits him however, to annul her Nedarim in advance -
because he argues, if he can annul those Nedarim that have already become
Asur, how much more so those that have not.
(d) He does not however, permit him to *uphold* them using the same logic -
because there the logic works in reverse: He can uphold the Nedarim that
have already become Asur, but who says that he can also uphold those Nedarim
that have not?
(a) The Rabbanan learn from the Pasuk "Iyshah Yekimenu, ve'Iyshah
Yeferenu" - that Hafarah is compared to Hakamah, and that a Neder which is
not subject to one, is not subject to the other, either.
(b) We ask whether, according to Rebbi Eliezer, the Nedarim that a wife
declares after her husband has already annulled them, take effect and are
immediately annulled, or whether they simply do not take effect at all. The
ramifications of the She'eilah are - a case where someone was Matfis a Neder
on the one that the woman made; if her Neder is effective, even for just a
moment, then the second one is effective too. Otherwise, it is not.
(c) This case differs from that of ...
1. ... the first Perek, where if someone with two pieces of meat in front of
him, one a piece of Shelamim after the Zerikas Damim, the other, a piece of
Chulin, declares 'Zeh ka'Zeh', we conclude that 'be'Heteira ka'Matfis' (to
go after what the object is now, not what it was initially) - inasmuch as
that is because 'Zeh ka'Zeh' implies that the second one should be like the
first one is now; whereas in our case, where the second person says
'va'Ani', he obviously pertains to the woman's Nezirus, and not to her
2. ... the Mishnah in Nazir, where a number of people followed the
acceptance of Nezirus of the first Nazir with 'va'Ani', and where we learned
above in Arba'ah Nedarim that when each attached his Neder to the one before
him, if the first one annulled his Neder, then all of them are annulled -
inasmuch as that pertains to the Hataras Nedarim of Chacham, which is
uprooted retroactively; whereas our case, which pertains to the Hafaras
Nedarim of the husband, who only negates his wife's Neder from then on, but
not retroactively, leaves room for the second person's Neder to take effect.
(a) 'Amar Rebbi Eliezer, Im Hafer Nedarim she'Ba'u li'Chelal Isur, Lo Yafer
Nedarim she'Lo Ba'u li'Chelal Isur'. Presuming that 'Ba'u' means 'will not
come ... ', we try to prove that, according to Rebbi Eliezer, Nedarim that
the husband annuls in advance, do not come into effect at all. We answer -
that 'Ba'u' means the past tense (Nedarim that have not yet come into
effect, even though they are gong to [for that split second before they
become annulled]), exactly as it implies).
(b) What caused us to presume that 'Ba'u' means that they will not come
into effect at all - is the fact that the 'Kal va'Chomer' works that much
neater: If Hafarah can remove Nedarim that have already taken effect, then
they can certainly prevent them from doing so in the first place.
(c) Now that 'Ba'u' is taken literally - the 'Kal va'Chomer' teaches us -
that if Hafarah can annul Nedarim that came into being in full strength,
then it should certainly annul Nedarim that came into being with the Hafarah
(a) In another Beraisa, Rebbi Eliezer proves that the husband can annul his
wife's Nedarim through a 'Kal va'Chomer from his own Nedarim. Because - if a
person who cannot annul his own Nedarim, once they have taken effect, yet he
is able to annul them in advance (as we learned above in Perek Arba'ah
Nedarim), one who is able to annul his wife's Nedarim after they have come
into effect, should certainly be able to do so in advance!
(b) This seems to prove that the Nedarim that a husband annuls in advance,
do not take effect at all (just like his own don't). We refute this
however - on the grounds of the commonly applied answer 'Ha ke'de'Isa, ve'Ha
ke'de'Isa' (one speaks this way [when the Neder does not take effect at
all], and the other speaks the other way [when it takes effect, but is
(c) We cannot learn from the 'Kal va'Chomer' itself that his wife's Nedarim
should not take effect - because that might well be confined to the case in
Perek Arba'ah Nedarim, where, seeing as at the time when he declared the
Neder, he forgot about the condition annulling it, it falls under the
category of 'Nidrei Ta'us', but not in the case of Hafaras Nedarim, where
the Neder is not a Ta'us.
(d) We can nevertheless Darshen the 'Kal va'Chomer' - because we can still
learn the corollary between before the declaration and after it by Hafaras
Nedarim (where neither case is a Neder Ta'us), from that of Hatarah of one's
own Nedarim (where both *are* - seeing as a Neder that is annulled through a
Pesach, is a Neder Ta'us).
(a) Hillel Darshens from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Nogei'a be'Nivlasan Yitma" - that
someone who touches a Sheretz even whilst he is in the Mikvah becomes
We have proved from this Beraisa - that a woman's Neder which her husband
annulled in advance does not come into effect.
(b) A ring which a Tahor person swallowed before entering a tent in which a
corpse is lying (which is known as Taharah Belu'ah) - remains Tahor.
(c) The Rabbanan query Rebbi Eliezer's 'Kal va'Chomer' from these two
facts - because from the fact that the ring remains Tahor (despite the 'Kal
va'Chomer' of Adam from Mikveh, which ought to render the ring Tamei), we
learn that we cannot make 'Kal va'Chomers' in the realm of what has yet to
take effect from what has already done so (we shall see later why).
(d) According to the text 'Mikveh Yochi'ach, she'Ma'alah es ha'Temei'in
mi'Tum'asan, ve'Ein Matzil es al ha'Tehorin mi'Litam'ei' - the Rabbanan's
query would be even even more straightforward - because from there we see
that we cannot necessarily derive the one from the other.