(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Nedarim 67

***** Perek Na'arah ha'Me'urasah *****


(a) The Arus, our Mishnah, teaches us, as well as the girl's father, must participate in the Hafarah (annulment of the Nedarim) of a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah.
Does this also pertain to Nedarim that she declared before they became betrothed?

(b) Is this Din confined to the Nedarim of a Na'arah?

(c) Why does the Tana of our Mishnah then need to add that if one of them annulled the Nedarim without the other, the Neder is not annulled? Why can we not know learn this from the previous statement?

(d) Why could he not just say 've'Eino Mufar ad she'Yefeiru Sh'neihem'?

(a) We then ask why the Tana needs to conclude 've'Ein Tzarich Lomar she'Kiyem Echad Mehem'.
Why is this not a standard case of 'Zu, ve'Ein Tzarich Lomar Zu'?

(b) We answer that the Tana speaks when the one who upheld the Neder subsequently nullified it. According to the Ramban, the one who made Kiyum and then annulled it, can then make Hafarah together with the other one.
What does the Rambam say?

(c) Since the Tana is informing us of the Chidush currently under discussion, why does he say 've'Ein Tzarich Lomar she'Kiyem Echad Meihem', since the current Chidush has nothing to do with the previous Din?

(a) What will be the Din if a man betroths a woman on condition that she has not made any Nedarim, and then, after he discovers that she has, she goes to a Chacham and has them annulled.
Is the Kidushin valid?

(b) How do we answer the Rashba, who asks why our case should be any different? Why do we reckon with the first Hakamah at all, seeing as the Noder subsequently annulled it?

(a) What does Rabah (or Rava) learn from the Pasuk in Matos ...
  1. ... "ve'Im Hayo Sihyeh le'Ish u'Nedarehah Alehah ... ve'Yom Shemo'a Iyshah Yani Osah"?
  2. ... "ve'Im Beis Iyshah Nadarah ... ve'Im Hafer Yafer Osam Iyshah"?
(b) How do we know that, in the former case, the father needs to participate in the Hafarah, too?

(c) Why should an Arus not be able to annul the Arusah's Nedarim on his own?

(d) We ask how we know that the first of the above Pesukim is referring to an Arusah and not to a woman who is married.
Why can we not answer that it must do, because if it referred to a Nesu'ah, how would we explain the extra 'Vav' in '*ve*'Im Hayo Sihyeh le'Ish'?

(a) How do we finally prove that the first Pasuk ("ve'Im Hayo Sihyeh le'Ish") is indeed speaking about an Arusah and not a Nesu'ah?

(b) We query this however, by suggesting that both Pesukim refer to a Nesu'ah, and that the second Pasuk is needed to teach us that 'Ein ha'Ba'al Meifer be'Kodmin'. What does this mean?

(c) How do we answer this Kashya? Why must the first Pasuk therefore be speaking about an Arusah?

Answers to questions



(a) Alternatively, 'Havayah' is a Lashon of Eirusin.
What does this prove?

(b) According to the Sugya in Yevamos, the Pasuk in Emor (regarding Tum'as Kohanim) "ve'la'Achoso ha'Besulah Asher Lo *Haysah* le'Ish refers to the Kohen's sister who is not *married*.
Why can we not therefore say that, in our Sugya too, "ve'Im Hayo Sihyeh le'Ish" pertains to a Nesu'ah as well as to an Arusah, and that the husband needs to annul his wife's Nedarim together with her father, whether she is betrothed or married?

(c) We suggest that the father alone should be able to annul the Nedarim of his daughter who is betrothed.
Then how will we explain the Pasuk "ve'Im Hayo Sihyeh le'Ish" (with the connecting 'Vav')? Why does the Torah write "ve'Im be'Yom Shemo'a Iyshah Yani Osah ve'Heifer es Nidrah"?

(d) On what grounds do we refute the suggestion?

(a) So we switch on to the other foot, placing the stress on the Hafarah of the Arus. If, as we now suggest, the Arus can annul the Arusah's Nedarim on his own, how will we explain the 'Vav', giving the father some jurisdiction over his betrothed daughter even after she is divorced?

(b) We reject this suggestion on the grounds that, if so, we would not need the Pasuk "ve'Im Beis Iyshah Nadarah".
Why not?

(c) Perhaps we need it to ...

  1. ... teach us that even if the father upheld the Neder after she is married, the husband can annul the Neder on his own?
  2. ... extrapolate that if he upholds the Neder of his daughter who is *an Arusah*, the Arus can no longer annul the Neder?
(d) And perhaps we need "ve'Im Beis Iyshah Nadarah" to teach us that a husband cannot annul Nedarim that his wife declared before they were married (but not to preclude an Arus from annulling the Nedarim of his Arus on his own)?
Answers to questions

Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,