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


brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Har Nof
Rosh Kollel: Rav Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Nedarim, 67


QUESTION: The Mishnah teaches that the Nedarim made by a Na'arah Me'urasah can be annulled only by a joint annulment of her father and her husband. Neither the father nor the husband can annul her Nedarim by himself. The Gemara discusses the source for this Halachah (see Chart). Rabah explains that the Torah writes two Parshios that discuss how a husband annuls his wife's Nedarim. Since it is not necessary to tell us the same Halachah twice, it must be that the first Parshah (Bamidbar 30:7-9) is discussing an Arusah (a woman who is only betrothed), while the second Parshah (Bamidbar 30:11-16) is discussing a Nesu'ah (a woman who is fully married). Since the Torah divides them into two Parshios, it must be that there are Halachic differences between the two. What difference could there be? It must be that in the case of an Arusah, since she has not yet completely left her father's domain, both the father and the Arus must annul the Neder and neither one can do it alone.

The RAN adds that the Torah hints that the annulment of the Neder of a Na'arah Me'urasah requires the Hafarah of the father and not just of the husband when it adds the letter "Vav" at the beginning of the Parshah (30:7) that teaches that a husband may annul his Arusah's Neder. The "Vav" implies that the Torah is adding ("Vav Mosif") to what it mentioned earlier. Since the Torah earlier mentioned that a father may annul his daughter's Nedarim, the "Vav" is teaching that in order to annul the Na'arah's Neder, it is necessary for the Arus to annul it as well (when she is a Na'arah Me'urasah).

This point, though -- that the extra letter "Vav" teaches that the father must annul the Neder together with the husband -- is not mentioned anywhere in the Gemara. Why does the Ran find it necessary to add this point, when he already explains that this Halachah is inferred from the fact that the Torah writes an extra Parshah about the husband's annulment of his wife's Nedarim?

Moreover, for several reasons it would seem that the "Vav Mosif" here is not a true Derashah. First, the second Parshah of Hafaras ha'Ba'al, which is not discussing Arusah, *also* begins with a "Vav" (30:11). If we contend that the verse discussing an Arusah is a continuation of the Parshah of Hafaras ha'Av, then the "Vav" here should also make *this* Parshah, discussing a Nesu'ah, a continuation of the Parshah of Hafaras ha'Av so that even in the case of a Nesu'ah, the husband should be able to annul his wife's Neder *only* with the Hafarah of the father!

Second, the RAN (67b, DH Eima Av) asks why the Gemara does not suggest that the reason the Torah divides the Parshah of Arusah from the Parshah of Nesu'ah is to teach that the father can be Mekayem (uphold) the Neder, while the Arus can annul his Arusah's Neder on his own without her father.

What is the Ran's question? If the "Vav Mosif" teaches that the father has some jurisdiction over the Nedarim of his daughter who is an Arusah, then we already learn from that "Vav" that the father may at least be Mekayem his daughter's Nedarim! As such, the verse would not have to divide the laws of Hafaras ha'Ba'al into two Parshios, one for Arusah one for Nesu'ah, simply to teach that the father may be Mekayem the Neder of his daughter who is an Arusah! We would have known that from the "Vav Mosif" even if the Torah had written only the Parshah of Hafaras ha'Ba'al of an Arusah! (MELO HA'RO'IM)

We may ask a similar question on the way the Ran explains the conclusion of the Gemara (67b). The Gemara says that the reason the Torah divides Hafaras ha'Ba'al into two Parshios is to teach that a husband of a Nesu'ah cannot annul Nedarim that she had made before marrying him (he cannot be "Mefer b'Kodmin"). The Gemara says "u'Minei" -- from that verse (30:11) -- we may infer that only the husband of a *Nesu'ah* cannot be Mefer b'Kodmin, implying that an Arus *can* be Mefer b'Kodmin (because he is Mefer together with the father).

It seems from the Gemara that the source that an Arus can be Mefer b'Kodmin is from the fact that the Torah writes two separate Parshios, one for an Arusah and one for a Nesu'ah. However, the RAN (end of 67b, DH Eima Im) writes that we learn that the husband of an Arusah may be Mefer b'Kodmin from the wording of the verse (30:7) which says "u'Nedarehah Alehah" ("her Nedarim that were on her"), implying that he may annul even the Nedarim that she had made before the betrothal. Why does the Ran need to give another source for this Halachah if it is already derived from the fact that there are two separate Parshios of Hafaras ha'Ba'al?

ANSWER: From the "Vav Mosif" alone we cannot learn that the father must be Mefer together with the husband in the case of a Na'arah Me'urasah. The "Vav" might be there simply to introduce that this is another Parshah teaching the laws of Hafarah, and not because there is a certain specific Halachah that the "Vav" is adding. Similarly, from the phrase, "u'Nedarehah Alehah" alone we would not be able to learn that the Arus is Mefer b'Kodmin, because that phrase might be referring simply to the Nedarim that she made after she became betrothed.

Hence, while the real proof that the laws of Hafaras ha'Ba'al in the case of an Arusah differ from the laws of Hafaras ha'Ba'al in the case of a Nesu'ah is from the fact that the Torah splits them into two Parshios, we cannot arbitrarily decide in what Halachah they differ. We would have to find some hint in the verse to that Halachah first. That is why the Ran is looking for a hint in the verse that a father must be Mefer with the husband and he cites the "Vav Mosif" as evidence that the Torah must be saying more than that the husband is Mefer like the father, but that the husband *needs* the father in order to be Mefer.

Similarly, this explains the need for the phrase, "u'Nedarehah Alehah." Once we know that the laws of Hafarah of the Nedarim of an Arusah are different from the laws in the case of a Nesu'ah, we can infer that the verse is hinting to what the difference is by using the words, "u'Nedarehah Alehah."

Support for the Ran that the Gemara is also relying on the "Vav Mosif" in addition to the division of the Parshios into two can be found in the Gemara later (67b) that says, "Av d'Kasav Rachmana Lama Li" (why does the Torah write the Halachah regarding the Hafarah of the father), implying that the Torah explicitly mentions somewhere the fact that the father must be Mefer the Neder with the Arus.


Next daf


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