(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 N. Slifkin
of Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Yerushalayim
Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld

Ask A Question on the daf

Previous daf

Nedarim 67


(a) If only 1 of them annulled the vow, it is not annulled - it goes without saying, if 1 affirmed the vow, it is not annulled.
(b) (Gemara) Question: The end of the Mishnah merely reiterates what was learned in the beginning!
(c) Answer: One might have thought, the 1st clause says that either may annul by himself - the 2nd clause makes clear that this is not so.
(d) (Mishnah): It goes without saying, if 1 affirmed the vow ...
(e) Question: What does this teach?
1. If only 1 of them annulled, this does nothing - do we need to hear, if 1 affirmed?!
(f) Answer: We need to hear the case when 1 annulled and the other affirmed, and then he annulled his affirmation.
1. One might have thought, he uproots his affirmation - we hear, this is not so, both must annul together. (Ramban - they can now annul together; Rambam - the vow can not be annulled).
(a) (Mishnah): An engaged Na'arah, her father and husband annul her vows.
(b) Question: What is the source of this?
(c) Answer (Rava): "And if she will be to a man, and her vows are on her" (the verse speaks by engagement, and says that the husband may annul; the word "And" connects to the law of the previous passage, that a father may annul his daughter's vows).
(d) Suggestion: Perhaps this verse speaks of a (fully) married woman!
(e) Rejection #1: Another verse teaches that - "If she vowed in her husband's house..."
1. Suggestion: Perhaps both speak of a married woman.
i. Question: If so, why is the 2nd verse needed?
ii. Answer: To teach that a husband cannot annul vows taken before he married her.

2. Rejection: We could learn this from the 2nd verse alone!
(f) Rejection #2: The language "will be" suggests engagement, not full marriage.
(g) Suggestion: Perhaps the father can annul himself!
(h) Rejection: If so, why did the Torah have to say "If she vows in her father's house, her father may annul"?
1. If the father can annul (himself) even when she is engaged, all the more so when she is single!
(i) Suggestion: Perhaps the father cannot annul alone, but the engaged husband may.
1. Question: If this would be true - why did the Torah mention the father at all?
2. Answer: It would teach, if the father affirmed the vow, the husband cannot annul it.
(j) Rejection: If so, why did the Torah write, "If she vowed in her husband's house"?
1. If an engaged husband can annul by himself - all the more so, a married husband!
(k) Question: We could say, this latter verse teaches that he cannot annul vows that precede the marriage!
(l) Answer: From this itself (that a married husband cannot annul vows that precede the marriage) we can deduce (that an engaged husband cannot annul by himself).
1. Rhetorical question: Why is an engaged husband able to annul vows that precede the marriage, which a married husband cannot?
2. Answer: Because he annuls together with the father.
Next daf


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