ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 67
***** Perek Na'arah ha'Me'urasah *****
(a) The Arus, as well as the girl's father, must participate in the Hafarah
(annulment of the Nedarim) of a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah - and this also pertain to
Nedarim that she declared before they became betrothed.
(b) This Din extends to the Nedarin of an eleven year old girl, whose Nedarim are
(c) The Tana of our Mishnah needs to add that if one of them annulled the Nedarim
without the other, the Neder is not unnulled. We cannot learn this from the previous
statement - which we could have interpreted to mean that *either* of them, not *both,
must participate in the nullification.
(d) Neither could he just say 've'Eino Mufar ad she'Yefeiru Sh'neihem' - because we
might have interpreted that to mean that *one of them* cannot annul the Neder on his
own (unless the other one does so too); but that the other one can annul it on his
own (though which one, is unclear, sinced there is a S'vara for each one, as we shall
see later in the Sugya).
(a) We then ask why the Tana needs to conclude 've'Ein Tzarich Lomar she'Kiyem Echad
Meihem'. This is not a standard case of 'Zu, ve'Ein Tzarich Lomar Zu' - which is
normally a different case (albeit more ocvious), whereas here it is is exactly
similar to the first case, and there appears to be no point in mentioning it.
(b) We answer that the Tana speaks when the one who upheld the Neder subsequenly
nullified it. According to the Ramban, the one who made Kiyum and then nullified it,
can then make Hafarah together with the other one. According to the Rambam however -
as long as Hakamah took place between the two Hafaros, the Neder can no longer be
(c) Even though the Tana is informing us of the Chidush currently under discussion,
he neverthless says 've'Ein Tzarich Lomar she'Kiyem Echad Meihem' - because the key
reason for his mentioning this Din here is because of the Halachah of Kiyum, as it
stands. Only to justify its insertion, he needs to add the additional Chidush of
someone who nullified the Kiyum.
(a) If a man betrothes 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 -
the Kidushin is valid, because when a Chacham annuls a Neder, he uproots it from its
(b) We answer the Rashba, who asks why our case should be any different, why we
reckon with the first Hakamah at all, seeing as the Noder subsequently annulled it -
by differentiating between Kidushin, which is a full-fledged act, which has the power
to override any effect that the initial Neder may have made, and our case, where the
second man's Hafarah, which, in the first place, only takes effect in conjunction
with that of the first man, is not sufficiently powerful to negate the effects of the
first man's Hakamah, which at the time that it was made, prevented it (the second
Hafarah) from taking effect.
(a) Rabah (or Rava) learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "ve'Im Hayo Sihyeh le'Ish u'Nedarehah Alehah ... ve'Yom Shemo'a Iyshah Yani
Osah" - that the Arus, as well as the father, must annul the Arusah's Nedarim.
(b) We know that, in the former case, the father needs to participate in the Hafarah,
too - because of the previous Pasuk, which reads " ... Ki Heini Avihah Osah", and
then continues "ve'Im Hayo ... ". The extra 'Vav' teaches us to connect the first
Pasuk to the second one.
2. ... "ve'Im Beis Iyshah Nadarah ... ve'Im Hafer Yafer Osam Iyshah" - that, once
they are married, it is the husband alone who can annul them.
(c) An Arus should not be able to annul the Arusah's Nedarim on his own - because an
Arusah remains partially in her father's domain.
(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. We cannot 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'? - because if the Pasuk did indeed refer to a Nesu'ah, we would ignore the
extra 'Vav' (which we only Darshen because it is logical to do so).
(a) We prove that the first Pasuk ("ve'Im Hayo Sihyeh le'Ish") is indeed speaking
about an Arusah and not a Nesu'ah - from the fact that the subsequent Pasuk "ve'Im
Beis Iyshah Nadarah" speaks about a Nesu'ah, and we do not require two Pesukim to
teach us the same thing.
(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' -
meaning that the moment they marry, the husband can no longer annul any Nedarim that
his wife declared before the marriage.
(c) We answer this Kashya - by pointing out that we would know both the Din of a
Nesu'ah and that the husband cannot annul her previous Nedarim, from the second
Pasuk, so we would not need the first one to teach us about a Nesu'ah, only an
(a) Alternatively, 'Havayah' is a Lashon of Eirusin - which proves that a girl's
father can only annul the Nedarim of his betrothed daughter together with the Arus.
(b) According to the Sugya in Yevamos, the Pasuk "ve'la'Achoso ha'Besulah Asher Lo
*Haysah* le'Ish refers to the Kohen's sister who is not *married*. This will not
however justify explaining in our Sugya that "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 - because we
maintain categorically that once a woman is married, she has left her father's
(c) We suggest that the father alone should be able to annul the Nedarim of his
daughter who is betrothed. In that case, we will explain the Pasuk "ve'Im Hayo Sihyeh
le'Ish" (with the connecting 'Vav') to mean that - although the Arus has no power
regarding the annulment of the Arusah's Nedarim, he can however, uphold them (thereby
preventing the father from annulling them. The Torah writes "ve'Im be'Yom Shemo'a
Iyshah Yani Osah ve'Heifer es Nidrah" - not for its intrinsic meaning, but to infer
from there that if he has not annulled the Neder by the end of that day, it is
considerd upheld, and the father can no longer annul it.
(d) We refute the suggestion - on the grounds that if the father has the sole right
of anulling his betrothed daughter's Nedarim, then it goes without saying that he can
annul the Nedarim of his daughter who is not yet betrothed. Why then, does the Torah
need to write "ve'Asrah Isar Beis Avihah ... Yani Osah"?
(a) So we switch on to the other foot, placing the stress on the Hafarah of the Arus.
In view of our current suggestion (that the Arus can annul the Arusah's Nedarim on
his own) - we restrict the D'rashah from the 'Vav', giving the father some
jurisdiction over his betrothed daughter even after she is divorced to his right to
uphold her Nedarim, and prevent the Arus from subsequently annlling them (but not
with regard to annuling them).
(b) We reject this suggestion on the grounds that, if so, we would not need the Pasuk
"ve'Im Beis Iyshah Nadarah" - because if an Arus can annul the Arusah's Nedarim on
his own, then how much more so a husband.
(c) We cannot answer that 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 - because as we have already seen, the fact
that once she enters her husband's domain, she leaves that of her father completely,
is obvious and does not require a Pasuk.
(d) Nor can we answer that 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 anulling the Nedarim of his Arus on his own) - because that
itself implies that an Arus *can* annul Nedarim that his wife declared before they
were married, which in turn, is only because of his partnership with the father,
proving once and for all, that the Arus together with the father, must annul the
Nedarim for the Hafarah to be effective.
2. ... extrapolate that if he upheld the Neder of his daughter who is *an Arusah*,
the Arus can no longer annul the Neder - because seeing as she is still partially
under her father's jurisdiction, this is obvious, and does not require a Pasuk.