ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 71
NEDARIM 71 - has been dedicated to the memory of Kodesh ben Simcha Gedaliah,
who completed his mission on this world in but a few weeks.
(a) If a betrothed girl who is divorced, becomes betrothed again - the
second Arus in conjunction with her father annuls the Nedarim that she
declared whilst she was betrothed to the first Arus (though this is not
evident from the Mishnah itself, as we shall see).
(b) If she became a Bogeres before becoming betrothed the second time, or if
the man who divorced her was her husband (and not just an Arus) - those
Nedarim are no longer subject to annulment.
(a) Shmuel learns from the Pasuk "ve'Im Hayo Sihyeh le'Ish u'Nedarehah
*Alehah*" - that the second Arus may even annul the Nedarim that the Arusah
declared whilst she was betrothed to the first Arus.
(b) Shmuel himself asked the Kashya 'Minalan', which prompted his answer.
(c) Even if our Mishnah was speaking in a case when the first Arus was not
aware of the Arusah's Nedarim, the Tana would need to stress that she was
divorced on the same day - in a case when *the father* was aware of his
(d) What makes us so certain that Shsmuel is not merely finding the source
for the Din mentioned by the Tana of our Mishnah - is the statement 'Tanya
Kavasei di'Shmuel', seeing as the Beraisa proves Shmuel's statement, not the
source that he brings.
(a) We suggest that the Pasuk "(u'Nedarehah *Alehah*") might be confined to
Nedarim about which the first Arus had been unaware. Those Nedarim that he
knew about however, can only be annulled by her father ('Nisroknah'). The
other alternative is - that, since the Arus cannot annul them, the father
cannot annul them either.
(b) Shmuel in fact knows to include even Nedarim of which the first Arus was
aware, from "Alehah" - because, in his opinion, the word is superfluous, and
we Darshen from it 'all Nedarim that are on her' (even those of which the
first Arus was aware).
(c) We learned a Beraisa in support of Shmuel. The case in the Reisha is
exactly the same as that of Shmuel. The Tana Kama of the Beraisa says in the
Seifa, where the first Arus heard about the Arusah's Neder, annulled it and
then died - that the father, who did not hear about the Neder before, now
annuls his own part as well as the part of the Arus.
(d) Despite the fact that the Arus already annulled his part of the Neder,
the father needs to annul it again, because when the Arus died, his Hafarah
(a) Rebbi Nasan comments on the previous Beraisa - that the Seifa is the
opinion of Beis Shamai, but that, according to Beis Hillel, the father
cannot annul the Neder without the participation of the second Arus
(concerning the Reisha, we shall now see).
The Seifa of the Beraisa refers to when 'Ba'alah' heard the Neder and
annulled it before dying. By 'Ba'alah' - the Tana means the Arus.
(b) Some commentaries say that Beis Hillel only disagrees with the Din in
the Seifa, but that he agrees with that of the Reisha (Shmuel's Din). The
problem with this is - how can the father now annul the Neder, seeing as it
has been weakened by the earlier Hafarah of the father himself. Why is this
any different than the Beraisa that we learned earlier where, when the
husband died before he had heard about the Neder, the father is not able to
annul the Neder, because, due to his Hafarah, it has become weakened?
(c) We resolve this problem - by drawing a distinction between the earlier
case, where the Arus died and the Arusash returned to the sole Reshus of her
father (who cannot take over the weakened Neder from the Arus), and this
case, where the second Arus takes over from the first one, and it is as if
she has remained in the Reshus of the Arus.
(d) Tosfos however, disagree with those commentaries. According to them,
Beis Hillel argue in the Reisha too. In the Reisha, where Beis Shamai permit
the father to annul his daughter's Nedarim in conjunction with the second
Arus - they hold that the father cannot annul his daughter's Neder, even in
conjunction with the second Arus (since, when the father annulled the Neder,
he weakened it, in which case the second Arus cannot 'inherit' it, and the
father cannot annul it on his own either). Note; we have explained the
entire Sugya like the other commentaries.
(a) Beis Shamai holds that even Nedarim about which the Arus knew,
'Nisroknah Reshus le'Av'. The Neder is not weakened by the fact that the
Arus annulled them - because, upon his death, his annulment is negated.
(b) We learned earlier that when the father annulled his daughter's Neder
and died, the Arus, who only heard about the Neder after the father's death,
cannot annul it ('Lo Nisroknah'). This seemingly clashes with Beis Shamai's
opinion here - since if the reason there is because, even though 'Av Meigaz
Gayaz', his Hafarah was negated with his death (and his part of the Neder
remains intact), then why do we not say the same in our case, to prohibit
the father from annulling the Neder because of the part of the Arus, which
(c) We resolve this problem by re-learning the above case - it is not the
father's death negating the Hafarah that prohibits the Arus from annulling
the Neder, but because of the principle that an Arus can never annul the
Nedarim of the Arusah on his own. In fact, the Hafarah of the father severed
his connection with his daughter's Nedarim altogether (irrespective of his
death). Consequently, in out case, the Arus' annulment severed his
connection with the Nedarim, too. Consequently, the father is able to annul
the Nedarim on his own (as he does before his daughter becomes betrothed).
(d) Beis Hillel's reasoning - is based on his opinion that the father or the
Arus only weaken the Neder (not sever their connection with it).
Consequently, in our case, when the first Arus annulled the Neder, it
remained partially intact, in which case, the second Arus together with the
father are able to annul it (According to Beis Shamai, the second Arus has
nothing to do with the Nedarim that the Arusash made whilst betrothed to the
(a) It was necessary to stress according to Beis Shamai, that even those
Nedarim that the Arus knew about, end up with the father, in spite of our
having established earlier that everyone agrees with that - to teach us that
that is so even in this case where there is a second Arus, and we may have
thought that *he* inherits the rights of the first Arus (like Beis Hillel
(b) We say that *even* those Nedarim that the Arus knew about are annulled
by the father ... ', as if Nedarim that the Arus did not about are certainly
annulled by the father, despite the fact that they are not - because that
speaks only when the father annulled the Neder. When he did not, then, when
the Arus knew about the Neder, there is more reason to say that the father
cannot annul the Nedarim after the Arus' death (even though we are speaking
when the father did annul the Nedarim). Or because we are speaking when
there is a second Arus, where Nedarim about which the Arus knew is a bigger
(c) In any event, we see from Beis Hillel that both the father and the
second Arus must nullify even those Nedarim about which the first Arus was
aware (like Shmuel). This proof will go even according to Beis Shamai (who
rules here that the father annuls the Nedarim on his own), because that is
only due to the fact that the father had previously annulled the Nedarim;
otherwise, he would agree with Beis Hillel.
(a) The B'nei Yeshivah asked whether, if the Arus divorced the Arusah, it
has a Din of Shesikah (silence) - in which case if he were to take her back
on the same day, he would still be able to annul her Neder, or of Hakamah
(upholding the Neder) - in which case, he could not.
(b) Despite the fact that he did not say anything, it might it have the Din
of Hakamah - because, since the Arus knew that after the divorce, he would
not be able to annul her Nedarim, it is as if he had upheld them.
(c) The word 'Ba'alah' in this context can only mean Arus. If it meant
husband, he would not be able to annul the Nedarim even assuming Gerushin to
be like Shesikah, because 'mi'Mah Nafshach'; if he then remarried her, a
married man cannot annul Nedarim that were made before the marriage, whereas
if he only betrothed her (bearing in mind that when he married the first
time, she left her father's jurisdiction), he would have to annul her
Nedarim on his own, something which an Arus cannot do.
(d) They said ...
1. ... 'va'Ahadrah *be'Yomei'* - because otherwise, it is obvious that he
would not be able to annul the Nedarim.
2. ... 'va'Ahadrah ... ' - only because it is more common, but not because
it would make any difference if a second Arus would betroth her (seeing as
Arus Meifer be'Kodmin).