ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 76
(a) We just proved from the Rabbanan of Rebbi Eliezer in the Reisha of the
Beraisa that the Neder of a woman which her husband annulled in advance does
not come into effect. In the Seifa, the Rabbanan asked Rebbi Eliezer from
Tevilah ('Im Matbilin K'li Tamei Litaher, Yatbilu K'li Tahor
le'che'Yitamei'?) - meaning that, if we were to abide by Rebbi Eliezer's
'Kal va'Chomer', then seeing as one can Tovel a Tamei vessel to remove the
Tum'ah, one should certainly be able to Tovel one to prevent it from
(b) The Seifa counters our previous proof from the Reisha - inasmuch as it
now appears that, according to Rebbi Eliezer, we learn from the 'Kal
va'Chomer' that the Tum'ah does not take effect at all, in which case, the
same will apply to the wife's Neder that her husband annulled in advance.
(c) The reason the Reisha of the Beraisa assumes that, according to Rebbi
Eliezer, the woman's Nedarim do not come into effect, and the Seifa of the
same Beraisa holds the opposite is - because the Rabbanan themselves were
unsure what Rebbi Eliezer really held, so they brought proofs covering both
(a) We learn from the Pasuk " ... Al Kol Zera Zeru'a Asher Yizarei'a" - that
if one plants Tamei seeds, they become Tahor.
(b) Rebbi Eliezer makes a 'Kal va'Chomer' - if Tamei seeds that one sowed in
the ground become Tahor, then certainly seeds that are sowed already, cannot
(c) He is trying to prove with this 'Kal va'Chomer' - that the Rabbanan (who
certainly agree with this Halachah), will have to agree with his 'Kal
va'Chomer' regarding Nedarim, too.
(d) What we finally prove from here is - that according to Rebbi Eliezer,
the Nedarim will not take effect at all (like the seeds that one planted,
which do not become Tamei).
(a) We know that a girl of twelve cannot be sold as an Amah ha'Ivriyah' (a
Jewish maidservant) - from a Kal va'Chomer, because if she goes out when she
turns twelve, she can certainly not be sold.
(b) This poses on the Rabbanan of Rebbi Eliezer - who argue with Rebbi
Eliezer's 'Kal va'Chomer'. Yet they agree with this Halachah, and, if not
for the 'Kal va'Chomer', from where will they learn it?
(c) We might prefer to ask on them from here rather than from the previous
case of Tamei seeds (as Rebbi Eliezer does) because we are not so sure that
the Rabbanan do not argue with Rebbi Eliezer there, whereas here, we know
the Din of selling a Jewish maidservant to be unanimous. Alternatively, we
might answer that the Rabbanan's source is not from the 'Kal va'Chomer' at
all, but because it is incorporated in the Pasuk "Al Kol Zera Zeiru'a Asher
(a) We ultimately reconcile the Rabbanan in our Mishnah, with the two other
cases where they agree with Rebbi Eliezer's 'Kal va'Chomer' - by changing
from what we learned until now. In fact, we now explain, they agree with
this 'Kal va'Chomer' on principle, only the Pasuk "Iyshah Yekimenu,
ve'Iyshah Yeferenu" overrides it.
(b) In that case, when the Rabbanan above ask on Rebbi Eliezer from Mikveh
(or from Taharah Belu'ah), they mean to ask (not on the 'Kal va'Chomer
itself, but) - that the Pasuk "ve'ha'Nogei'a be'Nivlasam Yitma" overrides
(a) A husband (or father) can annul the Nedarim of his wife (or daughter) -
(b) When the Tana adds 'Yesh be'Davar Lahakel u'Lehachmir' - he means to
say, that sometimes they have a long time to annul it, and sometimes, only a
very short time (as opposed to a period of twenty-four hours, which is
(c) The Tana demonstrates the case of 'Lehakel' with the example of 'Leilei
Shabbos u've'Yom ha'Shabbos ... ', when the same applies to a weekday - to
teach us that Hafaras Nedarim can be performed even on Shabbos (even when it
is not for the needs of Shabbos, as we shall see later).
(d) In the Seifa, despite the fact that the Tana is demonstrating the case
of 'Lehachmir', he says 'Meifer ad she'Lo Techshach' rather than 'Eino
Meifer Ela ad she'Techshach' (which appears to be more appropriate - to
stress the fact that even though the Neder is obviously not for the needs of
Shabbos, the husband or the father can still annul it.
(a) The author of our Mishnah is the Tana Kama of a Beraisa. According to
Rebbi b'Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar be'Rebbi Shimon - the husband and the
father have 'me'Es le'Es (twenty-four hours) in which to make Hafaras
(b) The Tana Kama derives his opinion from the Pasuk "be'Yom Sham'o" - Rebbi
b'Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar be'Rebbi Shimon derive theirs from "mi'Yom
(c) According to the Tana Kama, the Torah needs to write "mi'Yom el Yom" -
because from "be'Yom Sham'o" alone - we would have thought that Hafaras
Nedarim must be performed by day.
(d) And according to Rebbi b'Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Elazar be'Rebbi Shimon,
the Torah needs to write "be'Yom Sham'o", because had it only written
"mi'Yom el Yom" - we would have thought that they have a whole week in which
to annul it, from day to day.
(a) Rebbi Shimon ben Pazi Amar Rebbi Yehoshua ben Levi ruled 'not like that
When Levi wanted to make Hafaras Nedarim after nightfall - Rav
informed him that his uncle (Rebbi Chiya) ruled 'not like that pair.
(b) Chiya bar Ashi would shoot arrows as he performed Hataras Nedarim, and
Rabah bar Rav Huna would sit or stand, as he pleased - which comes to teach
us that both of them performed Hataras Nedarim casually (the latter would
otherwise have sat down, in order to concentrate better). From this we learn
that they hold 'Poschin ba'Charatah' (which does not require the same
concentration as a proper Pesach does).