ANSWERS TO REVIEW QUESTIONS
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 79
(a) Hakamah is more stringent than Hafarah, says the Beraisa, inasmuch as
'Shesikah Mekayemes ve'Ein Shesikah Mevateles' - and inasmuch as 'Kiyeim
be'Libo, Kayam, Hafer bi'Libo, Eino Mufar'.
(b) An un-verbalized Hafarah is valid - in a case where the husband first
said 'T'li ve'Ichli, T'li u'Shesi', as we learned earlier.
(a) A husband can neither make Hafarah once he has made Hakamah - nor
Hakamah once he has made Hafarah.
(b) We assume that 'Shesikah Mekayemes' refers to 'Shosek al-Menas Lemeikat'
(a proof that 'Shosek al-Menas Lemeikat' is considered a Hakamah). It cannot
refer to 'Shosek al-Menas Lekayem' - because then, there would be no
difference between this case and that of 'Kiyam be'Libo Kayam ... '.
(c) We refute this proof - by establishing 'Shesikah Mekayemes' by S'tam
(a) From the fact that a woman's Neder is considered upheld if her husband
fails to annul it by the end of the day - we learn that Hakamah be'Leiv is
effective (since the reason that it is considered upheld at the end of the
day is because of the assumption that, if the husband has not annulled it by
then, he wants it to take effect (which is effectively, a silent Kiyum).
(b) The Torah gave a husband a day before declaring his silence to be a
Hakamah - because it is assumed that, up until then, he cannot make up his
mind whether to uphold the Neder or to annul it.
(c) Rebbi Yochanan gives the Chumra of Hafarah over Hakamah as being
'Nish'alin al ha'Hekem, ve'Ein Nish'alin al ha'Hefer'. One can only have the
Hakamah revoked - by the end of that day; after that, it becomes
(a) When the Pasuk writes ...
1. ... "Ki Hecherish Lah be'Yom Sham'o" - it is referring to 'Shochet
(b) 'Shosek al-Menas Lekayem' cannot mean that he was silent with the
intention of upholding the Neder immediately (like it did on the previous
Amud) - because then, the Neder would be upheld immediately, and he would
not have until nightfall to annul it.
2. ... "ve'Im Hacharish Yacharish Lah Iyshah ... " - it is referring to
Shochet al-Menas Lemeikat.
(c) Rav Kahana proves from here - that Shosek al-Menas Lemeikat is
considered a Kiyum, and the Neder cannot be annulled 'up to ten days'
(proving Rebbi Chanina wrong).
(d) We cannot repudiate Rav Kahana's proof by establishing one of the
Pesukim by Shosek al-Menas Lekayem, and the other, by Shosek S'tam - because
even if we do, the Pasuk "ve'Im Hacharish Yacharish" appears a number of
times, enabling us to Darshen one of the extra times with regard to Shosek
(a) We learned in our Mishnah that if a woman declared a Neder just before
nightfall on Shabbos evening, the husband should annul it immediately;
otherwise it will be too late. If, as Rebbi Chanina maintains, Shosek
al-Menas Lemeikat is not considered Hakamah - then Chazal should certainly
have permitted the husband to wait until nightfall to annul a Neder that was
declared just before nightfall (bearing in mind that there is no Tzorech
Shabbos here). So we see that irrespective of the husband's motives, silence
until nightfall constitutes Hakamah.
(b) Rava brings another disproof (in spite of the fact that Rav Kahana has
already proved Rebbi Chanina wrong - just in case we are able to resolve Rav
(a) The Mishnah in 've'Eilu Nedarim' says that if a husband says (after
nightfall) that although he acknowledged the Nedarim that his wife declared
to be Nedarim, he did not know at the time that a husband could annul
Nedarim - he is still able to annul them (until the following nightfall).
***** Hadran Alach Na'arah ha'Me'urasah *****
(b) According to Rebbi Meir, if the same husband had claimed that he knew
about Hafaras Nedarim, but not that the particular Neder that his wife
declared could be annulled, he could have no longer annulled it - because,
since he was aware that a husband can annul Nedarim, that is considered 'the
day that he heard it'.
(c) The Chachamim say 'Yafer' - because, as long as a husband does not know
that he can annul a particular Neder, it cannot be considered 'the day that
he heard it'.
(d) Rav Ashi proves from Rebbi Meir's ruling - that a husband cannot annul
his wife's Nedarim after nightfall, irrespective of his motives for not
annulling them. And the Rabbanan clearly agree with Rebbi Meir in principle,
only arguing here because he was not aware that he could annul them.
***** Perek ve'Eilu Nedarim *****
(a) The Tana permits a husband to annul Nidrei Inuy Nefesh. He mentions as
examples, (washing and) Kishut - which means a Neder forbidding herself to
wear make-up on her face.
(b) Rebbi Yossi maintains that Kishut does not fall under the category of
Inuy Nefesh - but it does fall under the category of Devarim she'Beino
le'Veinah (as we shall see in the Sugya).
(c) The Rabbanan will agree with Rebbi Yossi - when it comes to Nedarim
forbidding Kishut on the lower part of her body.
(a) We learn from the Pasuk "Bein Ish le'Ishto, Bein Av le'Vito" - that a
husband and a father are permitted to annul Nedarim that effect themselves
We finally ascribe the difference between Nidrei Inuy Nefesh (which are
mentioned in our Mishnah), and Nedarim she'Beino le'Veinah, which are not -
to the fact that the latter are effective permanently, whereas the former
cease to be effective in a case where her husband divorced her, and someone
else married her.
(b) Initially, we explain that the Tana of our Mishnah only mentions Nidrei
Inuy Nefesh, and not Nedarim she'Beino le'Veinah - because he only mentions
those Nedarim whose Hafarah is permanent, but Nedarim she'Beino le'Veinah,
whose Hafarah ceases to be effective the moment the husband divorces her (to
remain in effect even in the event of his re-marrying her).
(c) Rebbi Yochanan ben Nuri in a Mishnah later, permits a husband to annul
his wife's Neder when she declares 'Konem she'Ani Osah le'Ficha' - to
prevent a situation in which he divorces her, the Neder becomes effective
and he is unable to re-marry her.
(d) This proves - that the husband's Hafarah of Nedarim she'Beino le'Veinah,
which becomes ineffective after he divorces her, come back into effect he
re-marries her (disproving our initial explanation of the difference between
Nidrei Inuy Nefesh, and Nedarim she'Beino le'Veinah).
(a) 'Im Erchatz' referred to in our Mishnah is not per se, a Lashon of
Neder. The case cannot be when the woman said 'Konem Peiros Olam Alai im
Erchatz' - because, based on the theory that not bathing is not considered
Inuy Nefesh, why should a husband be permitted to annul such a Neder? Let
her not bathe, and she will not become forbidden to eat fruit.
(b) We think that Rechitzah is not considered Nidrei Inuy Nefesh - because
if it was, the Tana should have made not bathing the Neder, not the
(a) We learned in 'Eilu Mutarin' that if someone says 'Konem Einai
be'Sheinah ha'Yom Im Ishan le'Machar, Al Yishan ha'Yom' - because people are
not particular about the condition (like they are about the Neder itself).
Consequently, we are afraid that the Noder may sleep tomorrow, automatically
causing himself to have contravened his Neder (by having slept today).
(b) In spite of that, we ask here 'Lo Tirchatz, ve'Lo Litseran Peiros Olam
Alah'? (without fear that here too, she will not pay heed to the condition
and bathe, causing her to contravene her Neder) - because since she did not
say 'me'ha'Yom', she will not have contravened the Neder automatically,
until she eats fruit after taking a bath.
(c) The Kashya 've'Od be'Ha Leima Rebbi Yossi, Ein Eilu Nidrei Inuy Nefesh?'
appears to clash with the first Kashya (where we were not in the least
worried that she might bathe and become forbidden to eat). However - we are
not asking on the Din of Rebbi Yossi, but on his Lashon. Since he did not
say 'Ein Yachol Lehafer Mishum Nidrei Inuy Nefesh', but 'Ein Eilu Nidrei
Inuy Nefesh', he seems to agree with the Tana Kama's suspicion that she
might bathe and become forbidden to eat fruit. That being the case, how can
he deny that this is considered Inuy Nefesh?