REVIEW QUESTIONS ON GEMARA AND RASHI
prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem
Previous daf Nedarim 68
NEDARIM 68 (25 Elul) - dedicated by Mrs. G. Turkel (Rabbi Kornfeld's grandmother), an
exceptional woman with an iron will, who loved and respected the study of Torah.
Today is the Shloshim following her passing. Tehei Nafshah Tzerurah bi'Tzror
(a) What does Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learn from the Pasuk "Bein Ish le'Ishto,
Bein Av le'Bito"?
From where does Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learn that the Arus can annul the Nedarim
which the Arusah made before the betrothal?
(b) How does he know that this Pasuk is referring to a Na'arah ha'Me'urasah and not
to a Nesu'ah?
(c) What does Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learn from "ve'Im Hayo Sihyeh le'Ish" (from
which Rabah derived that both the Arus and the father need to annul the Arusah's
(d) From where do the Rabbanan (who argue with Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael) learn the
Hekesh of the second Kidushin to the first?
(a) What does Rabah (or Rava) learn from the Pasuk "Bein Ish le'Ishto ... "?
(b) From where ...
(c) What does the Sifri learn from the Hekesh of "Bein Ish le'Ishto Bein Av le'Bito"
(comparing a man's daughter to his wife)?
- ... does Tana de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learn this?
- ... do we know that, in addition, a husband can annul Nedarim which cause his wife pain?
(d) What does the Rambam say?
(a) We ask a She'eilah whether an Arus cuts the Neder or whether he weakens it.
What does this mean?
In view of the Sugya in Shevu'os, where Rav Papa rules that Konamos do not require a
Shiur, there are three possible reasons why we mention specifically two olives. One
of them is because of the opinion (albeit not accepted) there which maintains that
even by Konamos, when it comes to eating, one will not receive Malkos for less than a
(b) Will the same She'eilah apply to the father?
(c) The ramifications of this She'eilah are when the woman made a Neder not to eat
two (large) olives, the Arus annulled the Neder and she went and ate them.
this Halachah depend upon the two sides of the She'eilah?
(d) Seeing as, if the Arus cuts the Neder, he would have removed one of the two
olives, why would she need to eat both olives in order to receive Malkos?
What are the two remaining explanations?
(a) The Tana of the Beraisa lists all the cases where one of the two partners (the
father and the Arus) dies: 1. 'Lo Shama ha'Ba'al Kodem she'Yamus, O she'Shama
ve'Hefer O she'Shama ve'Shasak u'Meis Bo ba'Yom ... Nisroknah Reshus le'Av'.
Answers to questions
which two cases then, can the father not annul his daughter's Nedarim?
(b) How will the Din differ if, in the last of the listed cases, the Arus died on the
(c) Bearing in mind that if the Arus annulled the Neder and then died, the father is
obligated to annul the part of the deceased Arus as well as his own, will the same
distinction apply (regarding annulling the Neder and dying on the same day or on the
(d) How do we prove this from the Seifa 'Aval Im Shama ve'Kiyem, O Shama ve'Shasak
u'Meis be'Yom she'Acharav, Ein Yachol Lehafer'?
(a) 2. 'Shama Avihah ve'Hefer Lah ve'Lo Hispik Ba'al Lishmo'a ad she'Meis ha'Av', Zu
Hi she'Shaninu Meis ha'Av Lo Nisroknu Reshus le'Ba'al'.
Is there any reason that
the Tana mentions 've'Lo Hispik Ba'al Lishmo'a'? Does it make any difference whether
he knew about the Neder or not?
(b) 3. 'Shama Ba'alah ve'Hefer Lah ve'Lo Hispik ha'Av Lishmo'a ad she'Meis ha'Ba'al,
Zu Hi she'Shaninu, Meis 'ha'Ba'al, Nisroknah Reshus le'Av'.
Why does the Tana
mention here 've'Lo Hispik ha'Av Lishmo'a' (seeing as in the previous case we
explained that this is more reason to say that the other partner should be able to
annul the Neder)?
(c) 4. 'Shama Ba'alah ve'Hefer Lah ve'Lo Hispik ha'Av Lishmo'a ad she'Meis, Ein
ha'Ba'al Yachol Lehafer, she'Ein ha'Ba'al Meifer Ela be'Shutfus'. What is the
Chidush of this case (as opposed to the case of 'Shama Avihah ... ', case 2.)?
(d) Why does the Tana not conclude 'Lo Nisroknah ... ', like in that case?
(a) We learned above that 'Shama Avihah ve'Hefer Lah ve'Lo Hispik Ba'al Lishmo'a ad
she'Meis ha'Av', Zu Hi she'Shaninu Meis ha'Av Lo Nisroknu Reshus le'Ba'al'.
we know that this is not only due to the fact that the father had first weakened the
Neder by annulling it, but that, had the Neder remained fully intact, the Arus would
have been able to annul it?
(b) Perhaps that is only with regard to the father, who begins in a stronger position
than the Arus, but the Arus cannot annul the Neder that has been weakened by the
(a) 5. 'Shama Avihah ve'Hefer Lah, ve'Lo Hispik ha'Ba'al Lishmo'a ad she'Meis, Chozer
ha'Av u'Meifer Chelko shel Ba'al'.
Why do Beis Shamai say 'Chozer ha'Av u'Meifer
... '? Does this mean that the father is obligated to repeat the Hafarah?
(b) Rebbi Nasan explains that this is the opinion of Beis Shamai, but that according
to Beis Hillel, the father cannot annul the Neder.
Why is that?
(c) What is the basis of their Machlokes?
(d) What have we resolved by citing this Machlokes?
(a) Why, in the case of 'Shama Ba'alah ve'Hefer Lah ... ' (case 3.), do even Beis
Hillel agree that the father can annul the Neder, even though the Arus (apparently)
weakened the Neder when he annulled it prior to his death?
Answers to questions
(b) What will Beis Hillel say in the last case, if, after the Arus dies, the girl
became betrothed again on the same day?