More Discussions for this daf
1. Kodmin; Miklash Kalish 2. Mi'un and Hafarah 3. Arusah and Nesu'ah
4. Hava Amina of the Rosh 5. Ne'arah ha'Me'orasah
DAF DISCUSSIONS - NEDARIM 67

Yeshayah HaKohen Hollander asked:

(a) Re: Daf 67 At the end of amud 1 the gemara says: why two psukim regarding a married woman? To tell us that the husband cannot void vows predating the marriage.

From the psukim themselves it would seem just the opposite: to tell us that a husband CAN void predating vows:

However, the Pasuk says, (7) v'Im Hayo Sihyeh l'Ish u'Nedareha Aleha O Mivta Sefaseha Ashe Asra Al Nafsha. (8) v'Shama Ishah b'Yom Shamo v'Hecherish Lah v'Kamu Nedareha v'Esareha Asher Asra Al Nafsha Yakumu. (9) v'Im b'Yom Shama Ishah Yani Osah v'Hefer Es Nidrah Asher Aleha v'Es Mivta Sefasheha Asher Asra Al Nafshah va'Hashem Yislach Lah.

In any case it seems that there is a disagreement on the issue of Kodmin; where is it clarified?

(b) Re Daf 68: The sugya of Meigaz Gaiz or Miklash seems very unusual.

1. Why not say very simply: until both have done their bit the there is no validity at all to the Hafara of one alone?

2. The application of the idea of Meigaz is also strange: Ifthe young lady forbids herself to eat two units - she has iherently permitted herself to eat one, and only upon eating the second can she be liable; so in effect the position of Meigaz retains that situation, and there is really no effect at all of Meigaz!! Is this saying that in reality Meigaz is saying "until both have done their bit the there is no validity at all to the Hafara of one alone"!?

3. The Tora gives no hint of an intermediate state of Miklash, that a issur remains but it is not punishable - whence do those who say Miklash derive this

Yeshayahu Hollander

The Kollel replies:

(a) We do not learn "Ein ha'Ba'al Meifer b'Kodmin" from the verse "Im Hayo Sihiyeh l'Ish." Rather, from there we learn that an Arus (Havayah meaning Erusin) is Meifir b'Kodmin.We learn Kodmin from the Pasuk of "*Beis Ishah* Nadarah." When the Gemara suggested that both Pesukim are referring to a Nesu'ah, still we were excluding Kodmin from the Pasuk of "Beis Ishah" (see Ran).

(b) All of these questions are variations on a single theme, that theme being *the* question of Na'arah ha'Me'urasah: how do we know that one out of the two (father or husband) being Meifir does *anything*? All the Dinim which follow are based on this assumption. See Keren Orah who raises this point, says that the Yerushalmi disagrees, brings comparable Dinim from throughout Shas, and finally accepts the fact that our Gemara was working on the premise that it is obvious that one Hafarah does something.

D. Z.