OPINIONS: Rabah derives from the verse, "Bein Ish l'Ishto, Bein Av l'Vito" (Bamidbar 30:17), that a husband may annul only Nedarim she'Beino l'Beinah, in addition to Nedarim of Inuy Nefesh which the Torah mentions explicitly (Bamidbar 30:14). It is clear from the Gemara that a husband may annul only these two types of Neder -- she'Beino l'Beinah and Inuy Nefesh. What type of Nedarim may a Na'arah's father annul?

(a) The RAN and other Rishonim derive from the Gemara here that not only is the husband's power of annulment limited to Nedarim she'Beino l'Beinah and Inuy Nefesh, but the father's power of annulment is also limited to these two types of Neder. The source for this limitation is the verse which says both "Bein Ish l'Ishto" and "Bein Av l'Vito," and implies that the father may annul only Nedarim Beino l'Beinah.

The Rishonim bring further support from the Sifri (Matos 155) and the Yerushalmi (11:1) which derive from the verse (the Hekesh between a father and a husband) that a father may annul only Nedarim she'Beino l'Beinah and Nedarim of Inuy Nefesh.

(b) The RAMBAM (Hilchos Nedarim 12:1), however, differentiates between the father and the husband and rules that the father may annul all Nedarim of his daughter. In a letter to the Chochmei Lunil who challenged his ruling, the Rambam explains that his source is the very verse which teaches that a father may annul his daughter's Nedarim. The verse which discusses Hafaras ha'Av states that the father may annul "Kol Nedareha" (Bamidbar 30:6) -- all of her Nedarim. In contrast, the verse which discusses the Hafarah of the husband states that he may annul "all Nedarim that cause suffering" (Bamidbar 30:14), limiting the husband's power to Nedarim of Inuy Nefesh. Similarly, when the verse discusses the husband's Hafarah of the Nedarim of a Na'arah Me'urasah it states that he may annul "her Nedarim" (30:9), without the word "all." This implies that the father's ability to annul is not limited to Nedarim of Inuy Nefesh.

Furthermore, the Rambam points out that Nedarim she'Beino l'Beinah are Nedarim with which a woman prohibits herself from marital relations with her husband. In the case of a daughter who makes a Neder, there is no such Neder she'Beino l'Beinah with her father. Therefore, it is not logical that the Torah would compare the father to the husband with regard to Nedarim she'Beino l'Beinah. Since the father differs from the husband with regard to those Nedarim, he must also differ with regard to Nedarim of Inuy Nefesh, and thus he may annul all types of Neder that his daughter makes.

Finally, the Rambam infers from the fact that of all of the statements in the Mishnah and Gemara which discuss Nedarim she'Beino l'Beinah and Nedarim of Inuy Nefesh, not one mentions an example of Hafarah which involves the father. The only examples of Hafarah of such Nedarim discussed is the husband's Hafarah. This implies that there are no limits to the Hafarah of the father.

How does the Rambam understand the Sifri and Yerushalmi which explicitly state that the father and husband have the same ability to annul Nedarim? The Rambam writes "that this bothered me for many days." He concludes that since this Derashah is not mentioned anywhere in Talmud Bavli, it is likely that the Gemara does not accept it.

According to the Rambam, the Derashah of Rabah explains only the words "Bein Ish l'Ishto" and not "Bein Av l'Vito." The words "Bein Av l'Vito" are mentioned in this part of the verse only because the end of the verse must mention "bi'Ne'ureha Beis Aviha."

The Rishonim reject the Rambam's proofs. The wording of the verse alone is not sufficient proof to propose a Halachah which is not hinted to anywhere in the Gemara or Midrashim. On the contrary, the Hekesh mentioned in the Sifri and the Yerushalmi clearly teaches that the verse is not to be understood the way the Rambam understands it.

The ME'IRI (67a) writes, with regard to the Rambam's second proof (that it is not possible for a daughter to make a Neder which is Beino l'Beinah with her father), that a Neder which is Beino l'Beinah with her father does exist. An example of such a Neder is a Neder the daughter makes to prohibit herself from serving her father.

The fact that the Gemara does not mention the Hekesh of the Sifri is not a strong proof for the Rambam's ruling, because there are many Halachos that are accepted in practice that are mentioned in the Sifri but not in the Gemara. The ME'IRI (67a and 68a), however, suggests a way to understand the Sifri even according to the Rambam's ruling. The Me'iri asks what the Halachah would be, according to the Rambam, in the case of a Na'arah Me'urasah who makes a Neder which is not Beino l'Beinah or Inuy Nefesh. Since the Arus cannot annul such a Neder, may the father annul the Neder by himself? Perhaps since the daughter is betrothed (Me'ureses) and the father's authority over her is weakened, he cannot annul any Neder by himself, and thus no one can annul her Neder while she is Me'ureses. (See also LECHEM MISHNEH.) The Me'iri favors the second approach -- that no one can annul a Na'arah's Neder which is not Beino l'Beinah or Inuy Nefesh while she is Me'urasah. This approach has logical basis as well. Although a husband can annul the Nedarim of his wife even when she is a Bogeres (70a), nevertheless an Arus cannot annul the Nedarim of his wife who is a Bogeres since the father cannot join him in the Hafarah once she has left his domain entirely (by becoming a Bogeres).

The Me'iri therefore suggests that perhaps the Hekesh of the Sifri compares the husband to the father only with regard to the Nedarim of a Na'arah Me'urasah. In such a case, the father's Hafarah indeed is limited to the Nedarim that the Arus may annul.

(c) The TUR (YD 234) cites RABEINU YECHIEL who suggests a compromise between the different opinions. Rabeinu Yechiel rules that although the father may annul all of the Nedarim of his daughter, he may do so only before she becomes an Arusah. If, once she becomes an Arusah, the Arus dies and she returns to the domain of her father, the father can annul only Nedarim she'Beino l'Beinah and Nedarim of Inuy Nefesh. The BEIS YOSEF points out that Rabeinu Yechiel understands that the Hekesh of the Sifri does not necessarily contradict the inference of the verse that the father may annul "all" of the Nedarim. The Sifri compares the father to the Arus only after the Arus dies, while the verse refers to a daughter who has not yet become betrothed to an Arus!

The logic behind Rabeinu Yechiel's ruling is that when a woman becomes an Arusah, she leaves her father's domain with regard to his ability to annul her Nedarim (Kidushin 4a). Only after the Arus dies does the right to annul her Nedarim return to the father through the mechanism of "Nisroknah," which teaches that the father inherits the right of Hafarah from the Arus. Since he receives his right of Hafarah from the Arus, he receives all of the rights which the Arus had. Since the Arus was able to annul only Nedarim she'Beino l'Beinah and Nedarim of Inuy Nefesh, the father's rights are also limited to Hafarah of those Nedarim. (Rabeinu Yechiel must maintain, as the Me'iri concludes, that during the daughter's period of Erusin the father does not have the right to annul other types of Nedarim.)

Perhaps the Rambam understands the Sifri as Rabeinu Yechiel understands it, even though he did not reveal this to the Chochmei Lunil in his responsum to them. (See a similar approach in the Rambam's response to the challenges of the Chochmei Lousiere, cited in Insights to Eruvin 97:1:b, and "Mivchar Kesavim" of Rav Matisyahu Strashun, p. 112.)

The Gemara cites a lengthy, five-part Beraisa which discusses the applications of "Nisroknah." The RAN explains the Chidush of each part. Some of the Ran's comments are difficult to follow. At some points he writes that if the father or the husband did Hafarah and then died, the woman's Neder is considered to have been weakened, while elsewhere he writes that if the father or the husband did Hafarah and then died, the Hafarah is ineffectual and does not weaken the Neder.

In the following paragraphs, the Chidush (according to the Ran) of each section of the Beraisa is summarized, with some additions to show the progressive order of the Beraisa. This summary is intended to simplify and clarify the Ran's explanation of the flow of the Beraisa.

(a) The first section of the Beraisa teaches when the death of the Arus causes "Nisroknah" to the father, and when it does not. When both the Arus and father heard the Neder, and the Arus died without being Mekayem it, "Nisroknah" applies and the father may annul the Neder. However, if the Arus was Mekayem the Neder, "Nisroknah" does not apply and the father may not annul the Neder after the Arus dies.

(b) When both the Arus and father heard the Neder and then the father died, "Nisroknah" does not apply to allow the Arus to annul the Neder, even if the father did Hafarah before he died, and even if he did Hafarah before the Arus even heard the Neder.

There is strong reason to suggest otherwise -- that the Arus could annul the Neder in this case. One might have thought that since the father's Hafarah was done before the Arus heard the Neder (and thus before the Neder "entered the domain" of the Arus), the Hafarah of the father was a very strong Hafarah and the Arus may annul the weak Neder which remains in his domain after the father dies.

Moreover, in this case, the Arus should not need the mechanism of "Nisroknah"; he should be able to use his own rights of Hafarah as an Arus to annul his portion of the Neder since the father already annulled his.

The Beraisa therefore teaches that the Arus may not annul the Neder because the father's Hafarah was voided (to some extent) when he died. The Arus cannot annul the father's part of the Neder because "Nisroknah" does not apply to allow the Arus to inherit the father's rights of Hafarah.

(c) The next part of the Beraisa teaches that if the Arus did Hafarah before the father heard the Neder and then the Arus died, "Nisroknah" applies and allows the father to annul the Neder. The Beraisa teaches that although the Neder was weakened because of the Hafarah of the Arus, and one might have thought that the father cannot inherit a weak Neder, nevertheless the father does inherit such a Neder. (The logic mentioned above (in (b)) -- that it should be easier for the Arus to annul a Neder that was weakened by the father's Hafarah -- applies because the Arus does not inherit the right of Hafarah from the father; rather, he utilizes his own right of Hafarah. However, once the Beraisa teaches that the Hafarah is at least partially voided when the one who did Hafarah dies, the father can annul the Neder only if he inherits the rights of the deceased Arus. It is more difficult to inherit a weak Neder than a full Neder.)

Why does the father indeed inherit the Neder when the Arus did Hafarah before he died? The reason is either that the Neder is not very weak since part of the Hafarah was voided, or that the Neder is not weakened at all since the entire Hafarah was voided (and this is the Chidush of the Beraisa).

(d) The Beraisa teaches next that if the Arus did Hafarah before the father heard the Neder and then the father died, the Arus is not able to annul the father's part of the Neder. The reason why one might have thought that he could do Hafarah even though he does not inherit the rights of Hafarah from the father is that since he already annulled the major part of the Neder (since the father had not yet heard the Neder and thus it was mainly "in the domain" of the Arus), perhaps he may annul the minority of the Neder that remains because the Mi'ut of the rights of Hafarah of the Neder follows the Rov since no one else has any rights over the Mi'ut. The Beraisa therefore teaches that the Arus can annul the Neder only in partnership, b'Shutfus, with the father; he can never annul the entire Neder alone.

(e) The final part of the Beraisa teaches that if the father did Hafarah before the Arus heard the Neder, and the Neder was thus weakened, nevertheless when the Arus dies the father does inherit the Arus' half of the Neder according to Beis Shamai, because the father's Hafarah is "Meigiz Gayiz," as the Gemara explains.