1)

(a)The Beraisa lists the cases of Nisroknah Reshus l'Av: 'bi'Zeman she'Lo Shama ha'Ba'al, O Shama v'Hafer O Shama v'Shasak'. How do we try to prove from there that divorce is like Hakamah?

(b)How do we counter this from the Seifa 'Aval Im Shama v'Kiyem O Shama v'Shasak u'Mes b'Yom shel Acharav, Ein Yachol Lehafer'?

(c)What do we mean when we say 'I Reisha Davka, Nasiv Seifa Mishum Reisha'? Why did the Tana then omit Gerushin from the Seifa?

1)

(a)We try to prove from the Beraisa which lists the cases of Nisroknah Reshus l'Av as 'bi'Zeman she'Lo Shama ha'Ba'al, O Shama v'Hafer O Shama v'Shasak' that divorce is like Hakamah - because if it was like Shetikah, the Sevara of Nisroknah should apply to it too, in which case the Tana should have included it in the list.

(b)We counter this from the Seifa 'Aval Im Shama v'Kiyem O Shama v'Shasak u'Mes b'Yom shel Acharav, Ein Yachol Lehafer' - implying that Gerushin does not belong to this list (because 'Gerushin ki'Shetikah').

(c)When we say 'I Reisha Dafka, Nasiv Seifa Mishum Reisha' - we mean to reinstate the proof from the Reisha, and the reason that the Tana omits it from the Seifa is because it only mentions in the Seifa cases which have an opposite number that can be included in the Reisha.

2)

(a)We try to prove that divorce is like Shetikah, from our Mishnah "Nadrah v'Hi Arusash, v'Nisgarshah v'Nis'arsah bo ba'Yom, Afilu l'Me'ah, Avihah u'Ba'alah Mefirin Nedarehah'. What makes us think that the Arus must have heard about the Neder?

(b)What is then the proof from there?

(c)How do we refute it proof? Why does the Tana then say 'bo ba'Yom'?

2)

(a)We try to prove that divorce is like Shetikah, from our Mishnah "Nadrah v'Hi Arusash, v'Nisgarshah v'Nis'arsah bo ba'Yom, Afilu l'Me'ah, Avihah u'Ba'alah Mefirin Nedarehah'. We think that the Arus must have heard about the Neder - because otherwise, what is the significance of 'bo ba'Yom'?

(b)The proof (that divorce is like silence) is - from the fact that in spite of the Gerushin, the father and the second Arus can still nullify the Neder (which they could not, if it was like Hakamah).

(c)We refute the proof however - by ascribing 'bo ba'Yom' to the fact that the father (not the Arus) heard the Neder.

3)

(a)'Nadrah bo ba'Yom, Girshah v'Hichzirah bo ba'Yom, Ein Yachol Lehafer'. How do we try to prove from this Mishnah in 've'Eilu Na'aros' that Gerushin is like Hakamah?

(b)We refute this proof by establishing it by a Nesu'ah, and the reason that he cannot annul the Nedarim is because 'Ein ha'Ba'al Mefer b'Kodmin'. What is the case?

(c)What would be the reason if the Mishnah was speaking when they were married the first time, and only betrothed the second time?

(d)Then why does the Mishnah give the reason as 'de'Ein ha'Ba'al Mefer b'Kodmin'?

3)

(a)Assuming that the Tana is speaking about an Arusah, we tried to prove from the Mishnah in 'v'Eilu Na'aros', 'Nadrah bo ba'Yom, Girshah v'Hichzirah bo ba'Yom, Ein Yachol Lehafer' that 'Gerushin is like Hakamah, because if it was like Shetikah, why should he not be able to annul the Neder.

(b)We refute this proof by establishing it by a Nesu'ah and the reason that he cannot annul the Neder is because 'Ein ha'Ba'al Mefer b'Kodmin' - meaning that when the Arus took her back, he married her and consequently, he cannot annul the Nedarim that she made before (even those that she made whilst under his jurisdiction).

(c)If the Mishnah was speaking when they were married the first time, and only betrothed the second time - then the reason would be because, from the time that he married her, she was no longer under her father's jurisdiction, in which case, when he then betrothed her, he could not annul her Nedarim, because an Arus can never annul the Nedarim of the Arusah on his own.

(d)The reason that the Mishnah gives the reason as 'd'Ein ha'Ba'al Mefer b'Kodmin' is - because this principle is also based on the fact that the father loses the jurisdiction that he had over his daughter when she declared the Neder (not because of a deficiency in the husband, because it would make no sense to say that a married man should be worse than an Arus, who can annul the Arusah's Nedarim that she declared before in conjunction with her father).

4)

(a)Since the She'eilah remains unresolved, the Ramban rules 'Gerushin k'Hakamah'. Why is that?

(b)The Rashba however, disagrees. How does he extrapolate his ruling from Shmuel, who asked earlier 'Mina Hani Mili, d'Arus Acharon Mefer Nedarim she'Nir'u l'Rishon'?

(c)So why does our Sugya not resolve the She'eilah from Shmuel?

4)

(a)Since the She'eilah remains unresolved, the Ramban rules 'Gerushin k'Hakamah' - l'Chumra, like we usually do in cases of Isur.

(b)The Rashba however, disagrees. He extrapolates from Shmuel, who asked earlier 'Mina Hani Mili, d'Arus Acharon Mefer Nedarim she'Nir'u l'Rishon' - that the Tana of our Mishnah mentions 'bo ba'Yom' on account of the Arus, and not the father, yet the Tana concludes 'Avihah u'Ba'alah ha'Acharon Mefirin Nedarehah', reinstating our earlier proof that Gerushin is like Shetikah (l'Kula).

(c)Nevertheless, our Sugya does not resolve the She'eilah from Shmuel - because we are looking for a source from a Mishnah or Beraisa, and not just from an Amora.

72b----------------------------------------72b

5)

(a)What does our Mishnah say about fathers and betrothed men who were Talmidei Chachamim. What did they used to declare before an Arusah got married?

(b)Why did they do that?

5)

(a)Our Mishnah states that fathers and betrothed men who were Talmidei Chachamim - used to annul any Nedarim that the Arusah had made whilst in her father's and Arus' domain respectively, some time before the marriage.

(b)They did that - because, once the marriage took place, they would no longer be able to do so.

6)

(a)What She'eilah did Rami bar Chama ask with regard to the Pasuk "v'Shama Avihah es Nidrah"?

(b)Does the She'eilah also pertain to an Arus and to a husband, or is it confined to a father?

(c)We try to resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah ('Derech Talmidei-Chachamim ... Kol Nedarim she'Nadart'). How do we know that the Tana is not referring to Nedarim that they know about?

(d)We refute this proof by establishing our Mishnah, not by the final Hafarah, but when the father and the Arus intend to repeat the nullification when they get to hear about it. What is then the point of annulling the Nedarim in advance (seeing as the Hafarah is not effective anyway)?

6)

(a)Rami bar Chama asked - whether the Pasuk "v'Shama Avihah es Nidrah" should be taken literally, or whether the girl's father can annul even Nedarim which he had not heard, only the Pasuk is speaking in a common case.

(b)The She'eilah pertains, not only to a father - but also to an Arus and to a husband.

(c)We try to resolve the She'eilah from our Mishnah 'Derech Talmidei-Chachamim ... Kol Nedarim she'Nadart' - implying even those Nedarim of which the father is unaware (otherwise the Tana ought to have said 'Neder Peloni u'Peloni').

(d)We refute the proof by establishing our Mishnah, not by the final Hafarah, but when the father and the Arus intend to repeat the nullification when they get to hear about it. The point of annulling the Nedarim in advance (despite the fact that the Hafarah is not effective anyway) is - in order to remind her of any Nedarim that she made, which will encourage her to divulge them.

7)

(a)We try to bring the same proof from the Seifa of our Mishnah 'v'Chen ha'Ba'al ad she'Lo Tikanes li'Reshuso ... '. According to some texts, we answer like we answered in the case of the father. Other texts read 'l'Chi Shama'na'. What does this mean? Is 'l'Chi Shama'na' a part of the quotation, or does it simply mean that 'when he hears about the Neder' it will become Batel automatically?

(b)Why can we give this answer with regard to the Arus, but not with regard to the father?

(c)What does the Mishnah later say about a man who says 'Kol Nedarim she'Taduri ad she'Avo mi'Makom Peloni' ...

1. ... Harei Hein Kayamin'?

2. ... Harei Hein Mufarin' (according to Rebbi Eliezer)?

(d)What do the Rabanan say?

7)

(a)We try to bring the same proof from the Seifa of our Mishnah 'v'Chen ha'Ba'al ad she'Lo Tikanes li'Reshuso ... '. According to some texts, we answer like we answered in the case of the father. Other texts read 'l'Chi Shama'na' - which means that the Tana speaks when the Arus annuls the Neder now, but expressly states 'l'Chi Shama'na', that it will only take effect when he hears about it (after the marriage).

(b)We can give this answer with regard to the Arus - because at the time when he hears it, she is under his jurisdiction, in addition to the fact that the father has already annulled his part of the Neder (dispensing with the problem of 'Ein ha'Ba'al Meifer b'Kodmin', as we explained earlier). The father, on the other hand, cannot annul his daughter's Neder in advance (for after she is married), because by the time he hears about the Neder, she will have left his jurisdiction completely.

(c)The Mishnah later says that a man who says 'Kol Nedarim she'Taduri ad she'Avo mi'Makom Peloni' ...

1. ... Harei Hen Kayamin - Lo Amar Klum'.

2. ... Harei Hen Mufarin (according to Rebbi Eliezer) - Mufar'.

(d)The Rabanan hold - that a man cannot annul Nedarim prior to their having been declared.

8)

(a)We try to prove from Rebbi Eliezer that a husband can annul Nedarim which he has not heard about. What about the Rabanan?

(b)We answer that here too, the Tana speaks when he said 'l'Chi Shama'na'. In that case, what is the point of annulling the Nedarim in advance? Why does he not wait until she declares the Neder and he gets to hear about it?

8)

(a)We try to prove from Rebbi Eliezer that a husband can annul Nedarim which he has not heard about. In fact - the Rabanan will agree with Rebbi Eliezer in this point, and they only argue with him regarding annulling Nedarim prior to their having been declared.

(b)We answer that here too, the Tana speaks when he said 'l'Chi Shama'na' - because he is afraid that, when the time arrives, he will be occupied and not find the time to see to the Hafarah (and the same reasoning will apply to the earlier case).

9)

(a)What does Rebbi Yoshiyah in a Beraisa learn from the Pasuk "Ishah Yekimenah, v'Ishah Yeferenu"?

(b)On what grounds does Rebbi Yonasan object to that?

(c)We attempt to resolve our She'eilah (whether the husband needs to have heard about the Neder before annulling it or not) from this Beraisa, because, according to Rebbi Yonasan, the agent is able to annul the Nedarim, even though the husband himself did not hear about them. How about Rebbi Yoshiyah?

9)

(a)Rebbi Yashiyah in a Beraisa learns from the Pasuk "Ishah Yekimenah, v'Ishah Yeferenu" - that the husband must annul his wife's Nedarim personally, and not through an agent.

(b)Rebbi Yonasan objects to that - on the basis of the principle 'Shelucho shel Adam Kamoso'.

(c)We attempt to resolve our She'eilah (whether the husband needs to have heard about the Neder before annulling it or not) from this Beraisa, because, according to Rebbi Yonasan, the agent annuls the woman's Nedarim even though the husband himself did not hear about them. And the proof extends to Rebbi Yoshiyah - who, were it not for the Pasuk (of "Ishah Yekimenu ... ") would agree with Rebbi Yoshiyah in principle.

10)

(a)How do we refute the above proof?

(b)What must the agent say to the woman when he annuls her Nedarim?

10)

(a)We refute the above proof too - by establishing the Beraisa when the husband added 'l'Chi Shama'na'.

(b)When the agent annuls the woman's Nedarim - he must say that the Hafarah will take effect only when her husband gets to hear about the Neder (just as the husband himself would have had to say had he annulled it).

11)

(a)The Sugya in Nazir establishes the Beraisa of Rebbi Yoshiyah and Rebbi Yonasan like Rebbi Eliezer. Seeing as, according to Rebbi Eliezer, a husband can annul his wife's Nedarim in advance, even before they come into effect, why does he need an agent? Let him annul her Nedarim ...

1. ... before his departure?

2. ... immediately, before he forgets?

(b)How could we circumvent this problem? How could a man annul his wife's Nedarim now without implicating himself?

(c)In that case, why does he not do that? What does he gain by appointing an agent?

11)

(a)The Sugya in Nazir establishes the Beraisa of Rebbi Yashiyah and Rebbi Yonasan like Rebbi Eliezer. Despite the fact that, according to Rebbi Eliezer, a husband can annul his wife's Nedarim even before they have been declared, he nevertheless requires an agent. He does not want to annul her Nedarim ...

1. ... before his departure - in case he forgets, or he is angry with her or occupied with other matters.

2. ... immediately, before he forgets - in case she subsequently makes a Neder that he would prefer her to keep.

(b)We could circumvent this problem - by annulling now any Nedarim that she declares whilst he is away.

(c)The reason that he appointed an agent rather than annulling now any Nedarim that she declares whilst he is away is - because he may want to retract from the Hafarah. This he will not be able to do should he annul the Nedarim now, but he will be able to should he appoint an agent, by retracting from the appointment.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF