1. A few pages later, this subject becomes the main focus of the discussion (regarding her neder about maasei yadayim). Why is this not brought up here when discussing being meifer future nedarim?
2. Also here, we conclude that it cannot be done, the same as one cannot be mekayiem for the future. But then, a few pages later we are going to say that yisha yafirena ve yisha yakimena is not really a hekesh.
3. Why do we use the nafka mina of a second woman who says "me too" when we want to show the difference between hatara and hafara, when I have a simpler nafka mina that probably happens more often: the case of a woman who was over the neder - the nafka mina is whether she has to bring a korban or not.
Many thanks.
Dan Shalom Valter, Toronto. Canada
1. The Mefaresh (the commentary on Nedarim referred to as "Rashi") does write, on the Mishnah on 75a, that the reason why one cannot be Mekayem for the future is because these Nedarim are Lo Ba'u l'Olam.
2. I am unclear what you mean when you say that "Ishah Yafirenah..." is not really a Hekesh. The Gemara on 87b states that we do compare Hakamah to Hafarah.
3. We can understand the Ran on 75a, DH d'Atpis, who gives the Nafka Minah of the second woman saying "me too," with the help of the Perush ha'Rosh on 75b, DH d'Atpis. The Rosh writes that the second woman said "me too" within "Toch Kedei Dibur" (the amount of time it takes to say "Shalom Alecha Rebbi") of the first woman saying that she is a Nezirah. The Rosh writes that even though Rebbi Eliezer certainly maintains that if the husband says that all of his wife's Nedarim will be Mufar, they are nullified immediately (even according to the opinion at the end of 75a that the Neder did apply to start off with), nevertheless "immediately" does not mean literally immediately, but rather within the length of time that it would take the husband to say "it is Mufar for you." Therefore, since the second woman said "me too" before this length of time had elapsed, this means that the second woman's vow does apply, because she made it depend on the first woman's vow at a time that the first woman's vow was still alive. In contrast, we could not have a Nafka Minah whether the first woman has to bring a Korban or not, because it would not be possible for the first woman to violate her vow so quickly -- within the time that it takes the husband to say "it is Mufar for you", and after such a time period had elapsed the vow would already be no more.
4. Now to return to question #2 above. I think you are probably referring to the Ran at the end of 86b, who writes that "Ishah Yekimenu..." is not a Hekesh but is actually merely a "Semichuta." However, the Ran himself writes there that sometimes "Ishah Yekimenu..." is indeed a Hekesh, and in the case of the Mishnah (75a) it is considered a Hekesh. For matters which are connected directly to the verse "Ishah Yekimenu" it is a Hekesh. However, concerning the verse "he shall annul it" (Bamidbar 30:9) we do not compare Hafarah to Hakamah because "he shall annul it" is not referring to Hakamah, and therefore "Isha Yekimenu" is not considered a Hekesh in this regard.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom