1)

(a)What does Tana d'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learn from the Pasuk "Bein Ish l'Ishto, Bein Av l'Bito"?

(b)How does he know that this Pasuk is referring to a Na'arah ha'Me'orasah and not to a Nesu'ah?

(c)What does Tana d'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learn from "v'Im Hayo Siheyeh l'Ish" (from which Rabah learnt the previous Halachah)?

(d)From where do the Rabanan (who argue with Tana d'Bei Rebbi Yishmael) learn the Hekesh of the second Kidushin to the first?

1)

(a)Tana d'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns from the Pasuk "Bein Ish l'Ishto, Bein Av l'Bito" - that the Arus needs to annul the Nedarim of the Arusah together with her father.

(b)He knows that this Pasuk is referring to a Na'arah ha'Me'orasah and not to a Nesu'ah - because the same Pasuk contains the phrase "bi'Ne'urehah Beis Avihah".

(c)Tana d'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns from "v'Im Hayo Siheyeh l'Ish" (from which Rabah learned the previous Halachah) - that the 'second Kidushin is compared to the first', like Rabah (which will be explained later).

(d)The Rabanan (who argue with Tana d'Bei Rebbi Yishmael) learn the Hekesh of the second Kidushin to the first - from the same Pasuk (in addition to their basic Din that the Arus and the father both need to annul the Arusah's Nedarim).

2)

(a)From where does Tana d'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learn that the Arus can annul the Nedarim which the Arusah made before the betrothal?

2)

(a)Tana d'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns that the Arus can annul the Nedarim which the Arusah made before the betrothal - from a Sevara, since he can only annul them in conjunction with her father. (It is unclear however, why we cannot learn it from "v'Im Beis Ishah Nadarah", like we learned at the end of the previous Amud.)

3)

(a)What does Rabah (or Rava) learn from the Pasuk "Bein Ish l'Ishto ... "?

(b)From where ...

1. ... does Tana d'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learn this?

2. ... do we know that, in addition, a husband can annul Nedarim which cause his wife pain?

(c)What does the Sifri learn from the Hekesh of "Bein Ish l'Ishto Bein Av l'Bito" (comparing a man's daughter to his wife)?

(d)What does the Rambam say?

3)

(a)Rabah (or Rava) learns from the Pasuk "Bein Ish l'Ishto ... " - that the husband may only annul Nedarim which affect their personal relationship (which will be explained in the following Perek).

(b)

1. Tana d'Bei Rebbi Yishmael learns this - from the same Pasuk (in addition to his basic Din that the Arus and the father both need to annul the Arusah's Nedarim).

2. We know that, in addition, a husband can annul Nedarim which cause his wife pain - from the Torah, which explicitly writes "Le'anos Nafesh".

(c)The Sifri learns from the Hekesh of "Bein Ish l'Ishto Bein Av l'Bito" (comparing a man's daughter to his wife) - that a father is permitted to annul only those categories of Nedarim that a husband is permitted to annul.

(d)The Rambam however - is of the opinion that a father may annul all of his daughter's Nedarim.

4)

(a)We ask whether an Arus cuts the Neder or whether he weakens it. What does this mean?

(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. How does 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 Malkus?

4)

(a)We ask whether an Arus cuts the Neder or whether he weakens it - meaning that we are unsure whether the Hafarah of the Arus annuls half of the Arusah's Neder quantitatively or qualitatively.

(b)The same She'eilah will apply to the father - whether he should annul his half of the Neder.

(c)The ramifications of this She'eilah are when the woman made a Neder not to eat two olives, the Arus annulled the Neder and she went and ate them. If his Hafarah cuts the Neder, then he would have nullified only one of the olives, whilst the Neder on the other one remained intact, in which case, she will receive Malkus for having contravened her Neder. Whereas if he weakened the Neder (on both olives), the Neder will remain intact, yet she will not receive Malkus for having contravened it.

(d)Despite the fact that, if the Arus cut the Neder, he would have removed one of the two olives, she would nevertheless need to eat both olives in order to receive Malkus - because there is no way that one could have known which of the two olives his Hafarah had covered.

5)

(a)What problem do we have with our Sugya, according to Rav Papa in Shevu'os, who rules that Konamos do not require a specific Shi'ur?

(b)To answer this Kashya, we give three possible explanations. 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 Malkus for less than a k'Zayis. The second answer is because we are talking about Shevu'os too. So what if we are?

(c)The third answer is that 'Lokeh' does not mean Malkus. What then does it mean?

(d)How does this answer the question?

5)

(a)The problem with our Sugya, according to Rav Papa in Shevu'os, who rules that Konamos do not require a specific Shi'ur is - why we mention specifically two olives (why will one not suffice).

(b)To answer this Kashya, we give three possible explanations. 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 Malkus for less than a k'Zayis. The second answer is because we are talking about Shevu'os too - and Shevu'os do require a Shi'ur, according to everyone.

(c)The third answer is that 'Lokeh' in our Sugya, refers not to Malkus, but to a Korban (which in many cases of Neder, one is obligated to bring) ...

(d)... and a Korban too, requires a Shi'ur according to everyone.

6)

(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 v'Hefer O she'Shama v'Shasak u'Mes Bo ba'Yom ... Nisroknah Reshus l'Av'. In which two cases then, can the father annul his daughter's Nedarim?

(b)How will the Din differ if, in the last of the listed cases, the Arus died on the following day?

(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 next)?

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

6)

(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 v'Heifer O she'Shama v'Shasak u'Mes Bo ba'Yom ... Nisroknah Reshus l'Av'. The father can annul his daughter's Nedarim, there where - 'Shama (ha'Ba'al) v'Kiyem' and 'Shama v'Shasak u'Mes b'Yom she'l'Acharav'.

(b)If, in the last of the listed cases, the Arus died on the following day - the father will not be able to annul his daughter's Nedarim.

(c)Despite the fact 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, the same distinction (regarding annulling the Neder and dying on the same day or on the next) - will not apply as in the previous case. Either way, he will be able to annul the Nedarim, because, unlike in the previous case, there is no way in which we can refer to the Neder as having been upheld by the Arus.

(d)We prove this from the Seifa, where the Tana says 'Aval Im Shama v'Kiyem, O Shama v'Shasak u'Mes b'Yom she'Acharav, Ein Yachol Lehafer'. If the same distinction would apply to 'Shama v'Hefer', why did the Tana not include it in the list, particularly as it would be a bigger Chidush than the two listed cases (seeing as he did not uphold it, as we just explained)?

68b----------------------------------------68b

7)

(a)'Shama Avihah v'Hefer Lah v'Lo Hispik Ba'al Lishmo'a ad she'Mes ha'Av', Zu Hi she'Shaninu Mes ha'Av Lo Nisroknu Reshus l'Ba'al'. Is there any reason as to why the Tana mentions 'v'Lo Hispik Ba'al Lishmo'a'? Does it make any difference whether he knew about the Neder or not?

(b)3. 'Shama Ba'alah v'Hefer Lah v'Lo Hispik ha'Av Lishmo'a ad she'Mes ha'Ba'al, Zu Hi she'Shaninu, Mes 'ha'Ba'al, Nisroknah Reshus l'Av'. Why does the Tana mention here 'v'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 v'Hefer Lah v'Lo Hispik ha'Av Lishmo'a ad she'Mes, Ein ha'Ba'al Yachol Lehafer, she'Ein ha'Ba'al Mefer Ela b'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 here 'Lo Nisroknah ... ', like in that case?

7)

(a)2. 'Shama Avihah v'Hefer Lah v'Lo Hispik Ba'al Lishmo'a ad she'Mes ha'Av', Zu Hi she'Shaninu Mes ha'Av Lo Nisroknu Reshus l'Ba'al'. The reason that the Tana mentions 'v'Lo Hispik Ba'al Lishmo'a' is - because a Neder that one of the parties did not know about during the second one's lifetime is weakened. In the previous case, the Tana specifically mentioned that he is speaking even when both parties heard about it; nevertheless, (despite the fact that the Neder is still in full force) the father is permitted to annul it; here, he teaches us that even though the Arus did not get to know about the Neder before the father died, he is nevertheless not permitted to annul it.

(b)3. 'Shama Ba'alah v'Hefer Lah v'Lo Hispik ha'Av Lishmo'a ad she'Mes ha'Ba'al, Zu Hi she'Shaninu, Mes 'ha'Ba'al, Nisroknah Reshus l'Av'. The Tana mention here 'v'Lo Hispik ha'Av Lishmo'a' (in spite of what we just said in the previous case [that this is more reason to say that the other partner should be able to annul the Neder]) - because one can also say the opposite (like Beis Hillel later in case 5.); that because the Neder has been weakened, the father does not have sufficient material to annul.

(c)4. 'Shama Ba'alah v'Hefer Lah v'Lo Hispik ha'Av Lishmo'a ad she'Mes, Ein ha'Ba'al Yachol Lehafer, she'Ein ha'Ba'al Mefer Ela b'Shutfus'. The Chidush of this case (as opposed to the case of 'Shama Avihah ... ', case 2.) is - that despite the fact that the Neder was weakened by the father's not having known about it before he died, in addition to the fact that the Arus had already annulled the Neder, thereby weakening it further, the Arus may still not annul it; whereas in the earlier case, the annulment of the father fell away with his death, thereby leaving the Neder fully intact (making it more obvious that the Arus cannot annul the Neder).

(d)The Tana does not conclude 'Lo Nisroknah ... ', like in the earlier case - because in the earlier case, where the father knew about the Neder and even though he nullified it, his Hafarah became nullified, it is feasible to say 'Nisroknah'; whereas in this case, where the father had not been aware of the Neder prior to his death, the term 'Nisroknah' would be out of place (and the only reason that the Arus cannot annul the Neder is because 'Ein ha'Ba'al Meifer Ela b'Shutfus').

8)

(a)We learned above that 'Shama Avihah v'Heifer Lah v'Lo Hispik Ba'al Lishmo'a ad she'Mes ha'Av', Zu Hi she'Shaninu Mes ha'Av Lo Nisroknu Reshus l'Ba'al'. How do 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 father's annulment?

8)

(a)We learned above that 'Shama Avihah v'Hefer Lah v'Lo Hispik Ba'al Lishmo'a ad she'Mes ha'Av', Zu Hi she'Shaninu Mes ha'Av Lo Nisroknu Reshus l'Ba'al'. This cannot be 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 - because if the Arus could annul the Neder when the father has not annulled it, he would also be able to annul it when he has, like we see from the case that follows it, where the father under exactly similar circumstances, is permitted to annul the Neder even when the Arus has already done so.

(b)It is not possible to distinguish between the father and the Arus when it comes to annulling a weakened Neder (to permit the former and forbid the latter) - because we see from the last case, where Beis Hillel forbids the father to annul the weakened Neder, that a father is subject to the restrictions of a weakened Neder too.

9)

(a)5. 'Shama Avihah v'Heifer Lah, v'Lo Hispik ha'Ba'al Lishmo'a ad she'Mes, Chozer ha'Av u'Mefer Chelko shel Ba'al'. Why does the Tana say 'Chozer ha'Av u'Mefer ... '? 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?

9)

(a)5. 'Shama Avihah v'Hefer Lah, v'Lo Hispik ha'Ba'al Lishmo'a ad she'Mes, Chozer ha'Av u'Mefer Chelko shel Ba'al'. The Tana says 'Chozer ha'Av u'Mefer ... ' (not because the father is obligated to repeat the Hafarah, but) - because having annulled his own part, he is also now obligated to annul the part of the Arus.

(b)Rebbi Nasan explains that this is the opinion of Beis Shamai, but that according to Beis Hillel, the father cannot annul the Neder - because when the Arus died, the father was left with a weakened Neder (due to the father's having annulled it), which is not now sufficiently significant for the father to inherit, and which cannot therefore be annulled.

(c)The basis of their Machlokes is - whether one of the two partners cuts his part of the Neder (Beis Shamai - in which case, the Arus' part remains intact), or weakens the entire Neder (Beis Hillel - in which case, the part of the Arus has been weakened by the father's annulment).

(d)By citing this Machlokes - we have resolved our original She'eilah (whether the one partner cuts the Neder or weakens it), which has now turned out to be a Machlokes between Beis Shamai and Beis Hillel.

10)

(a)Why, in the case of 'Shama Ba'alah v'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?

(b)What will Beis Hillel say in the last case, if, after the Arus dies, the girl became betrothed again on the same day?

10)

(a)In the case of 'Shama Ba'alah v'Hefer Lah ... ' (case 3.), 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 - because (unlike Beis Hillel's case, where the father who annulled the Neder, is still alive) the Arus' death negates his Hafarah. Consequently, the Neder is not weakened at all.

(b)If, in the last case, after the Arus dies, the girl became betrothed again on the same day - Beis Hillel agree that the Arus together with the father, can now annul the Arusah's Nedarim.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF