1)

(a)Having just established that the Halachah is like Rebbi Akiva, and that a Yavam cannot annul the Yevamah's Nedarim, why is it that the her father can most probably annul the Nedarim that she declared whilst still in her father's domain, or even whilst she was betrothed to the Yavam's brother?

(b)What do Tosfos say in the Sugya on Daf 71a. (with reference to Beis Shamai, who maintain there that even when it comes to Nedarim that the Arus knew about before he died, the Arusah returns to her father's domain) that bears this out?

(c)What will be the Din with regard to the Nedarim that she declares whilst she is a Shomeres Yavam?

1)

(a)In spite of having just established that the Halachah is like Rebbi Akiva, and that a Yavam cannot annul the Yevamah's Nedarim, her father can most probably annul the Nedarim that she declared whilst still in her father's domain, or even whilst she was betrothed to the Yavam's brother - because wherever there is no second Arus when the first Arus dies, the woman returns to her father's domain.

(b)On Daf 71a. (with reference to Beis Shamai, who maintain there that even when it comes to Nedarim that the Arus knew about before he died, the Arusah returns to her father's domain) - Tosfos explain that Nedarim which entered the domain of the first Arus, are not passed on to the second one. In that case, the same will apply here with regard to passing on the Nedarim that she made in the Arus' domain, to that of his brother, after his (the Arus') death.

(c)With regard to the Nedarim that she declares whilst she is a Shomeres Yavam - we remain uncertain as to whether her father can annul them or not.

2)

(a)Can a husband uphold his wife's Nedarim in advance of her having declared them?

(b)In this regard, why does the Tana of our Mishnah use the Lashon 'mi'Ka'an (and not 'me'ha'Yom) ad she'Avo ... '?

(c)Rebbi Eliezer permits him however, to annul her Nedarim in advance. Why is that?

(d)Then why does he not also permit him to uphold them using the same logic?

2)

(a)A husband cannot uphold his wife's Nedarim in advance of her having declared them - according to anyone.

(b)In this regard, the Tana of our Mishnah uses the Lashon 'mi'Ka'an ad she'Avo ... ', and not 'me'ha'Yom ad she'Avo' - because (regarding Hafarah, which the Tana also covers by this Lashon) the husband will not want his Hafarah to take effect before he is due to depart, in case his wife declares Nedarim which he would like annulled.

(c)Rebbi Eliezer permits him however, to annul her Nedarim in advance - because he argues that one can annul those Nedarim that have already become Asur, how much more so those that have not.

(d)He does not however, permit him to uphold them using the same logic - because there the logic works in reverse: It is not because one can uphold the Nedarim that have already become Asur that one can also uphold those Nedarim that have not.

3)

(a)What do the Rabanan learn from the Pasuk "Ishah Yekimenu, v'Ishah Yeferenu"?

(b)We ask whether, according to Rebbi Eliezer, the Nedarim that a wife declares after her husband has already annulled them, take effect and are immediately annulled, or whether they simply do not take effect at all. What are the ramifications of the She'eilah?

(c)How does this case differ from that of ...

1. ... the first Perek, where if someone with two pieces of meat in front of him, one a piece of Shelamim after the Zerikas Damim, the other, a piece of Chulin, declares 'Zeh ka'Zeh', we conclude that 'b'Hetera ka'Matfis' (to go after what the object is now, not what it was initially)?

2. ... the Mishnah in Nazir, where a number of people followed the acceptance of Nezirus of the first Nazir with 'va'Ani', and where we learned above in Arba'ah Nedarim that when each attached his Neder to the one before him, if the first one annulled his Neder, then all of them are annulled?

3)

(a)The Rabanan learn from the Pasuk "Ishah Yekimenu, v'Ishah Yeferenu" - that Hafarah is compared to Hakamah, and that a Neder which is not subject to one, is not subject to the other, either.

(b)We ask whether, according to Rebbi Eliezer, the Nedarim that a wife declares after her husband has already annulled them, take effect and are immediately annulled, or whether they simply do not take effect at all. The ramifications of the She'eilah are - in a case where someone was Matfis a Neder on the one that the woman made; if her Neder is effective, even for just a moment, then the second one is effective too. Otherwise, it is not.

(c)This case differs from that of ...

1. ... the first Perek, where if someone with two pieces of meat in front of him, one a piece of Shelamim after the Zerikas Damim, the other, a piece of Chulin, declares 'Zeh ka'Zeh', we conclude that 'be'Hetera ka'Matfis' (to go after what the object is now, not what it was initially) - inasmuch as that is because 'Zeh ka'Zeh' implies that the second one should be like the first one is now; whereas in our case, where the second person says 'va'Ani', he obviously pertains to the woman's Nezirus, and not to her current status.

2. ... the Mishnah in Nazir, where a number of people followed the acceptance of Nezirus of the first Nazir with 'va'Ani', and where we learned above in Arba'ah Nedarim that when each attached his Neder to the one before him, if the first one annulled his Neder, then all of them are annulled - inasmuch as that pertains to the Hataras Nedarim of a Chacham, which is uprooted retroactively; whereas our case, which pertains to the Hafaras Nedarim of the husband, who only negates his wife's Neder from then on, but not retroactively, there is still room for the second person's Neder to take effect.

75b----------------------------------------75b

4)

(a)What do we try to prove from the Beraisa where Rebbi Eliezer says 'Im Hafer Nedarim she'Ba'u li'Chelal Isur, Lo Yafer Nedarim she'Lo Ba'u li'Chelal Isur', presuming that 'Ba'u' means 'will not come'?

(b)How do we refute the proof?

(c)In that case, what caused us to presume that 'Ba'u' meant that they will not come into effect at all?

(d)So how does the 'Kal va'Chomer' work now that 'Ba'u' is taken literally?

4)

(a)We try to prove from the Beraisa where Rebbi Eliezer says 'Im Hafer Nedarim she'Ba'u li'Chelal Isur, Lo Yafer Nedarim she'Lo Ba'u li'Chelal Isur' (presuming that 'Lo Ba'u' means 'will not come'), we try to prove that - according to Rebbi Eliezer Nedarim that the husband annuls in advance, do not come into effect at all.

(b)We refute it however - by establishing 'Lo Ba'u' to mean 'have not yet come' (in the past, with reference to Nedarim that have not yet come into effect, even though they are gong to [for that split second before they become annulled]).

(c)What caused us to presume that 'Ba'u' means that they will not come into effect at all - is the fact that the 'Kal va'Chomer' works that much neater: If Hafarah can remove Nedarim that have already taken effect, then they can certainly prevent them from doing so in the first place.

(d)Now that 'Ba'u' is taken literally - the 'Kal va'Chomer' teaches us - that if Hafarah can annul Nedarim that came into being in full strength, then it should certainly annul Nedarim that came into being with the Hafarah already attached.

5)

(a)In another Beraisa, Rebbi Eliezer proves that the husband can annul his wife's Nedarim through a 'Kal va'Chomer' from his own Nedarim. Which 'Kal va'Chomer'?

(b)This seems to prove that the Nedarim that a husband annuls in advance, do not take effect at all (just like his own don't). On what grounds do we refute this proof?

(c)Why can we not learn from the 'Kal va'Chomer' itself that his wife's Nedarim should not take effect?

(d)Then how can we Darshen the 'Kal va'Chomer' at all?

5)

(a)In another Beraisa, Rebbi Eliezer proves that the husband can annul his wife's Nedarim through a 'Kal va'Chomer' from his own Nedarim. Because - if a person who cannot annul his own Nedarim, once they have taken effect, yet he is able to annul them in advance (as we learned above in Perek Arba'ah Nedarim), one who is able to annul his wife's Nedarim after they have come into effect, should certainly be able to do so in advance!

(b)This seems to prove that the Nedarim that a husband annuls in advance, do not take effect at all (just like his own don't). We refute this however - on the grounds of the commonly applied answer 'Ha k'de'Isa, v'Ha k'de'Isa' (one [his own] speaks this way [when the Neder does not take effect at all], and the other [his wife's] speaks the other way [when it takes effect, but is immediately annulled]).

(c)We cannot learn from the 'Kal va'Chomer' itself that his wife's Nedarim should not take effect - because that might well be confined to the case in Perek Arba'ah Nedarim, where, seeing as at the time when he declared the Neder, he forgot about the condition annulling it, it falls under the category of 'Nidrei Ta'us', but not in the case of Hafaras Nedarim, where the Neder is not a Ta'us.

(d)We can nevertheless Darshen the 'Kal va'Chomer' - because we can still learn the corollary between before the declaration and after it by Hafaras Nedarim (where neither case is a Neder Ta'us), from that of Hatarah of one's own Nedarim (where both are - seeing as a Neder that is annulled through a Pesach, is a Neder Ta'us).

6)

(a)What does Hillel Darshen from the Pasuk in Shemini "v'ha'Nogei'a b'Nivlasan Yitma"?

(b)What is the status of a ring which a Tahor person swallowed before entering a tent in which a corpse is lying?

(c)How do the Rabanan use these two facts to query Rebbi Eliezer's 'Kal va'Chomer'?

(d)How would they query him according to the text 'Mikvah Yochi'ach, she'Ma'alah es ha'Temei'in mi'Tum'asan, v'Ein Matzil es ha'Tehorin mi'Litam'ei'?

6)

(a)Hillel Darshens from the Pasuk "v'ha'Nogei'a b'Nivlasan Yitma" - that someone who touches a Sheretz even whilst he is in the Mikvah becomes Tamei.

(b)A ring which a Tahor person swallowed before entering a tent in which a corpse is lying (which is known as Taharah Belu'ah) - remains Tahor.

(c)The Rabanan query Rebbi Eliezer's 'Kal va'Chomer' from these two facts - because from the fact that the ring remains Tahor (despite the 'Kal va'Chomer' of Adam from Mikvah, which ought to render the ring Tamei), we learn that we cannot make 'Kal va'Chomers' in the realm of what has yet to take effect from what has already done so (as we will explain shortly).

(d)According to the text 'Mikvah Yochi'ach, she'Ma'alah es ha'Teme'in mi'Tum'asan, v'Ein Matzil es al ha'Tehorin mi'Litam'ei' - the Rabanan's query would be even more straightforward - because from there we see that we cannot necessarily derive the one from the other.

7)

(a)What have we proved from this Beraisa (with regard to our She'eilah whether a woman's Neder which her husband annulled in advance comes into effect or not)?

7)

(a)We have finally proved from this Beraisa - that a woman's Neder which her husband annulled in advance does not come into effect.

OTHER D.A.F. RESOURCES
ON THIS DAF