Ask A Question about the Daf

Previous daf

Nedarim, 68

1) WHICH NEDARIM MAY A FATHER ANNUL

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

(a) The RAN and other Rishonim learn from this Gemara 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 Nedarim. This is because the verse that says "Bein Ish l'Ishto" also says "Bein Av l'Vito," implying that only Nedarim that are Beino l'Beinah may the father annul.

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

(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 Chachmei Lunil who challenged his ruling, the Rambam explains that his source is none other than the verse in the Torah itself which teaches that a father may annul his daughter's Nedarim. When the verse discusses Hafaras ha'Av, it says that the father may annul "*Kol* Nedareha" (Bamidbar 30:6) -- *all* of her Nedarim. However, when the verse discusses the Hafarah of the husband, it says 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 says that he may annul "her Nedarim" (30:9), leaving out the word, "all." This implies that the father's ability to annul is not limited to Nedarim of Inuy Nefesh.

Second, the Rambam points out that Nedarim she'Beino l'Beinah refers to Nedarim through which a woman prohibits herself from marital relations with her husband. In the case of a daughter who makes a Neder, there can be 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 regarding Nedarim she'Beino l'Beinah, and thus he must also differ with regard to Nedarim of Inuy Nefesh, and he may annul *all* types of Nedarim that his daughter makes.

Third, in all of the Mishnayos and Gemaras that discuss Nedarim she'Beino l'Beinah and Nedarim of Inuy Nefesh, never once is there mentioned an example of Hafarah involving the father. The only example of Hafarah of such Nedarim that is discussed is the Hafarah of the husband. This implies that there are no limits to the Hafarah of the father.

Regarding the Sifri and Yerushalmi that say explicitly that the father and husband have the same ability to annul Nedarim, the Rambam writes "that this bothered me for many days," but he concludes that since this Derashah is not mentioned anywhere in Talmud Bavli, it is most likely that our Gemara does not accept it.

According to the Rambam, the Derashah of Rabah is only explaining 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 Shas or Midrashim. On the contrary, the Hekesh mentioned in the Sifri and the Yerushalmi is coming to teach us not to understand the verse like that.

Regarding the Rambam's second proof, that it is not possible for a daughter to make a Neder that is "Beino l'Beinah" with her father, the ME'IRI (67a) says that an example of a Neder she'Beino l'Beinah, between a daughter and her father, would be a Neder that the daughter makes not to serve her father.

Regarding the fact that the Gemara does not mention the Hekesh of the Sifri, there are many Halachos that are mentioned in the Sifri but not in the Gemara, and nevertheless the Gemara does not argue with them and they are followed as the Halachah.

The ME'IRI (67a and 68a) suggests a way to understand the Sifri even according to the Rambam's ruling. He asks what would be the Halachah, according to the Rambam, if a Na'arah Me'urasah makes a Neder that is not Beino l'Beinah or Inuy Nefesh? Do we say that since the Arus cannot annul such a Neder, the father can annul the Neder by himself? Or do we say that since the daughter is betrothed, Me'ureses, and the father's dominion over her is therefore weakened, he cannot annul any Neder by himself, and thus no one can annul this Neder while she is Me'ureses (see also Lechem Mishnah)? The Me'iri favors the second approach, that no one can annul Nedarim that are not Beino l'Beinah or Inuy Nefesh while she is Me'urasah. We may add logical support for this as well. Logically, we find that although a husband can annul the Nedarim of his wife even if 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 because she left his domain already (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 is indeed limited to the Nedarim that the Arus may annul!

(c) The TUR (YD 234) cites RABEINU YECHIEL who makes a compromise between the different opinions. Rabeinu Yechiel rules that although the father may annul *all* of the Nedarim of his daughter, that is only before she becomes an Arusah. After she becomes an Arusah and 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 according to Rabeinu Yechiel, the Hekesh of the Sifri does not necessarily contradict the inference of the verse that says that the father may annul "*all*" of the Nedarim. The Sifri only compares the father to the husband *after* the Arus dies, while the verse is referring 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 the father's domain with regard to the Hafarah of her Nedarim (Kidushin 4a). The father only receives the rights of Hafarah of her Nedarim after the Arus dies through the Halachah of "Nisroknah," which teaches that the father inherits the rights of Hafarah from the Arus. Since he is getting his rights from the Arus, he gets whatever rights the Arus had. Since the Arus could annul only Nedarim she'Beino l'Beinah and Nedarim of Inuy Nefesh, the father's rights are also limited to those Nedarim. (Rabeinu Yechiel must hold, like 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 also understood the Sifri like Rabeinu Yechiel understood it, even though he did not reveal this to the Chachmei Lunil in his responsum to them (see similar ways of understanding the Rambam's approach to the Chachmei Lunil in our Insights to Eruvin 91, and in the writings of Rav Matisyahu Straussen).

68b

SUMMARY: The Gemara cites a lenghty, five-part Beraisa that discusses the applications of "Nisroknah." The RAN explains the Chidush of each part. Some of the Ran's words are difficult to follow, since he writes at times that when someone (the husband or the father) did Hafarah and then died, the Neder is considered to be weakened, while later he writes that if someone does Hafarah and then dies, the Hafarah is voided and does not make the Neder weaker!

In an attempt to simplify the Ran's explanation of the flow of the Beraisa, we will summarize the Chidush of each section of the Beraisa according to the Ran, with some additions in order to show the progressive order of the Beraisa.

(a) The first section of the Beraisa teaches when does the death of the Arus cause "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 the Neder, we say "Nisroknah" and the father can annul the Neder. However, if the Arus was Mekayem the Neder, we do not say "Nisroknah."

(b) When both the Arus and father heard the Neder, and the *father* died, we do not say "Nisroknah" 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 this Neder. First, the Hafarah of the father was a very strong Hafarah since it was done before the Arus heard the Neder (and thus before the Neder "entered the domain" of the Arus). We might have thought that the Arus may annul the minimal Neder that remains in his domain after the father dies.

Second, in this case, the Arus should not have to use the mechanism of "Nisroknah," because he should simply be able to use his own rights of Hafarah as an Arus in order to annul his portion of the Neder, since the father already annulled his part.

The Beraisa therefore teaches that the Arus may *not* annul the Neder, because the father's Hafarah was voided, at least to some extent, when he died. The Arus cannot annul the father's part of the Neder because we do not apply "Nisroknah" to allow the Arus to inherit the father's rights of Hafarah.

(c) Next, 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 is teaching that even though the Neder became weakened because of the Hafarah of the Arus, and we might have thought that the father cannot inherit a weak Neder, nevertheless the father does inherit such a Neder. (When we said above in (b) that it should be *easier* for the Arus to annul a Neder that has been weakened by the father's Hafarah, that was because the Arus was not inheritting the right to be Mefer from the father, but rather he was utilizing his own rights of Hafarah. However, now that we know that the Hafarah is at least partially voided when the person who did Hafarah dies, then the father can only be Mefer this neder by inheritting the rights of the dead Arus. It is more difficult to inherit a weakened Neder than a full Neder.)

The reason the father *does* inherit the Neder which the Arus was Mefer is either because the Neder is not very weak, since part of the Hafarah was voided, or because the Neder is not weakened at all since the entire Hafarah was voided (and that is the Chidush of the Beraisa).

(d) Next, 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 we might have thought that he could do Hafarah even though he does not inherit the rights of Hafarah from the father is because 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 could 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 only be Mefer in partnership, b'Shutfus, together with the father; he can never annul the entire Neder alone.

(e) Finally, the last section 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," like the Gemara explains.