Previous daf

1)

(a) Having just established that the Halachah is like Rebbi Akiva, and that a Yavam cannot annul the Nedarim of the Shomeres Yavam, the Yevamah's 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 say 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 a Shomeres Yavam - we remain uncertain as to whether her father can annul them or not.

(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, if he 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: He can uphold the Nedarim that have already become Asur, but who says that he can also uphold those Nedarim that have not?

(a) The Rabbanan learn from the Pasuk "Iyshah Yekimenu, ve'Iyshah 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 - 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'Heteira 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 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, leaves room for the second person's Neder to take effect.

4)

(a) 'Amar Rebbi Eliezer, 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 ... ', we try to prove that, according to Rebbi Eliezer, Nedarim that the husband annuls in advance, do not come into effect at all. We answer - that 'Ba'u' means the past tense (Nedarim that have not yet come into effect, even though they are gong to [for that split second before they become annulled]), exactly as it implies).

(b) 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.

(c) 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.

(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 ke'de'Isa, ve'Ha ke'de'Isa' (one speaks this way [when the Neder does not take effect at all], and the other 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).

(a) Hillel Darshens from the Pasuk "ve'ha'Nogei'a be'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 Rabbanan 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 Mikveh, 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 (we shall see later why).

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

Next daf