Nedarim - Daf 70
- Inquiries about hafarah or hakamah made for a specified time
Rabbah on the previous Daf asked: If one said קיים ליכי היום – “It is confirmed for you today,” do we say implicit in his words is the converse, “and it is revoked for you tomorrow” (which the Gemara now assumes would be valid)? Rabbah then asks if one said: מופר ליכי למחר – “It is revoked for you tomorrow,” do we say he implied that today it would be confirmed, and it can no longer be revoked? Or do we say that since he did not explicitly confirm for today, the revocation is valid? [The Ran notes that the Gemara here considers that if he would say both expressly, the neder would be confirmed - the opposite of the assumption in the first inquiry]. And if this case is considered confirmed, then what if he said: קיים ליכי שעה – ”Confirmed for you for an hour?” Is it as if he said the implied “revoked after an hour” or not?
- “Confirmed for you for an hour and revoked after an hour”
A final inquiry is posed: If we say that קיים ליכי לשעה – “Confirmed for you for an hour,” is not considered revoked because the implied hafarah was not expressed, what if he explicitly said, “Confirmed for you for an hour and revoked after an hour?” Does the temporary hakamah make the neder confirmed, or is the hafarah afterwards valid since it was on the same day? The Gemara suggests a proof from a Mishnah: If a woman became a nezirah, and her husband said, “And I,” which means he accepts nezirus like her, then he can no longer revoke her nezirus, because basing his nezirus on hers is an act of hakamah. But if a temporary hakamah would allow for a hafarah thereafter, argues the Gemara, why can he not revoke her nezirus after this automatic confirmation? The Gemara rejects the proof, because it is possible that his saying “And I” is like a permanent hakamah.
- The hafarah advantage that the father and husband each has over the other
The next Mishnah teaches that the father and husband each have an advantage in hafarah: מת האב לא נתרוקנה רשות לבעל – if the father dies, the right to revoke nedarim is not transferred to the husband, מת הבעל נתרוקנה רשות לאב – but if the husband dies, the right to revoke nedarim is transferred to the father. It then teaches the relative advantage of the husband: שהבעל מפר בבגר – that the husband can revoke her nedarim after she reaches bagrus (the stage of maturity following naarus), and the father cannot. The Gemara asks what case is being referred to. It cannot mean that the husband can now revoke nedarim made while she was a naarah arusah, because just as the husband cannot revoke those nedarim when the father dies, so too when she reaches bagrus (which likewise removes her from the father’s domain), those nedarim cannot be revoked by the husband. Rather, the Mishnah means that nedarim made as a bogeress arusah, after she reaches the time of nisuin (and the husband must support her), can be revoked by the husband although she is still an arusah. The Gemara explains the necessity of this Mishnah and the one on 73b, which both teach this principle.
