Resources for Kesubos 101

1.     The גמרא brings a ברייתא that says that according to רבי יהושע a husband can be מפיר his wife’s נדרים even if she is a קטנה and the נישואין is only דרבנן. תוספות in ד"ה ובהפרת נדריה explains that we are talking about a child (who is eleven years old) and is הגיע לעונת הנדרים. תוספות asks that there are some שיטות in the גמרא that hold the נדר is a דין דאורייתא at that age so how can a נישואי דרבנן override that and the הפרה be valid? He answers that we have a principle of כל הנודרת על דעת בעלה היא נודרת. If so, that would apply even to a נישואי דרבנן as well. Interestingly, the ר"ן in נדרים דף ע"ג ע"ב ד"ה עד כאן asks exactly what תוספות asks and gives the same answer but with a little more flavor. He explains that it’s true that it’s a גזרת הכתוב that a husband can be מפיר his wife’s נדרים.  However, the גזרת הכתוב is based on the סברא of כל הנודרת על דעת בעלה היא נודרת. He explains that based on the above סברא some wanted to say that if anyone makes a נדר על דעת חברו that the נדר should be able to be מופר by his friend because he was נודר על דעתו. The ר"ן says this is a mistake since it is a special גזרת הכתוב that הפרה helps by a husband only. You use a special לשון of הפרה and not התרה which is only a special גזרת הכתוב for a wife. The רש"ש there doesn’t understand how the ר"ן could say that since a קטנה’s Rabbinic marriage made by her mother shouldn’t have that a גזרת הכתוב since they aren’t really married מדאורייתא and he just said that הפרה by her husband works even if נדרי קטנה at that age are דאורייתא! The קובץ הערות in סימן כ"ו אות א says that the ר"ן meant that the תורה is telling us that a woman specifically is more נודר על דעת her husband than anyone else is תולה בדעת other people. Therefore, the גזרת הכתוב of הפרה would still apply to any husband and wife, even a דרבנן any husband and wife. However, if someone used a לשון of על מנת then that would work as well since that isn’t part of the גזרת הכתוב of הפרה but rather just a תנאי like any other. He points out that the סברא won’t always work like where a woman doesn’t know she has a husband and yet הפרה is still valid.

There is a רבי עקיבא איגר who asks on תוספות that what would be the דין if the קטנה made a נדר and then was ממאנת? Would it mean her נדרים are now retroactively חל since it turns out that it wasn’t really her husband and the גזרת הכתוב doesn’t apply? Perhaps according to the קובץ הערות it would not be a question since she thought it was her husband at the time and that should be enough to say she was נודר על דעתו. Also, according to רבינו חיים הלוי in הלכות אישות פּרק ב׳ הל׳ ט that we mentioned last week that says that מיאון is only למפרע for things that haven’t happened yet there would also be no question as the נדרים were מופר already in the past.