Resources and Review Tests for Nedarim 65
- The משנה says that if someone made a נדר not to marry a certain woman because her father is a רשע and it turns out he did תשובה, the נדר is מותר. The משנה למלך in הלכות נדרים פּרק ח הל׳ ב brings from the ראנ"ח that if the father did תשובה but then went off again, the נדר comes back in full force. His proof is that the ריב"ש in סימן שנ"ו says that if you made a נדר not to go into Reuvain’s house and he sells it to Shimon, you can walk in. If Reuvain then buys it back then the נדר comes back and you can’t go in again. The משנה למלך does not agree. He says that in the case of selling the house, the נדר never went away. The חפצא just went away. However, in the case where the father did תשובה, the נדר itself went away, so it doesn’t just reappear if the father then sins again. The קרן אורה brings a proof to the ראנ"ח from a ירושלמי. However, he admits that everyone would agree that the intention of the נדר was only at the time of the marriage. In other words, if the father did תשובה, the kids got married, and then the father went off again, everyone would agree that they could stay married.
- The ר"ן at the bottom of the עמוד says that אין מטלטלי משתעבדי לכתובה means that not only are מטלטלי not משועבד to pay the כתובה such that if he sold his diamonds she couldn’t get them back, but even if he has his diamonds and cash, she still cant collect them. In that sense a כתובה is on a lower level than a normal loan since a normal loan you can collect from anything, even מטלטלין, as long as it wasn’t already sold to someone else. The reason for כתובה’s special treatment is because when you sign the כתובה there is no guarantee date of collection so people aren’t סומך דעת on מטלטלין However, by a loan which has specific payment date, the person relies on the act that he can collect the money from the person directly. This is also the opinion of the רא"ש, רשב"א, andרמב"ן in קידושין. However, the רשב"א brings a ראב"ד who argues and says a lady can collect from actual cash that the husband has on him.
- The גמרא says that the סנהדרין were מתיר the שבועה of צדקיהו to נבוכדנצר to not tell people about him eating a live (or uncooked according to the מפרש) rabbit. The question is how could the סנהדרין have allowed that? After all, it was a שבועה done for someone else without that person giving consent to annul the שבועה? The ר"ן answers that it is מותר לצורך מצוה and there was a צורך מצוה because צדקיהו was not able to do his עבודת ה׳. The רמ"א in יו"ד סימן רכ"ח סעיף כ paskens that one can be מתיר such a שבועה if it is לצורך מצוה. The ש"ך there in ס"ק נ"ד asks how can this possibly be? The very proof the גמרא brings is from משה who had to ask יתרו to allow him to be מתיר נדר. Can there be a greater צורך מצוה than משה coming to take the Jews out of מצרים and give them the Torah? He answers that we only say that it is מותר לצורך מצוה if there is no other option, and in the case of משה רבינו, surely ה׳ has many other ways to save כלל ישראל. Another answer he gives is that Hashem told him not to go to מצרים till he is מתיר נדר in מדין so there is no צורך מצוה till he does so.
New Daf Hashavua newsletter - Shavua Matters
Rabbi Yechiel Grunhaus - Points to Ponder
Daf HaShavua Choveres - compiled by Rabbi Pinchas Englander
Rabbi Ari Keilson - Maarei Mekomos