A Father's Ability to Annul the Nedarim of a Na'arah Hamu'rasa; 3 Approaches in the Rishonim

Okay. Okay. So uh today we do on shabas of the blot and the question came up that the on the top of says that a husband could only be besides the husband could be that the garra says learns out The uses the a father that. And what does the do with to learn out a different of Rabba? And what does Rabbi do with the Bishm to learn out that the husband is that the husband besides being able to be mayoes the husband is nadarimo? So the question arose we have a specific limitation that a husband could only be may two kinds of nadarim. husband can let's say the woman says you know I'm not going to have um popcorn you know they have a new kind of popcorn they cover it with with caramel and sugar and chocolate right it's the symptoms of the times people think I told you this many times they think just because A is good and B is good and C is good and D is good let's just mix it all together soon they're going to have pastrami kishka popcorn right why let's just mix all had together. It just okay, that's a separate discussion. But let's say she asks her that the husband can't be made for it. It's not fish. No one's going to hap nothing's going to happen to her if she doesn't have chocolate covered popcorn. And it's not lea. So the husband is limited in his control over her nadarim. But what about the father? There is no discussion anywhere. Could the father be made for all nadarim or only nidra nephesh and between the father and the daughter? If there is such a thing I understand between husband and wife if there is limiting their marital uh relations that's but what about the father's control is the father's control limited toes and so basically what we're going to see is a three-way musim regarding the nadar of the father now let's start with the rand Dan says uh the that rabb what does he do with he learns it says it says explicitly the words we need it we'll explain What they are says where the same limitations of a husband apply to the father. Where do we learn this from? I only know the husband could only be made for between him and her. How do I know the father? So to the father. So the ran is quoting the that the limitations of the father of the husband apply to the father. Likewise, the round quotes you shall Okay. So the quotes and the limitations of the husband apply to the father says this is in contra distinction to myes says the father could be made for all the there are no restrictions on the father. So we're learning the ra and thei that a father is limited by the limitations of a husband and then the ran says this is not like the ra who says the father fine let's see the let's see the says the same thing later on at in beginning of the next paroesh Things that have affliction of the soul. It's not only basically the um honey the reason it picked bottom line is the round again in the beginning of the next par says that when we talk about the husband and being you know it's the same thing for the bal and as we said this is not like the ram let's see if we got the ram here yep we got the raom here you ready says the base The Ram says explicitly a husband could be made for everything. So the question is wait a second I thought the quoted the saf and thei that says that the husband that the father is limited to the husband's limitations. Let's see. So we cast submission. says vasa what does that say you hear the we'll find out what mem is what's meas um basically the issam that how could the ram argue on the saf may the rabbis of southern France asked on the from the cifree that says that the father is limited by the husband's limitations of the kash and the raam responded that it's difficult to say like that because we don't find in any gar and shas or in any to bring the drussa of the safri so the ram holds the leah drasha that The bavi argues on the saf because the is the opinion of the very important the goes like we don't ask in that way the says the the of is said by the husband it doesn't say by the bow It says by the father. So basically the Rambam responded that he's not going to um the bavi doesn't bring the dashas of the sifi and the simple pikas masha not like the sri that that a father could be uh made for all the dar. This is the KF Mishna. Okay. So, um that's what I want to take from this that that the asked the ra the ra said look uh we don't find this dr and the saf you could say is and the babi doesn't hold like that. Now, what I want to bring to your attention um the the tour is this the tour here. One second. The tour said something very interesting. second if I photocopy the right thing here. Hope so. Yeah. Okay. Let's see the Torah. The Torah says, The dinner of a father with his daughter is like the husband with his wife. Besides for the fact that the father can be m for his daughter like any the says a father can be made for all. He's not limited like a husband. It does not seem to be correct. Now we're going to see a third. So we saw the holds the father is limited by the husband's limitations. The ram says the father can be made for everything. And we have a third says before the father could be made for everything. But if she had vase and the husband died and then she reverts back to the father now the father is limited by the husband's limitations. You hear this? In other words, that we have a third that originally the is correct that the father can be made for everything. But after she becomes an husband dies and what we call then it's only what the husband had but now what the husband didn't have. She doesn't revert back to having the status that she had before. So the Torah says my father the rush did not make this distinction and let's see what the bas says on this tour >> rabbi. >> Yeah >> a a duk in that um if there was a which was made when the husband was alive. >> Yeah. And if a shoo was made when after the husband died and she was back in would it be the same case? It seems like it >> because the again talking about the case of whether it's uh they're each entitled to obviously when they're both entitled to do it the father can't be Mayfair and nether that the husband can't because then it can't be right cuz if the two of them has to do it together >> obviously it can only be uh in neesh or But afterwards when when it's it's not this is it talking about is is it the power for that particular nether or is it the power to be made for nether that goes back to the hus the father I would think there would be you know once it's um if it's what's I'm not Sure. Again, this this distinction is trying to say that originally the father could do everything. Which by the way in what case is I something we have to think about is let's say makes the husband so then what according to the run that a father could is limited by the husband's limitations so then how exactly do they both mata the nether together regarding the husband it's but the father it's not okay so now we have to think about but this third is the father originally is like the raam but afterwards uh it becomes like the of the explains this based on the following idea what is this third shittita Kubismag because of KD because this would basically answer what the what the uh Mishna pointed out. On the one hand, the simple reading of the Puk implies the father can matter everything. On the other hand, the saf says the father is limited by the husband. The answer is they're both true. Originally, the father could be made for everything. But if she had a sin and then if she had a sin and then she and then the husband died then the father is limited by the husband's limitations. So the simple reading of the is that the father so you shouldn't be bothered by what it says in the time of since when she's in the father can only be made for what the husband can for he can only do it together with the husband. husband. So too when the husband dies the and she reverts back to his it not logical that he should be able to make for that he couldn't do before similar to the story you were saying Aby that once he lost it he's not going to get once there's a period of time that he didn't have it he's not going to get it back so basically we have three shis you have the ran father is limited by the husband. You have the ra he could do everything and we have that originally he could do everything but then once she becomes an if the husband dies he doesn't get it back the brings all three opinions of the who's that and there are those who say he can do everything who's That's so all three are found in the Rambam. Oh, >> in the Now the karanoa asks a question on this third and this is something that the rashivas deal with he says I don't understand this third that the is sort of that before the father is made for all and afterwards after it's he can only be made for says if all are the same. So then after why should we make this distinction that which the says the is coming to answer on the one hand the simple reading of the father could be made for everything on the other hand the dian that the husband the father is limited by the husband's limitations that's says he can't say that because The saf explicitly says that before the father could only be made for nephesh. Okay. So that's uh that's what I have for you this evening. The reb and deal with this uh in between opinion to try to explain how is it that beforehand the father could be made for everything and afterwards he could only do uh so tries to say Sara that the of is it only empties out in accordance with the power that the husband had. But the father cannot acquire more than the husband had. In other words, if the father is retrieving the power the husband had, the husband only had over and so that's all the father is going to get. But those that the aus did not have control over then maybe the father will not uh regain access to. In any event, it's uh kaday that we spoke out these three opinions in the garra the raan that the father is limited by the bal the ra that father can do anything and this third of all three are brought in the and we're going to come to this again in the beginning in the very beginning of the 11th parak everyone >> rabbi All right. Is the Karen saying that the doesn't make sense or that it's not a way to be a two. It's just a third opinion. He's saying that what says will not answer for the saf because the saf says explicitly that the drussa applies even before arisen >> right so he so he's or he can't or he can't be either >> I mean he's an ain so he can't argue on uh again because theor's question is if what's motivated by if if the objective of his opinion is to be able to reconcile the puk with the saf he's not doing that he's not reconcile he's not reconciling the with the saf >> he's reconciling the puk with the uh with the limit of the saf not the the saf goes ahead and carries on on further the safes ahead and according to the uh the the the I'll say the word though I don't know it was there but the lim that father and husband are alike >> is only during that period of till you know when when the bal's alive >> and the period where True. So he's explaining that he's explaining that lima but the saf itself uses that limote even before. So >> well and the saf carries it further than say that it's it's even >> but if you're trying to recogn reconcile the pik with the safhri why do you want to reconcile the the saf cuz it's a tanidic source so you're not reconciling it because this tanidic source is using it even >> so but the bottom of the line so you can't reconcile the saf free but I guess from the still stands as a valid or third opinion >> well it it is an opinion I mean the right so he can't negate the fact that there is this third opinion he's just saying that the way the understood the third opinion is that it emerged to be able to reconcile he's saying it's not doing that Okay. And and since it's just the two of us on the on the chat now. >> Yes. >> The uh the second is also a >> Okay. You shocked your favorite >> is it in this week's para m an s an or