Jewish audio on chabad.org. Today's שיעור will be מסכת גיטין דף ל"ה עמוד א', the second line from the top of the עמוד. And here the גמרא goes back to explain the משנה. And we will start with the words of the גמרא, נמנעו מלהשביע. And the משנה had said that the חכמים refrained from making her swear. And this is concerning the דין of אין אלמנה נפרעת מנכסי יתומים אלא בשבועה, that when an אלמנה, a widow, comes to collect the כתובה that her husband owes her, so when she comes to collect from the נכסים, from the property, of the יתומים, of the orphans, the דין is that she cannot collect unless she first swears that she did not collect the כתובה in the lifetime of her husband. But then the משנה said נמנעו מלהשביע, the חכמים refrained from making her swear. For some reason, the חכמים did not want that she should make the שבועה, she should take the oath. And therefore, at that point, a woman, an אלמנה, was not able to collect her כתובה. So then רבן גמליאל הזקן was מתקן that the יתומים would make her make a נדר concerning something that they would choose. For instance, they would say that she should make a נדר not to eat a certain thing or not to have a certain הנאה from something or whatever it is if she collected the כתובה in the lifetime of her husband. And when she made that נדר, the יתומים would know that she really did not collect the כתובה, because if she would have collected the כתובה, she would be אסור to do that thing. And here the גמרא goes back to the words נמנעו מלהשביע, that the חכמים refrained from having her swear. And the גמרא asks, מאי טעמא? What is the reason? Why did the חכמים refrain from making this אלמנה swear?

אילימא, if you will tell me משום דרב כהנא, that it is because of what רב כהנא said, דאמר רב כהנא, because רב כהנא said, ואמרי לה, others say, אמר רב יהודה אמר רב, that it was רב יהודה that said it in the name of רב, that מעשה באדם אחד, there was a story with a certain person, בשני בצורת, it was in a hunger year, שהפקיד דינר זהב אצל אלמנה, that he entrusted a golden דינר by a widow, והניחתו בכד של קמח, and she put it into a jar of flour, ואפתו בפת, and she forgot about it and baked it later in a bread, ונתנתו לעני, and later on, she gave that loaf of bread away to a poor man. לימים, days later, בא בעל הדינר, the owner of the דינר came, ואמר לה, and he said to her, הבי לי דינרי, give me my דינר. And being that she forgot that she took the דינר, אמרה לו, she said to him, יהנה סם המות באחד מבניה של אותה אשה אם נהניתי מדינרך כלום, that let one of the children of that woman, and she was referring to herself. So what she said was, let one of the my children have benefit of poison if I had any benefit from your דינר. This was a קללה that she cursed herself in the form of a שבועה, that let one of my children die if I had any benefit from your דינר. אמרו, and they said, it was said, that לא היו ימים מועטין, that not too many days passed, עד שמת אחד מבניה, till one of her children actually died. Because of the curse that she took upon herself in the form of a שבועה, one of her children died. וכששמעו חכמים בדבר, when the חכמים heard what happened, אמרו, they said, מה מי שנשבע באמת כך, that if when someone swears truthfully, this is what happens, הנשבע על שקר, if someone sells swears falsely, על אחת כמה וכמה certainly he could be punished. And the

גמרא asks, מאי טעמא איענשא? Why was she punished, since the way she said her שבועה was that one of her children should die if she had any benefit from his דינר, and the truth was that she did not have any benefit from his דינר, because she gave away the דינר to the עני, to the poor man? So then why did one of her children die? And the גמרא answers, דאישתרשא לה מקום דינר. She gained the place of the דינר. Since that דינר took up place in that loaf of bread, so she saved the flour that would have been in the place of the דינר. So she did gain a little bit, and therefore, when she said that let one of my ch- children die. If I had any benefit from your דינר, she actually did have benefit from the דינר, and therefore, one of her children died. So then, if so, the גמרא asks, so מאי מי שנשבע באמת? So what did the חכמים mean when they said that if this is what happens to somebody who swears truthfully, certainly it would happen to someone who swears falsely. But according to this, it wasn't truthfully. When she swore that she did not have any benefit from the דינר, it wasn't true, because she did have that little benefit of the place of the דינר. And the גמרא answers, כמי שנשבע באמת. That what the חכמים meant was that she was almost like she swore truthfully, because she did not know that she had benefit from the דינר, because she forgot that she put it into the jar, and she did not realize that she gave it away to the עני and saved herself some flour, so it was בשוגג, unintentionally, so it was almost as if she swore באמת. And that's what the חכמים meant, that if this happens to somebody who is almost באמת, certainly it would happen to somebody who swears בשקר. And what the גמרא is trying to say here is that this would be the reason why the חכמים refrained from having the אלמנה swear in order to collect her כתובה, because we see from this story that when a person swears, it could have terrible consequences. It could cause a lot of harm to the person who swears, and therefore, the חכמים refrained from having the אלמנה swear. The

גמרא asks, אי משום הא, if it is for this reason, מאי איריא אלמנה? Why is אלמנה different? Why is this דין only concerning an אלמנה who comes to collect the כתובה from the נכסי יתומים? That only an אלמנה the חכמים felt that they did not want her to swear. אפילו גרושה נמי! The same דין should be also by a גרושה, when a divorcee comes to collect the כתובה from the property of the יתומים. For instance, if her husband divorced her, and before she managed to collect the כתובה from her husband he died, and now she's going to the יתומים to collect her כתובה, so the דין should be there too, that the חכמים should not make her swear, for the same reason. Because שבועה is a very harsh thing, and therefore, the חכמים should have said that a גרושה who has to collect her כתובה from the יתומים should not swear.

אלמה אמר רב זירא אמר שמואל, why did רב זירא say in the name of שמואל, לא שנו אלא אלמנה, that what it says in the משנה that the חכמים refrained from making her swear was only by an אלמנה, אבל גרושה, but if a גרושה, a divorcee, wants to collect from the נכסי יתומים, משביעין אותה, they would make her swear? And if the reason why the חכמים refrained from having the אלמנה swear is because of the strictness of שבועה, so why didn't they refrain from having the גרושה swear, too? And the גמרא answers, אלמנה שאני, אלמנה is different. דבההיא הנאה דקטרחא קמי דיתמי, because of this הנאה that she goes through the trouble for the יתומים, since her husband died, and she was still married to him, so she stayed with the יתומים, and she takes care of them, so she thinks that really she would deserve to be paid. So אתיא לאורויי היתרא, she could justify herself. She could think that let's say she did get the כתובה paid by her husband while he was alive, and nevertheless, she could feel that she could swear now that she did not get anything, because even if she did get part of the כתובה paid, she feels she is justified for it because of the trouble she is going through now of helping the יתומים. So there is more chance by the case of an אלמנה that she should justify herself and swear falsely, and then all the consequences would come. But the case of a גרושה, that she was divorced before her husband died, so she has nothing to do with the יתומים, so there is no justification to begin with, so there is less chance that she would swear falsely. So therefore, only by the case of an אלמנה the חכמים were afraid that she might swear falsely, they refrained from having her swear. But by the case of a גרושה, where there is less chance, so the חכמים said let her swear, and that's how she will collect the כתובה. Then the גמרא continues,

אמר רב יהודה אמר רב ירמיה בר אבא, רב יהודה said in the name of רב ירמיה בר אבא, דהא רב ושמואל דאמרי תרווייהו, that רב and שמואל both say, לא שנו אלא בבית דין, this דין that the חכמים refrained from having her swear is only if she would swear in the בית דין, אבל חוץ לבית דין משביעין אותה, but outside of the בית דין, they could could make her swear, because a שבועה in the בית דין is stricter than a שבועה outside the בית דין. And as רש״י explains, that when you swear in the בית דין, you have to hold a ספר תורה or תפילין, and you have to swear by using השם's name, or using a כינוי. But when you swear outside of בית דין, you don't swear by using השם's name, you don't have to hold a ספר תורה, etc., and the punishment for swearing false outside of בית דין is not as great as the punishment for swearing inside of בית דין, and therefore, when the חכמים refrained from having her swear because of the strictness of שבועה, that was only inside בית דין. But swearing outside of בית דין, the חכמים still allowed. And the גמרא asks,

איני, it is not so, והא רב לא מגבי כתובה לארמלתא, that the fact was that רב did not have an אלמנה, a widow, collect a כתובה at all. He did not want her to swear because the משנה says that חכמים refrained from having her swear, and for some reason the גמרא will explain later, that he did not want her to make a נדר as the תקנה of רבן גמליאל הזקן. And therefore, there was no choice but for an אלמנה not to collect the כתובה at all. But the קשיא is, if it is true that רב and שמואל said that outside of בית דין you could make her swear, so how come רב did not have an אלמנה collect the כתובה? Why didn't he make her swear outside of בית דין? If רב himself said that you could do it outside of בית דין, so why did רב himself not have an אלמנה collect the כתובה? And the גמרא says, קשיא, this is a good קשיא, and this proves that רב never said that outside of בית דין you're allowed to have her swear. And the גמרא says, בסורא מתנו הכי, this is way this ענין was learned in the ישיבה in סורא, that first they said that רב and שמואל both hold that you're allowed to have her swear outside of בית דין, and then a קשיא was asked from the fact that רב did not allow an אלמנה to collect a כתובה, and the end was that we disproved the original statement that רב holds that you're allowed to make her swear outside of בית דין. But בנהרדעא מתנו הכי, in נהרדעא, the ישיבה of נהרדעא, they לכתחילה learned this whole thing differently. They learned it like this: that אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, רב יהודה said in the name of שמואל, לא שנו אלא בבית דין, this דין that an אלמנה cannot swear was only if she wants to swear in בית דין. אבל חוץ לבית דין משביעין אותה, but outside of בית דין you could make her swear. And לכתחילה, the way they learned in נהרדעא, it was only said in the name of שמואל. ורב אמר, but they learned לכתחילה that רב said, אפילו חוץ לבית דין נמי אין משביעין אותה, that even outside of בית דין you don't let her swear. And רב לטעמיה, and רב goes along with his own שיטה, we see how what רב said fits to what רב himself did, that רב לא מגבי כתובה לארמלתא, that רב did not give a כתובה to an אלמנה, and that is for this reason, because there was no choice. Since to make her swear the משנה says that the חכמים refrained, and רב himself holds that this includes also to have her swear outside of בית דין, so there was no choice but not to have her collect her כתובה. But the גמרא asks, וליאדרה וליגביה, why didn't he make her make a נדר and have her collect the כתובה? The משנה says that after the חכמים refrained from having the אלמנה swear, רבן גמליאל הזקן was מתקן that she should make a נדר whatever the יתומים would want, and that's how she would collect her כתובה. So why didn't רב do that too? To have her make a נדר, and that's how she could collect her כתובה. And the גמרא answers, בשני דרב קילי נדרי, that in the time of רב, נדרים were easy in the eyes of people, that people would be עובר, would transgress their own נדרים. And therefore in the time of רב, he didn't feel you could rely on the נדר that the woman made, because it could be that she's lying, she really did collect her כתובה, and even though she made a נדר, she doesn't care because at that time people did not really care about נדרים. And therefore, רב had no choice but that an אלמנה should not collect the כתובה at all. And the גמרא continues, ההיא דאתאי לקמיה דרב הונא, there was this woman that came to רב הונא, she was an אלמנה, and she came to רב הונא because she wanted to collect her כתובה. אמר לה, he said to her, מאי אעביד לך, what could I do for you, דרב לא מגבי כתובה לארמלתא, that רב would not have an אלמנה collect her כתובה, so therefore me too, I also will not have you collect your כתובה. אמרה ליה, so she said to him, מידי דהוה טעמא, isn't the reason why you do not want to give me my כתובה. אלא דילמא נקיטנא מידי מכתובתי, it's only because you suspect maybe I already received part of my כתובה. חי השם צבאות, live should השם צבאות. This is an expression of a שבועה, that she swore, אם אהניתי מכתובתי כלום, if I had any benefit from my כתובה. אמר רב הונא, so then רב הונא said, מודה רב בקופצת, by a woman who jumps. In other words, if a woman on her own jumps in and makes the שבועה, then we accept the שבועה and we give her the כתובה. Even though the דין is that we do not make her swear, and therefore רב felt that an אלמנה cannot collect her כתובה at all, but if she on her own jumps in, so to speak, and gives a שבועה, we accept her שבועה and we give her the כתובה. The גמרא continues, ההיא דאתאי לקמיה דרבה בר רב הונא, a woman came to רבה the son of רב הונא, and she was an אלמנה who wanted to collect her כתובה. אמר לה, so רבה the son of רב הונא said to her, מאי אעביד לך, what can I do for you? How can I help you? דרב לא מגבי כתובה לארמלתא, that רב would not have an אלמנה collect her כתובה, ואבא מרי, and my father, this is רב הונא, also לא מגבי כתובה לארמלתא, also would not have an אלמנה collect her כתובה. So then how do you expect me to give you your כתובה? אמרה ליה, so she said to him, הבו לי מזוני, at least give me my מזונות, give me my support, because the דין is that when a person dies and leaves over an אלמנה, so one of the conditions of the כתובה is that she must be supported from the property of the deceased. So she said to him, at least give me my support, give me my מזונות. אמר לה, so רבה בר רב הונא said to her, מזוני נמי לית ליך, now you cannot get your support either. Why? דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל, because רב יהודה said in the name of שמואל, התובעת כתובתה בבית דין, if a woman comes to בית דין, an אלמנה, and claims her כתובה, אין לה מזונות. She has no מזונות, she loses her support, because the whole reason why the חכמים were מתקן that she should get מזונות from the property of her deceased husband is only because of the כבוד of her husband, because of the honor of her husband since she is his אלמנה. But as soon as she plans to remarry, then she loses her מזונות. So when a woman comes to collect her כתובה, this is a sign that she is ready to remarry and she wants the money. Because otherwise, why does she need the money for? She is supported from the נכסים of her deceased husband, so she doesn't need the money. As soon as she asks for the money of the כתובה, that proves that she's going to remarry. Now if she's going to remarry, she will not be the אלמנה of that deceased man anymore, because now she will be married to a new man, so right away as soon as she claims her כתובה, she loses the מזונות. So this is what he said to her, you cannot collect the כתובה because רב and my father did not have an אלמנה collect her כתובה. But since you asked for the כתובה, you cannot get the מזונות either because of what שמואל said. אמרה ליה, so she said to him, איפכו לכרסיה, let his chair be turned around. It was like a curse that she cursed him. Because כבי תרי עבדי לי, you're doing to me like both! I get the bad end of both sides! On one hand, you do like רב that you do not give me the כתובה; on the other hand, you do like שמואל and you don't give me מזונות. But since she cursed him, so רבה בר רב הונא was afraid that her curse might come true, so what happened? איפכו לכרסיה ותירצוה, they turned his chair around and they picked it up again. They wanted that her words should come true, so later on, it shouldn't have any effect. So since the term, the way she cursed him was that his chair should be turned around, what she meant really was that something bad should happen to him, but since those are the words she used, so what they did was they just physically turned his chair around and picked it up. By that, they felt that her words came true already and now no harm will come on רבה בר רב הונא. The גמרא says, ואפילו הכי, and still, לא איפרק מחולשא, he didn't escape illness. Later on, he got sick because of the curse that this woman cursed him. Then the גמרא continues, אמר ליה רב יהודה לרב ירמיה ביראה, רב יהודה said to רב ירמיה ביראה, that if a case of an אלמנה claiming her כתובה comes to you, אדרה בבית דין, have her make a נדר in בית דין and collect her כתובה like the תקנה of רבן גמליאל הזקן, ואשבעה חוץ לבית דין, or have her swear outside of בית דין, and then let her collect her כתובה. In other words, he did not hold like רב that said That even outside of בית דין you're not allowed to make her swear, and he said let it be done, but וליסק קלא, and let there go out a קול, a rumor that this happened, וליפול באודני, and let the rumor come back to my ears. In other words, let me hear a report. Because דבעינא I want כהיכא דעביד במעשה, I want people to know that a מעשה was done, that an אלמנה did collect the כתובה. He wanted to set a precedent that the הלכה is not like רב, that an אלמנה cannot collect the כתובה because she cannot swear חוץ לבית דין. He wanted to show that a מעשה was done, that an אלמנה did collect the כתובה because she swore חוץ לבית דין. Then the גמרא continues, גופא. Now we're going to discuss the גוף of the ענין that was mentioned before. Before we mentioned, אמר רב זירא אמר שמואל, רב זירא said in the name of שמואל, לא שנו אלא אלמנה, that this דין of the משנה that the חכמים refrained from making her swear is only in the דין of an אלמנה, if a widow who collects the כתובה because her husband died, then the חכמים says she should not swear, אבל גרושה, but if she collects the money because she was a divorcee and then her husband died before she managed to collect the כתובה, and now she has to collect it from the נכסי יתומים, משביעין אותה, they do make her swear. So it comes out that by a גרושה the old דין of having her swear remains, and the תקנה of רבן גמליאל הזקן that instead of swearing she would make a נדר does not apply to a גרושה, to a divorcee. So the גמרא asks, וגרושה דאדרה לא, and a גרושה who would make a נדר would not be acceptable? The only way she could collect her כתובה from the נכסי יתומים is if she swears, but by her making a נדר it would not be enough? והא שלחו מתם, but we know that they sent a message from there, meaning from ארץ ישראל: איך פלונית בת פלוני, a woman so-and-so the daughter of so-and-so, קבילת גיטה מידה דאחא בר הדיא, how she accepted a גט from the hands of אחא בר הדיא, דמיתקרי is also known as אי מרי, ונדרת, and she made a נדר, and what was her נדר? ואסרת פירות שבעולם עלה, she אסר'd upon herself, she forbid upon herself fruits of the world, דלא קבילת מכתובתה, that she did not accept from her כתובה, אלא גלופקרא אחד, just one coat, וספר תהלים אחד, and one ספר תהלים, וספר איוב, and a ספר of איוב, וממשלות, and a ספר of משלי, בלואים, they were rotten, they were all used up, ושמום, and the חכמים estimated it, בחמשה מנה, it is worth five מנה. So she said that if she accepted more than this from her כתובה, she should be אסור to eat the fruits of the world. And that's how the חכמים knew that she was saying the truth. And they sent a message to חוץ לארץ, because the property of her husband was in חוץ לארץ, so they sent a message: לכשתבא לידכם, when she will come to you, הגבו את השאר, have her collect the rest. So

what do we see from here? That even though she was a גרושה, because as they send the message she received a גט from אחא בר הדיא who was known as אי מרי, and still they said that how did they know that she was saying the truth that she didn't collect anything but the worth of five מנה was because she made a נדר. So from here we see that even a גרושה is also believed by making a נדר, and from what רב זירא אמר שמואל said, it seems that a גרושה is only believed if she makes a שבועה, but not by making a נדר. אמר רב אשי, so רב אשי said, ההוא גט יבמין הוה. The case that was there was a גט יבמין. The דין is that if a person dies and has no children, so then the brother of the deceased man has to be מיבם, has to marry the wife, which means his sister-in-law. If he doesn't want to marry her, then he has to give her חליצה. But the דין is that the כתובה that she is supposed to get has to come from the property of her first husband, not from the property of the יבם. And this was a case where she was a יבמה, her יבם instead of marrying her, being מיבם her, gave her a גט. And the

דין is that a גט is not sufficient for her to be free from her יבם. If her יבם wants to free her, he has to give her חליצה. The only time the יבם could give her a גט is after he was מיבם her, so then she becomes a regular wife of his. Now if he wants to free her, he gives her a גט. The only thing a יבם could accomplish by giving a גט to his יבמה before he's מיבם her is that because of this גט, she is now פסול for יבום. And this is what happened in this case. She was a woman that her husband died. The brother of her husband gave her a גט, and this is what they meant when they sent a message from ארץ ישראל, that this woman received a גט from אחא בר הדיא who was known as איימרי, it wasn't the גט from her husband, it was the גט that she received from her יבם. And because of that, she could not be מתיבם anymore, and she had to get חליצה from her יבם. But the כתובה she would collect from the property of her deceased husband. So לגבי the כתובה, she is considered an אלמנה, because she is collecting the כתובה as an אלמנה for her husband. And therefore in this case, the way the חכמים trusted her was because she made a נדר. But

had she been a real גרושה, in other words a case where a woman was divorced from her husband, and then later wants to collect the כתובה from the property of the יתומים, the only way she could collect is if she gives a שבועה, if she swears. This is the way רש״י learns the פשט in the תירוץ of the גמרא, that ההוא גט יבמין הוה. But תוספות learns פשט differently, because תוספות asks a קשיא on רש״י. תוספות asks that the דין is that a יבמה that gets חליצה cannot collect the כתובה from the possessions of her first husband till after the חליצה of the יבם. So according to רש״י, that this was a case that her יבם gave her a גט before he was מיבם her, and then later he was supposed to give her חליצה because of that, because with the גט he פסל her from יבום. So she could not collect her כתובה till after the חליצה of the יבם. So the message they should have sent from ארץ ישראל should have been that this woman received חליצה from אחא בר הדיא, and now she's collecting her כתובה, and etc., etc., etc. Why did they have to mention the גט at all? Therefore, תוספות learns that this was a different case altogether. This was a case that her יבם was מיבם her, and after he was מיבם her, he decided to divorce her, and he gave her a גט. And this is what the גמרא means with גט יבמין הוה, it was a regular גט, but a גט given by the יבם. The דין is that when a woman gets יבום, and then her יבם divorces her, the כתובה that she collects, she collects from the property of the deceased husband, of the first husband. So in a case like this, even though she is a גרושה now, she is a divorcee, and she is collecting her כתובה as a גרושה, nevertheless, being that the money comes from the possessions of her first husband who died, she has a דין of an אלמנה. And the same justification that an אלמנה might have in order to lie, that even if she collected the כתובה she could claim that she did not collect because she feels she deserves more money because of the טירחא that she had with the יתומים, this woman has the same justification. Because she lived with the יבם, so she feels she was מטריח herself with the יבם, so she deserves more money. So it's possible that she really collected the כתובה while her first husband was alive, and nevertheless, now she would lie. So the same דין as the גמרא said concerning an אלמנה, that because of this justification the חכמים refrained from making her swear, this woman here too, even though at this point she is a גרושה, but being that she collects from her first husband's property, and she has the same justification as a regular אלמנה, the דין would apply to her too, that the חכמים would not make her swear. And therefore תוספות learns, she, the only way the חכמים would believe her was through a נדר. And this is what the גמרא meant with the words גט יבמין הוה, that she was טאקע divorced, but it was a גט that her יבם gave her, and because of that, the way the חכמים were able to find out that she's saying the truth is through a נדר, not through a שבועה, because she has the same דין of אלמנה. And now the גמרא goes back to explain the different words of the משנה. We learn in the משנה: התקין רבן גמליאל הזקן, רבן גמליאל הזקן was מתקן, שתהא נודרת וכו׳, that instead of swearing, the אלמנה should make a נדר whatever the יתומים choose. For instance, they should tell her to make a נדר that if she collected from her כתובה, then she should be אסור to eat a certain thing or to do a certain thing, etc. And when she makes the נדר, we know for sure that she would not accept upon herself to אסר herself on that thing, so that proves that probably she didn't collect anything from the כתובה, because if she did collect, then she would automatically become אסור. And that was a form and has no right to nullify the נדרים that she made before she married him. And therefore, if she comes to collect the כתובה while she's not married, so then we're not afraid that later on her husband will nullify the נדר she will make now, because a husband cannot nullify later the נדרים that she made before she married him. And then the

גמרא asks, וניחוש, let us be afraid, דילמא אזלא לגבי חכם, that she might go to a חכם, ושרי לה, and the חכם will be מתיר her נדר, because the דין is that a person is allowed to go to a חכם to be מתיר נדר, to nullify the נדר. So therefore, we still should not trust her with the נדר, because maybe she is lying, and she will go to a חכם that he should be מתיר the נדר. And the גמרא answers, קסבר, he holds, צריך לפרט הנדר, that when you go to a חכם to be מתיר the נדר, you have to specify the details of the נדר. In other words, you have to tell the חכם the reason why you made the נדר. So therefore, if this woman will come to the חכם and tell him that I made a נדר not to eat a certain thing, and I want to be מתיר it, the חכם will ask her, Why did you make the נדר? And the דין is that you have to specify the reason why you made the נדר, she will tell him, Because I wanted to collect my כתובה, and the בית דין wouldn't give it to me unless I made a נדר, so the חכם will definitely not be מתיר her נדר. So there is nothing to suspect, and therefore we're allowed to be מאמין her. Then the גמרא says, רב נחמן אמר, but רב נחמן said, אפילו ניסת, that even if she remarried, we still could make her make a נדר, and she could collect her כתובה. But the גמרא asks, ניסת, if she's married, ודאי מפר לה בעל, certainly her husband will nullify the נדר, so how can we trust her with the נדר? And the גמרא answers, דמדרינן לה ברבים, we'll make her make the נדר in public. And the דין is that when you make a נדר in public, it cannot be nullified. And therefore, even if she is remarried, and we're afraid that her husband will nullify her נדר, we'll make her make the נדר in public, and then her husband can't nullify it, and therefore, even if she's remarried, we could give her the כתובה. מר asks a קשיא, מיתיבי, I'll ask you a קשיא, we learned in a ברייתא, it says, ניסת, if she remarried, גובה כתובתה, she could still collect her כתובה, אם נדרה, if she made a נדר. מאי לאו, don't you think, נדרה השתא, that she made a נדר now, that what the ברייתא means is that if she remarried, she could collect her כתובה if now she will make a נדר? That means that even after she remarried, she still could make a נדר, and we would trust her נדר and give her the כתובה. So this is a ראיה to רב נחמן, and it's a קשיא on רב הונא that says that if she remarried, we cannot make her make the נדר. And the גמרא answers, לא, no, דנדרה מעיקרא. What the ברייתא means is that if she remarried, she could collect the כתובה if she had made a נדר before she remarried. In other words, let's say she came before she remarried to collect the כתובה, and we forced her to make a נדר, and before she actually collected it, she remarried, so the ברייתא tells us that she could still collect the כתובה even after she married, but it has to be through a נדר that she made before she remarried. And then the גמרא says, והתניא, but we learned in another ברייתא, it says clearly, ניסת, if she remarried, נודרת, she could make a נדר, וגובה כתובתה, and could collect the כתובה. So here we see clearly from the ברייתא that even after she remarried, she could make a נדר then, because it says ניסת נודרת, she could make a נדר. It doesn't say that if she remarried she could collect the כתובה if she made a נדר as the previous ברייתא. There you could say it means if she made a נדר previously, but here it says if she got married, נודרת, she can make a נדר, which means now, after she remarried, and collect the כתובה. So we see from here that even after she remarried, she could still make a נדר and collect her כתובה. And the גמרא answers, תנאי היא, this really depends on a מחלוקת, on an argument of תנאים. דאיכא למאן דאמר, there is an opinion in תנאים that נדר שהודר ברבים יש לו הפרה, that a נדר that was made in public also is able to be nullified, ואיכא למאן דאמר, and there is an opinion in תנאים, אין לו הפרה, that a נדר that's made in public cannot be nullified. And this is really the מחלוקת here, whether after she remarried, if you could tell her to make a נדר and she collect her כתובה. In the ברייתא where it says that even after she remarried, she still could make a נדר and collect her כתובה is because that ברייתא holds that a נדר that's made in public cannot be nullified. So here we have a way of preventing the husband from nullifying the נדר, that if she remarried, we tell her to make the נדר in public, so now the husband can't nullify it anyway, so she could collect her כתובה because we trust her נדר. But רב הונא who said that if she remarried, she cannot make a נדר and collect her כתובה, because he goes according to those תנאים that say that a נדר that's made in public still could be nullified, so we have no way of preventing the husband from nullifying her נדר, because even if she'll make the נדר in public, the husband still could nullify the נדר. Therefore, there is no way of preventing the husband from nullifying the נדר, so if she got married, she cannot make a נדר and she cannot collect her כתובה. Then the גמרא goes on: איבעיא להו, there was a question asked, and this is something that was mentioned before, but now the גמרא goes into details. צריך לפרט את הנדר או אינו צריך? When you come to a חכם and you want him to nullify your נדר, must you specify the details, the reasons why you made a נדר, or don't you have to specify the reasons why you make the נדר? רב

נחמן אמר, רב נחמן says, אינו צריך, you do not have to specify the reasons. But רב פפא אמר, רב פפא says, צריך, you do have to give the reasons why you made the נדר. And the גמרא explains it: רב נחמן אמר אינו צריך, רב נחמן says you do not have to give the reasons why you made a נדר, because דאי אמרת צריך, because if you're going to say that you do have to give the reasons for the נדר, in other words, the nullification of the נדר is dependent on the reasons that you give, so זימנין דגייז ליה לדיבוריה, sometimes it could happen that the person will cut his words, which means the person will not tell the חכם the complete truth, והחכם מאי דשמע מפר, the חכם will nullify what he hears. Based on the details he would be given, he would feel that you could nullify the נדר and he would nullify it. But really, this is only part of the truth. Had he heard the whole truth, he would feel that you're not allowed to nullify the נדר. So therefore, he holds that you don't have to tell the חכם the details, so the nullification of the נדר is not dependent on the details, so there is never possible for the חכם to make this mistake. But רב פפא אמר, רב פפא says, צריך, that you do have to tell the חכם the details why you made the נדר, משום מילתא דאיסורא, because of an ענין, of a thing of איסור. It's possible that the reason he made a נדר was to prevent him, for instance, from doing an איסור. Let's say he made a נדר that if he's going to eat non-kosher food, then he is obligated to do so and so. And the reason he wants to take off the נדר, not to be obligated to do that certain thing, is because he wants to eat חזיר. So if the חכם will not hear the reasons why he made a נדר, he might nullify this נדר, and that will give the person the opportunity to go and do a דבר איסור, an עבירה. And therefore, the דין is that a חכם, in order to nullify the נדר, must first hear the פרטים, he must hear the reasons why the נדר was made. Then the גמרא continues: תנן, we learn in the משנה in בכורות, הנושא נשים בעבירה, if a כהן marries a wife through an עבירה, he marries a woman that is prohibited to him, for instance, if a כהן marries a גרושה, a divorcee, פסול, this כהן is פסול from doing the עבודה in the בית המקדש, עד שידור הנאה, till he makes a נדר that he will not have any הנאה, any benefits from his wife, which means he will divorce her. So he has to make a נדר that he is going to divorce his wife. ותני עלה, and we learned in a ברייתא as an explanation to this משנה, that the משנה does not mean that he has to make a נדר and then he divorces her and then he's allowed to do the עבודה, but it could be in a different way: נודר, he has to make the נדר, ועובד, as soon as he makes the נדר he could do the עבודה, יורד, then he goes down from the עבודה, ומגרש, he divorces her later. So the שאלה of the גמרא is: ואי אמרת, if you're going to say אינו צריך לפרט את הנדר, that when you go to a חכם to be מתיר נדר, you don't have to give him the reason why you made the נדר, ליחוש, let us be afraid, דילמא אזיל לגבי חכם, this כהן might go to a חכם ושרי ליה, and he will be מתיר his נדר. If you allow him to do the עבודה before he actually divorces his wife, as soon as he makes the נדר, but how do we know that he's going to keep his נדר? He might go to a חכם and tell the חכם that he made a נדר to divorce his wife, and the חכם won't know why he made a נדר, and if the דין is that you don't have to tell the חכם why, so the חכם won't ask him. The חכם will just hear that he made a נדר to divorce his wife and now he wants to be מתיר it, the חכם will be מתיר his נדר. So how can we trust this כהן to allow him to do the עבודה by just making a נדר that he'll divorce his wife? So that proves that when you come to a חכם to nullify a נדר, you must give him the reason why you made the נדר. So in this case, there's nothing to be afraid of, because if he's going to go to the חכם to nullify the נדר, the חכם will ask him, "Why did you make the נדר?" He'll have to tell him, "It's because they wouldn't let me do the עבודה because I married a גרושה." So certainly the חכם will not be מתיר the נדר. And the גמרא answers, דמדרינן ליה ברבים, that we make him make the נדר in public. And since he makes this in public, this נדר cannot be nullified, and therefore, it's sufficient that he makes a נדר that he's going to divorce his wife, he could right away do the עבודה, because we're not afraid that he is going to nullify it through a חכם. Then the גמרא asks, הניחא, this is only good למאן דאמר, according to the one that holds נדר שהודר ברבים אין לו הפרה, that a

נדר that's made in public cannot be nullified. So here, we have a way of preventing this כהן from nullifying his נדר. אלא למאן דאמר, but according to the one that holds יש לו הפרה, that even if it's made in public, it still could be nullified, מאי איכא למימר, what can we say? How can we trust this כהן by making a נדר that he's going to divorce his wife? Even if we're going to do it in public, but if we hold that a נדר that's done in public still could be nullified, so even a נדר like that he could nullify. So we're back to the question, how can we trust this כהן that he is going to keep his נדר? He might go to a חכם to nullify it. And we're back to the proof that this proves that you must tell the חכם the reason why you made a נדר, and that's the only way we could prevent him from nullifying the נדר, because the חכם, when he'll hear the reason, will not nullify it. And the גמרא says, no, דמדרינן ליה על דעת רבים. We make him make the נדר under the דעת of רבים, under the authority of many. We tell him that you should say that you're making the נדר under the authority, under responsibility of the רבים. And דאמר אמימר, because אמימר said, הלכתא, the הלכה is, אפילו למאן דאמר, even according to the one that holds נדר שהודר ברבים יש לו הפרה, that a נדר that was made in public can be nullified, but if it was made על דעת רבים, under the authority, under responsibility of the רבים, אין לו הפרה, that cannot be nullified. So this is what we do with this כהן. We tell the כהן that he should make a נדר על דעת רבים that he's going to divorce divorce his wife, and then he could continue doing the עבודה, and we're not afraid he's going to go to a חכם to be מתיר it, because a נדר that was made על דעת רבים, everyone agrees, cannot be nullified. And the reason for this is, because when you nullify a נדר, the פשט is that the דעת of the person who made the נדר changed, and therefore, you're able to change the נדר, nullify the נדר. But if the נדר was made על דעת רבים, so in order to change that נדר, you would have to have the דעת of all the people. And since you can't have the דעת of all the people that the נדר was made על דעתם, so therefore, there is no way you could nullify the נדר that was made על דעת רבים. Then the גמרא continues, והני מילי, when is this דין that a נדר על דעת רבים cannot be nullified? Only לדבר הרשות, if the reason you want to nullify it is only a דבר הרשות, an optional thing. It is not something that is a מצוה. It is not because of a חיוב of an obligation of a מצוה that you want to nullify the נדר, it is only for a דבר הרשות. אבל לדבר מצוה, but if the reason you want to nullify the נדר is because of a מצוה, יש לו הפרה, there, you could nullify even if it's על דעת רבים. And the reason for that is also very simple. Since we assume that everyone would agree that for this מצוה, the נדר should not exist. So therefore, even though it was done על דעת רבים and normally you cannot nullify it, because how do you know what the דעת of all the people would be? But by the case of a מצוה, we assume that everyone would agree that the מצוה should be done, and therefore everyone would agree to be מתיר this נדר. And the גמרא gives an example, כי ההוא מקרי דרדקי, there was this מלמד of children, there was this teacher, דאדריה רב אחא על דעת רבים, that רב אחא made him make a נדר על דעת רבים that he would never teach children again, דהוה פשע בינוקי, because he would hit the children too much. So he made him make a נדר על דעת רבים that he would never teach children again. ואהדריה רבינא, but רבינא took back the נדר, was מתיר the נדר. Why? Because דלא אשתכח דדייק כוותיה, because they couldn't find anybody else that was a good teacher as him. So in order for the children to have the best teacher, they nullified the נדר even though it was done על דעת רבים. And this is

because to teach children is a מצוה, so for the sake of a מצוה, you're allowed to be מתיר even a נדר that was done על דעת רבים. Going back to the גמרא before, where רב הונא said that if she already remarried, we do not tell her to make a נדר in order to collect the כתובה, because we're afraid that her husband is going to be מתיר the נדר, so תוספות asks an interesting קשיא: there is another way to do it to prevent her husband from being מתיר the נדר. Let's bring a piece of bread, for instance, into the בית דין, and let's tell her, make a נדר that if you did collect the כתובה already, you will not eat this piece of bread, and then let's tell her to eat the bread right there in front of us, before she even goes home to her husband. So here, the husband cannot be מפר, because later on when she will come home, she already has eaten the bread that the נדר was about, and here we will see if she's saying the truth or not. If she is lying, that she really did collect the כתובה, then automatically she is אסור to eat this piece of bread, so she will not eat it in front of us. If she will eat it in front of us, that'll be a proof that she really did not collect the כתובה and she's saying the truth. And

תוספות answers that רב הונא holds that when is a person very afraid of a נדר? If it's a נדר that's going to make the person אסור on something for a long time. But if it's only a one-time thing, we're afraid that she would go against her נדר. So the only way we could know for sure that she is saying the truth is if we tell her, make a נדר that for your whole lifetime you will not eat bread, for instance, if you did collect your כתובה already. So then we know that if she would be lying, she wouldn't do it, because she would not accept upon herself a נדר for her lifetime. But a נדר that she would not eat this piece of bread, so here we suspect that maybe she would be lying, and she would once go against her נדר in order to collect the money of the כתובה again. Based on this סברא, תוספות answers another interesting קשיא in this גמרא. The גמרא asks a קשיא, וניחוש, let us be afraid, דילמא אזלא לגבי חכם ושרי, maybe she will go to a חכם and the חכם will be מתיר her נדר. When did the גמרא ask this קשיא? After the גמרא quoted רב הונא's דין that if she remarried, we do not tell her to make a נדר, because we're afraid that her husband will nullify it. Then the גמרא asks, but anyway she could go to a חכם to nullify the נדר. לכאורה, this קשיא has nothing to do with רב הונא. This is a קשיא directly on the משנה. When the משנה says that the way we find out that she's saying the truth by telling her to make a נדר, what kind of proof do we have for her נדר? Maybe when she finishes with the נדר, she's going to go to a חכם and he'll be מתיר the נדר? Why does the גמרא ask this קשיא only after רב הונא said his דין, that if she remarried, then we're afraid of her husband, so that's when the גמרא comes up with the question, let's be afraid a חכם will be מתיר? Why didn't the גמרא ask the question even before, on the משנה itself? And based on what תוספות said before, תוספות answers this question. Because without רב הונא, just the משנה itself, we have a way to prevent her from going to a חכם. We'll tell her to make a נדר on a piece of bread that is right there in front of us, and we'll tell her, say that if you collected from the כתובה, you're not allowed to eat this bread, and let's make her eat that piece of bread. So here we're not afraid she might go to a חכם and be מתיר the נדר, because when she goes to the חכם, it will be already after she did the נדר. But now that רב הונא said that if she remarried, we do not tell her to make a נדר, because we are afraid of her husband nullifying the נדר. In other words, we see that רב הונא does not feel it's sufficient to tell her to make a נדר on a piece of bread and tell her to eat it in front of us, because he feels that a one-time thing a person will be עובר. So now the גמרא says, if you, if you feel that way, so we cannot do that, so if so, the question comes up, let us always be afraid afraid maybe she will go to a חכם and the חכם will be מתיר her נדר. Another question that תוספות asks in this סוגיא here, he says, when the גמרא feels that she could go to a חכם to be מתיר, or she could have her husband be מתיר the נדר, so תוספות asks, how is that possible? We have a דין that when a person is מדיר הנאה מחבירו, if a person makes a נדר not to have הנאה from his friend, so then he cannot be מתיר that נדר unless it is in front of the friend. So here too, since she made the נדר because of the יתומים, so she cannot be מתיר the נדר unless it is in front of the יתומים. So what is this whole שקלא וטריא, the whole discussion in the גמרא, about her going away and having her husband be מתיר the נדר, or going to a חכם to be מתיר the נדר, if she cannot be מתיר the נדר anyway unless the people who the נדר was made for are there? So she will have to do it in front of the יתומים, and they definitely would not allow it. And תוספות answers firstly that בדיעבד, if you are מתיר it not in front of the other person, it is מופר. So therefore we're afraid she's going to go and do it, and then בדיעבד the נדר will be מותר. But then תוספות gives another reason. תוספות says that that דין would really not apply here. And תוספות explains it, because what is the reason why when you make a נדר from your friend, you have to nullify it only in front of your friend? And תוספות says, in ירושלמי we find two reasons for it. One reason is מפני הבושה, because they want that the person should be embarrassed in front of that other person that he made the נדר from. And another reason is מפני החשד, that people shouldn't be חושד him that he was עובר on his נדר. If he will not be מתיר the נדר in front of the other person, so no one will know that he was מתיר his נדר. Later we will see that he is עובר on his נדר, people will be חושד that look, this person is עובר on a נדר, and therefore the דין is that he must nullify it in front of the other person. So

תוספות says, both of these reasons don't apply here, because here the way the נדר was made, that only if she did take the money from the כתובה before, the נדר is חל. Now who knows whether she took or she didn't? Only she herself knows. And therefore both reasons don't apply here. The reason of בושה doesn't apply, because even if she will be מתיר the נדר in front of the יתומים, she still will not be embarrassed, because they don't know whether the נדר was חל or not. And the other reason, that we will be חושד that she went against the נדר, doesn't apply here either, because no one knows whether the נדר was really חל or not. And therefore תוספות says, there could be a whole שקלא וטריא here in the גמרא concerning her husband nullifying her נדר, and concerning a חכם nullifying her נדר. Another thing that תוספות asks in this סוגיא is that when the גמרא asked a קושיא from the משנה where it says that a כהן who married a woman בעבירה is פסול to do the עבודה till he makes a נדר that he will not have הנאה from his wife, and then the ברייתא on that משנה said that he makes the נדר and could continue doing the עבודה, and later he divorces, the גמרא asked a קושיא from that ברייתא, that how could we trust him by making the נדר, לכאורה he could go to a חכם to be מתיר, and the גמרא wanted to prove that you have to be מפרט the נדר. So תוספות asks, why did the גמרא have to bring in that ברייתא? The גמרא could have asked the קושיא directly from the משנה! It says in the משנה, if a

כהן marries a woman בעבירה, he is פסול to do the עבודה till he makes a נדר הנאה. So we see that as soon as he makes the נדר הנאה, he could already do the עבודה. So if not for the ברייתא, we would have known it too, so why did the גמרא only ask the קושיא after we brought the ברייתא? And תוספות answers that from the משנה itself, we could have learned that he must wait to do the עבודה till after he divorces her. What did the משנה mean, עד שידור הנאה? Till he makes a נדר that he will not marry anymore women that are אסור to him in the future. But in the ברייתא, it says clearly that even concerning this woman itself, he makes just the נדר and then he could do the עבודה. And therefore the גמרא asks that how can we trust him that he's going to divorce her when maybe he's going to go to the חכם to be מתיר the נדר? And so from that, the גמרא wanted to prove that you don't have to be מפרט the נדר.