Resources and Review Test for Nedarim 67
The משנה says that if a woman becomes an ארוסה and she is below 12.5 years old, the father and the ארוס can jointly be מפיר her נדרים. If one is מקים her נדר or even if he is silent for 24 hours after finding out about the נדר, the נדר is קיים even if the other party was מפיר the נדר. The קהילת יעקב in סימן ל"ט and סימן מ has the following very yesodosdik חקירה: what exactly is the function of the הקמת הנדר of the father and husband? Is he simply being מסלק his ability to be מפיר the נדר or is his הקמה adding something to the נדר and making it stronger? He suggests that this may be a מחלוקת ראשונים which is brought in שולחן ערוך. In יו"ד סימן רל"ד סעיף כ"גthe מחבר writes that if a woman makes a נדר and her husband is מקים it, she can still go to a חכם for התרת נדרים. The רמ"א brings the מרדכי who disagrees and say that once the husband is מקים the נדר she is no longer eligible to do התרת נדרים. The Steipler ז"ל explains that the מחבר is going like the שיטות that holds that הקמה is just the husband removing his ability to be מפיר. If so, there is no reason the woman can’t do התרת נדרים later. However, the רמ"א who brings the מרדכי is assuming that הקמה adds to the נדר and makes it stronger such that it is ineligible for התרת נדרים. He then brings a ראיה at the end of סימן מ׳ that הקמה must add strength to the נדר. The proof is from our גמרא on עמוד ב׳ where the גמרא suggested in the הוה אמינא that perhaps only the husband has the power to be מפיר but the father just has the ability to be מקים. Now if הקמה is just removing your ability to be מפיר, how can you remove an ability you never had? Rather, it must be that הקמה adds strength to the נדר.
The ר"ן in ד"ה וחזר המקיים is discussing the גמרא’s case where a father was מפיר a נדר and then the husband was מקיים the נדר and was subsequently שואל on his הקמה. In that case the ר"ן and רמב"ן say that both the father and husband need to be reמפיר the נדר in order for the הפרה to work since we can’t have a situation where there was anything between the father’s and husband’s הפרה that would impede their הפרה working (such as a הקמה). It must have happened בבת אחת. He brings the רשב"א who asks why does the father have to be reמפיר? If שאלת חכם is עוקר הנדר למפרע, it comes out that the הקמה never happened in which case nothing separated the father’s and husband’s הפרה! His proof to this is that if you marry a woman on condition that she has no נדרים and it turns out she does have נדרים, the marriage is still valid if she is מתיר נדר since that uproots the נדר retroactively. So here too, the הקמה should be uprooted למפרע. The ר"ן answers that קידושין is different since it is a real מעשה as opposed to הפרה which is weak as it needs the other person to be מצטרף with them. In שערי יושר in שער ז׳ פּרק י"ח Reb Shimon ז"ל explains the ר"ן to mean the following: even though it is true that שאלת חכם is עוקר הנדר למפרע, it is only true מכאן ולהבא. In other words, if at the time the הפרה was done, a הקמה followed it, then the fact that it was later נעקר doesn’t help because there was an issue with the הפרה at the time of the הקם. However, by קידושין, the מעשה קידושין had no issues. It was just the תנאי that was an issue and since the נדרים in fact were never there it is a good קידושין. (The מנחת שלמה explains Reb Shimon that the person making the קידושין never meant to not marry a woman who would have her נדרים uprooted retroactively because in practice she had no נדרים for their marriage.)
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
Rabbi Yaakov Blumenfeld - Shakla Vetarya