Resources for Nedarim 68

The גמרא says that a husband can be מפיר vows that are "בינו לבינה". The ר"ן and most ראשונים hold that this restriction applies to the father as well. The רמב"ם in הלכות נדרים פּרק י"ב הל׳ א disagrees and says the father can be מפיר all נדרים. The ר"ן’s position is based on a ספרי brought by the ירושלמי that says that a father can only be מפיר דברים שבינו לבינה. Interestingly, the כסף משנה brings that the חכמי לוניל asked the רמב"ם why he paskened against the ספרי? He answered that the ספרי is not brought in the בבלי or ירושלמי which means we don’t pasken like it. As mentioned the ר"ן says it is in the ירושלמי so he perhaps the רמב"ם had a different גירסא. The שלמי נדרים explains that the ר"ן and רמב"ם disagree as to the fundamental reason that the אב can be מפיר anything. The רמב"ם holds that the father can be מפיר because his daughter is in his רשות. Therefore, he can be מפיר anything. The ר"ן however holds that the father can be מפיר because she is נודר על דעתו (similar to how we explain why a man can be מפיר his wife’s נדרים). Therefore, the father would only be limited to things that affect the two of them. (I’m not certain what would be considered דברים שבינו לבינה in regards to a father and daughter). An interesting question is according to the רמב"ם , when a girl becomes and ארוסה and makes a נדר that is not something the ארוס can comment on such as something that isn’t ענוי נפש or בינו לבינה, can the father still be מפיר on his own or is she now out of his רשות? This is a מחלוקת אחרונים. The שער המלך says that the father can't be מפיר once she gets married even though the ארוס can't be מפיר either and the מעשה חושב in אות שנ"ט says that the father maintains his rights to be מפיר.

The גמרא discusses the question of when a woman made a נדר to not eat two olives and the husband is מפיר without the father, is he מיגז גייז or מיקלש קליש. Based on everything we had learned until this דף, one would have learned the question to be a case where the husband was מפיר, and five hours later the father was מפיר, but in between the lady ate a כזית of what she made a נדר not to eat. In that case we can discuss what is the status of the olives since the father hadn’t been מפיר yet and הפרה only works מכאן ולהבא. The problem is none of the ראשונים say that explicitly. Quite the opposite, the קרן אורה says that even if that father is later מקים the נדר, it’s still a question whether we say מיגז גייז and the נדר is still half gone. That should mean that the first משנה in the פּרק would not read well since it says הפיר הבעל ולא הפיר האב אינו מופר. The קרן אורה asks how did the גמרא know that the only two options were מיגז גייז or מיקלש קליש? Why didn’t the גמרא suggest (like we would have thought) that if the father is מפיר without the father his הפרה is absolutely nothing? He says it just must have been פּשוט to the גמרא from סברא that it wasn’t true.