R' Nachman interprets the mishna that the ba'al is not included in "briyos", and since she can derive benefit from him, he cannot be meifer. The mishna then makes a second point, that if she gets divorced she can benefit from leket shich'cha and peiah. The Ran explains that the ability to benefit from leket shich'cha... will not remove the neder from being inuy nefesh, therefore the only reason he can be meifer is because she can benefit from him. The mishna is saying that when the husband divorces her, he will automatically be included in "briyos" and included in her neder, and her only ability to eat at that point would be from leket shich'cha and peiah.
The Rosh writes: ואע"ג דהשתא לא הוי עינוי נפש, הואיל ויבא לידי עינוי נפש לכשתתגרש, מצי מפרSeemingly the Rosh does not make sense because the din in the mishna is that he CANNOT be meifer. The Keren Orah explains the Rosh that the husband not being included in "briyos" and her ability to benefit from him, is not sufficient to qualify the neder as not being inuy nefesh because when he divorces her she will be assur to him as well so it should qualify as inuy nefesh. It is only because she also has the ability to benefit from leket shich'cha and peia that we consider the neder non- inuy nefesh and he cannot be meifer. This implies that even though she can now a neder may not be inuy nefesh, if it will lead to inuy nefesh we consider it inuy nefesh even now (therefore if she could not benefit from leket shich'cha... even if her husband can feed her now, it would be inuy nefesh). This works well with the previous gemara considering tuma'as meis inuy nefesh. Since later on she will not have people to bury her, we consider it emotional inuy nefesh now. Here too, if she would not be able to eat leket shich'cha... since later (after divorce) her husband will be included in "briyos" and she won't be able to benefit from him, we consider it inuy nefesh now.
No comments:
Post a Comment