Nedarim 88: Sons In Law

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 88

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our next MISHNA states: With regard to one who vows that benefit from him is forbidden to his son-in-law, but he nevertheless wishes to give his daughter, i.e., the wife of that same son-in-law, money, then, though he cannot do so directly, as anything acquired by a woman belongs to her husband, he should say to her: This money is hereby given to you as a gift, provided that your husband has no rights to it, but the gift includes only that which you pick up and place in your mouth.

This mishnah discusses a situation in which a man is under a vow not to provide any benefit to his son-in-law. The mishnah teaches how the father may give money to his daughter without allowing his son-in-law to receive benefit. We should note that this mishnah probably more properly belongs in chapter four where the mishnah discussed circumventing vows such as these. Assumedly, the mishnah is brought in this chapter because it mentions fathers and daughters. 

The rabbis speak about their interpretations of “what you pick up and place in your mouth”.  Without saying “do as you please” with that gift, the gift automatically reverts back to her husband, for a wife’s monetary gifts belong to her husband.   

We explore the fraught relationships we have with in-laws

Nedarim 87: Visual Hallucination in the Blind

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 87

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara raises a contradiction from the following baraita: With regard to one who kills unintentionally, the verse states:

כג אוֹ בְכָל-אֶבֶן אֲשֶׁר-יָמוּת בָּהּ, בְּלֹא רְאוֹת, וַיַּפֵּל עָלָיו, וַיָּמֹת--וְהוּא לֹא-אוֹיֵב לוֹ, וְלֹא מְבַקֵּשׁ רָעָתוֹ.

23 or with any stone, whereby a man may die, seeing him not, and cast it upon him, so that he died, and he was not his enemy, neither sought his harm; Num 35:23

“Without seeing” which serves to exclude a blind person from the category of those who are exiled to a city of refuge due to having killed unintentionally, as the verse indicates that it was only in this instance that he did not see, but he is generally able to see.

A blind person who kills another unintentionally is considered a victim of circumstances beyond his control. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Meir says the verse serves to include a blind person in the category of those who are exiled, as he too does not see. This shows that Rabbi Meir does not distinguish between different kinds of lack of knowledge, whereas the mishna suggests that he does accept such a distinction. The opposite is true of Rabbi Yehuda, who, unless it is otherwise indicated, is assumed to be Rabbi Meir’s disputant in all places.

We review the laws of the cities of refuge then explore the world of blindness and visual hallucinations with recent MRI imaging research. (Charles Bonnet Syndrome)

Nedarim 86: גבי קרעים

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 86

To download, click/tap here: PDF

With regard to the mishna’s ruling that if a man’s wife took a vow, but he thought that it was his daughter who had taken the vow and he nullified the vow, he must nullify the vow a second time, the Gemara asks: Is this to say that the phrase: “But if her husband disallowed her [otah]” (Num 30:9) is precise? In other words, does the use of the word her, otah, indicate that a man can nullify a vow only for the specific woman who took it?

But is it not so that with regard to the tears in one’s clothing that are made for the dead, as it is written “for,” “for,”and about which is written:

“And David took hold of his garments and rent them, and likewise all the men that were with him, and they wailed, and wept, and fasted until the evening, for Saul, and for Jonathan his son, and for the people of the Lord, and for the house of Israel, because they were fallen by the sword”. (II Sam 1:11)

The use of the word “for” with regard to each of them indicates that one must make a separate tear in his garment for each person who died.

We explore the Halacha and ritual of tearing ones clothes in grief and in mourning and a peek at the history of funerary fashion.

Nedarim 85: טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 85

To download, click/tap here: PDF

It was taught in a braisa: If one steals the tevel (untithed produce) of his fellow, he is obligated to pay him for the value of the entire tevel (including the terumah and ma’aser that is mixed in, according to its value to him based upon his ability to choose who he wants to give them to). 

Rabbi Yosi the son of Rabbi Yehudah says: He is obligated to pay him only for the value of the chulin. It must be that Rebbe holds that the benefit of gratitude has a monetary value, while Rabbi Yosi holds it does not. The Gemora rejects this and gives an alternate explanation to their argument. Everyone agrees that the benefit of gratitude does not have a monetary value. Their argument is whether we view the amount of grain that must be tithed as regular grain, or we subtract its value from the rest of the grain, as if it is has already been given. 

This leads us to explore the notion of gratitude from a philosophical and Judaic perspective.

Nedarim 84: לָאו בכלל ״בּרְִיּוֹת״ הוּא

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 84

To download, click/tap here: PDF

There is a difference of opinion regarding whether a husband is considered like other people or in a special category.

Ulla said: Actually, a husband is not included in her reference to people, and there is no contradiction. Rather, the mishna provides two reasons why he cannot nullify his wife’s vow. The first reason, which is merely implied by the mishna, is that she can be sustained by her husband

Rava said the opposite: Actually, a husband is included in her reference to people, and therefore his wife may not benefit from him. And when the mishna states the halakha, it employs the style known as: What is the reason, and it should be understood as follows: What is the reason that the husband cannot nullify his wife’s vow? Because she may benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe’a.

Rav Naḥman said: Actually, a husband is not included in her reference to people, and her vow not to derive benefit from all people does not include him, which is why he cannot nullify it. And this is what the mishna is teaching: The husband cannot nullify his wife’s vow, because even if she becomes divorced and can no longer derive benefit from her husband, as he is now included in her reference to people, she may still benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and pe’a.

We continue our exploration fo the status of women with particular reference to John Stuart Mill’s writings some 150 years before modern feminism (1869)

Nedarim 83: Mourning and Melancolia

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 83

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We continue to struggle with what vows a husband can annul:

Perhaps the husband nullified for her the vow that rendered wine forbidden to her, as she suffers pain when she refrains from drinking it. But as for her vow that impurity imparted by the dead is forbidden to her, he did not nullify it for her, as she suffers no pain by not becoming impure through contact with the dead. 

Why, then, does she not bring the offerings that must be brought by a nazirite who became ritually impure through contact with the dead? This implies that since the husband can nullify a vow with regard to a matter that would cause her to deprive herself, he can also nullify a vow with regard to a matter that would not cause her to deprive herself.

The Gemara rejects this argument: The Sages say in response that a woman who vows that impurity imparted by the dead is forbidden to her also suffers pain as a result. How so? As it is written:

ב  טוֹב לָלֶכֶת אֶל-בֵּית-אֵבֶל, מִלֶּכֶת אֶל-בֵּית מִשְׁתֶּה--בַּאֲשֶׁר, הוּא סוֹף כָּל-הָאָדָם; וְהַחַי, יִתֵּן אֶל-לִבּוֹ.

2 It is better to go to the house of mourning, than to go to the house of feasting; for that is the end of all men, and the living will lay it to his heart.

                                                                                    Eccl 7:2

This means that one who eulogizes others when they die will in turn be eulogized when he himself dies; one who weepsfor others will be wept for when he himself passes away; and one who buries others will himself be buried upon his passing. A woman who cannot participate in the funerals of others because she is barred from contracting impurity through contact with a corpse is distressed by the thought that she will receive similar treatment when she dies. Therefore, her vow involves affliction and can be nullified by her husband. 

We examine the exegesis of Ecc 7:2 and  explore the grief associated with mourning from a  Freudian perspective in his “Mouring and melancholia” paper.

Nedarim 82: Marital Abstinence

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 82

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rava inquired of Rav Nachman: According to the Rabbis (who disagree with Rabbi Yosi regarding bathing and adornments), is a woman’s vow to abstain from cohabitation regarded as one that involves physical affliction, or is it a matter that is between him and her? Rav Nachman said to him: This can be resolved from the following Mishna: If she made a neder, saying, “I am removed from all Jews” (she prohibited herself from engaging in relations with any Jew), the husband may revoke the portion of the neder relevant to him, and she is then permitted to him, but she remains forbidden to all other Jews. 

We explore the notion of marital abstinence with specific focus on hassidic groups of Ger Slonim and Toldos Aron.

Nedarim 81: Grime

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 81

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsalz writes:

In the context of the discussion on whether a vow to refrain from bathing is considered innuy nefesh – suffering of the soul – the Gemara quotes a statement made by the Sages of Israel: be careful with regard to irbuvita be careful to learn Torah with habura and be sensitive to the children of the poor, because they will be the ones from whom Torah will come.

The term irbuvita appears to mean grime, although some interpret it to mean a mixture, that is to say, filth mixed in a person’s hair or clothing. Different manuscripts offer variant readings of this word (e.g., harfifuta or arpufita) whose meanings are not clear. Nevertheless, they seem to indicate that this is a unique word for filthy conditions, perhaps a situation where things begin to get stuck together because of the dirt.

We continue our exploration of the history of grime and attempts in modernity to commercialize cleanliness and detergent products.

Nedarim 80: Ablutions

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 80

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We have learned that the only vows that a husband has the ability to nullify are nedarim that affect the personal relationship between husband and wife – bein ish le-ishto – or nedarim that are considered vows that make her suffer – innuy nefesh. How do we define innuy nefesh? 
Our daf questions whether the inability to bathe should be considered innuy nefesh, since we find that on Yom Kippur – a day on which the Torah commands us to suffer innuy nefesh (see Vayikra 23:27) – only people who eat, drink or perform work will suffer the punishment of karet for desecrating the day. Since bathing, while forbidden, is not punishable, it would seem that it is not truly a situation of innuy nefesh. 

Rava answers that the Torah distinguishes between the requirement for immediate innuy nefesh on Yom Kippur and the long-term innuy nefesh implied in a neder. 

We explore the purifying properties of bathing and ablution in other cultures from early Roman baths in England to Lourdes and Japanese purifying bowls.

Nedarim 79: ענוי נפש

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 79

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsalz writes:

the ability of a woman’s father or husband to nullify a neder taken by her – hafarat nedarim – and specifically of which vows can be annulled. From a close reading of the passages in Bamidbar (30:10-14) the Talmudic Sages conclude that a man cannot nullify any neder taken by his wife, rather his power is limited only to vows that affect the personal relationship between husband and wife – bein ish le-ishto – or nedarim that are considered vows that make her suffer – innuy nefesh.

We examine these sufferings of the flesh in light of the Isaiah passage appropriated by Christian theologians and rabbinic responses including the work of Daniel Boyarin.

We review  the notion of suffering in the work of Simone Weil a borderline figure who converted to Catholicism but retained resonances with deep kabbalistic thinking.

Nedarim 78: Silent Treatment

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 78

To download, click/tap here: PDF

§ Rabbi Ḥanina says: A husband who is silent and does not formally nullify his wife’s vow in order to annoy [lemeikat] her, but intends to nullify it later, can nullify it even from now until ten days later. 

Our Gemora mentions a case where a wife pronounces a vow and the husband remains silent in order to distress her. He makes her think that he wishes to confirm the vow; however, in truth, he plans on revoking it at a later time. 

We examine the silent treatment in marriage as abuse, as well as in parenting with specific reference to the character of Reb Saunders and his silent treatment of his son Reuven  in Chaim Potok’s The Chosen.

Nedarim 77: Vows on Shabbat

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 77

To download, click/tap here: PDF

As we learned on yesterday’s daf, the Mishna (76b) notes that the nullification of a neder –  hafarat nedarim – taken by a woman by her father or her husband, can be done on Shabbat. 

Our daf cites a Mishna from Massekhet Shabbat (157a) that reiterates this rule, adding that hatarat nedarim – annulment of a vow by a Jewish court or Rabbi – is only performed on Shabbat if it is a neder that affects Shabbat itself. 

What is the relationship between vows and shabbat? And how come we took the greatest vow in our history at Mt Sinai,  on shabbat?

Nedarim 76: מִיּוֹם אֶל יוֹם

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 76

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Mishnah states that the revoking of  nedarim can be performed the entire day. This can be a leniency and a stringency. How is this? If she made a neder on Friday night, he may revoke it Friday night and Shabbos day until it gets dark (nightfall). If, however, she made a neder right before it got dark, he may revoke it as long as it is not yet dark. If it got dark and he did not yet revoke it, he may not revoke it any longer. 

Our Daf cites a braisa: The revoking of her nedarim can be performed the entire day. Rabbi Yosi the son of Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Elozar the son of Rabbi Shimon say: They (her husband and father) have twenty-four hours (from the moment her neder was heard) to revoke it. 

We explore the notion of time linear vs cyclical as well as the metaphor of : מִיּוֹם אֶל יוֹם

Or "one day at a time" psychologically and spiritually 

(in recovery).

Nedarim 75: Reb Eliezer’s Mikva Exempla

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 75

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf teaches that all agree that there is no significance to a statement made by a man who tells his wife in advance that he ratifies all vows that she takes for the foreseeable future.

If, however, he tells her in advance that he is nullifying all of her nedarim, Rabbi Eliezer rules that he has the ability to do so, while the Hakhamim disagree, arguing that he only has the ability to annul her vows after he hears that she has accepted them.

They said to Rabbi Eliezer: If a mikvah, which raises those that were tamei from their tumah (and renders them tahor), but cannot prevent a tahor from becoming tamei (if he touches a sheretz while in a mikvah, he will become tamei); so, a person, who cannot raise those things that are tamei from their tumah (if he swallows a ring that is tamei and then regurgitates it, it will remain tamei), certainly the halacha should be that a person cannot prevent something that is tahor from becoming tamei (if he swallows a ring that is tahor and enters a room that contains a corpse, the ring will become tamei).

The rabbis speak about the power of a t’vilah to return a person from a state of impurity to a state of purity. But this process does not render a person immune to future impurity, nor does it render an object impure if that object is swallowed by a person before immersion.

The Minchas Chinuch (263:3) asks: How can Rabbi Akiva in Chulin (72a) rule that a fetus inside of its mother’s womb can Biblically contract tumah? Shouldn’t the fetus be regarded as a “swallowed item,” and therefore, be shielded by the mother’s body from becoming tamei?

He answers that the fetus is considered like a thigh of its mother and therefore is rendered tamei just like any other one of the mother’s limbs.

We review the issue of tum’ah beluah and recent problems with ultrasonography of potential fetal kohanim.

Nedarim 74: חֲבָל עָלֶיךָ בֶּן עַזַּאי

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 74

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Chief among Ben 'Azzai's teachers was Joshua b. Hananiah, whose opinions he expounded (Parah i. 1), proved to be correct (Yeb. iv. 13), or defended against R.Akiba (Yoma ii. 3; Ta'anit iv. 4; Tosef., Sheb. ii. 13).

R. Akiba himself was not really Ben 'Azzai's teacher, although the latter occasionally calls him so, and, in our daf, says of himself "חֲבָל עָלֶיךָ בֶּן עַזַּאי"

that he did not stand in closer relation as pupil to Akiba he expressed the same regret in regard to Ishmael b. Elisha (Ḥul. 71a).

In his halakic opinions and Biblical exegesis, as well as in other sayings, Ben 'Azzai follows RAkiba; and, from the tone in which he speaks of R.Akiba elsewhere the Amoraim concluded that his relations with Akiba were both those of pupil and of colleague.

We explore this relationship, especially regarding his tragic end in the Pardes (for men see my Dad Ditty Yevamot 111)

Nedarim 73: Deaf Husband

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 73

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Perhaps the phrase “and her husband hears it” Num 30:8 regarding oaths:

ח  וְשָׁמַע אִישָׁהּ בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ, וְהֶחֱרִישׁ לָהּ:  וְקָמוּ נְדָרֶיהָ, וֶאֱסָרֶהָ אֲשֶׁר-אָסְרָה עַל-נַפְשָׁהּ--יָקֻמוּ.

8 and her husband hear it, whatsoever day it be that he heareth it, and hold his peace at her; then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.                                                                                                          

does not mean that hearing is indispensable to the nullification of a vow, so that even a deaf man can nullify his wife’s vows. 

Rava said: Come and hear a baraita interpreting that verse: “And her husband hears it”; this excludes the wife of a deaf man.

We cite the Sire then explore the wonderful review of modern responsa regarding sign language and its impact on the halachic definition of deaf mute...

Nedarim 72: Rabbi's Daughters

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 72

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna states: It was the custom of Torah scholars before their daughters would leave their authority, he (the father) would say to her (his daughter): All nedarim that you made in my house are revoked. And similarly, the husband would say before she entered his authority: All nedarim that you made before you entered my authority are revoked. This is because once she enters into his authority (as a nesuah), he cannot revoke her vows (that were made beforehand).  

We explore recent stories about rabbi’s daughters from the Netziv’s wife Reyna Batya to current autobiographies and movies about the struggles of being a public figure’s child.

Nedarim 71: Veto Power

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 71

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishna offers definitive words regarding the vows of a betrothed woman.  It states that a betrothed woman who is divorced the same day and then immediately betrothed again - even if this happens with one hundred men - her father and her last husband nullify her vows.  The principle is that a father and a husband nullify the vows of a young woman who has not entered into her own jurisdiction either through full marriage or through reaching the age of majority for at least one moment.

We continue our exploration of the veto power of fathers over daughters

Nedarim 70: Jephthah

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 70

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our next mishnah continues to discuss the ability of fathers and husbands to annul their daughters’ or wives’ vows.

If the father dies, his authority does not pass over to the husband. If the husband dies, his authority passes over to the father.

The mishnah is still discussing the betrothed young girl. Generally, both the father and husband must jointly annul her vows. If, while she is in this status, her father dies, her husband still cannot annul her vows on his own. This is because she is only betrothed and not fully married. A husband’s right to annul his wife’s vows on his own begins only at the point of marriage. In contrast, should her betrothed husband die, her father may annul her vows. This is because she was never fully married, nor has she reached majority age.

We further explore women’s vows especially the story of Jepthah.

Nedarim 69: Vows(Islamic Style)

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 69

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We have been discussing the rules of hafarat nedarim – the right of a girl’s father or a woman’s husband to nullify her vows upon hearing them. The halakhot that appear in Sefer Bamidbar (30:14-16) consider two other possible reactions: either silence, or hakamat ha-neder – ratification, or affirming that the vow should take effect. In both of these cases – i.e., if the father or husband hears the neder and does nothing for the day, or else says, “Yes, I want that neder to take effect,” the vow can no longer be removed by the father or the husband.

We explore in a digressive manner the laws of vows and annulment in a sister religion, Islam.