Nazir 11: שֶׁאֵין אֲנִי יָכוֹל לִחְיוֹת אֶלָּא בְּיַיִן

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 11

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Mishnah states: If one said: I know that a nazirite is prohibited from wine, but I thought that the Sages would permit me to drink wine because I cannot live without wine, or: I thought that the Sages would allow me to contract impurity from corpses because I bury the dead, he is permitted and the vow of naziriteship does not take effect, but Rabbi Shimon prohibitshim.

Rambam addresses two different categories of people who take vows using nazir terminology who do not become nazirim. In one halacha he writes that if a person who was depressed, angry or mourning was offered a cup of wine and he refused by declaring that he is a nazir from that cup of wine he is not a nazir; rather he is merely prohibited to drink that one cup of wine. 

In a second halacha Rambam rules, based on our Gemara, that if a drunk was offered a cup of wine and he refused by declaring that he is a nazir from that cup of wine he is not a nazir; rather he is merely prohibited from drinking that cup of wine. 

The underlying principle for these two cases is that when the person applying the pressure to drink has a specific goal in mind (e.g., to alleviate a person’s suffering, to uplift their spirit, etc.) and the vow is taken to relieve that pressure, it is assumed that the vower only intended to prohibit that cup of wine rather than take a vow of nezirus. 

We explore the notion of powerlessness over alcohol from a recovery perspective as well as a more scientific approach.

Nazir 10: Speaking of Cows

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 10

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna on our daf presents a very strange case – a person who proclaims: “This cow said, ‘I am hereby a nezira if I stand up’.”

Just as we found in yesterday’s Mishna, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree in this case, with Beit Shammai ruling that the person becomes a nazir and Beit Hillel ruling that he does not.

The Gemara opens with the obvious question: how can we possibly understand the suggestion that the cow spoke? Rami bar Hama explains that the cow was lying down and a person who was trying to get the cow to stand up said, “This cow thinks that no one can get her to stand up? I will be a nazir from her meat if she gets up on her own!”

We explore the role of the cow in mythology especially Hindu culture and speaking cows in children’s stories going back to European fables.

Nazir 9: Sacred Hair

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 9

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Perek II begins with a new Mishna.  We learn that Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree about whether or not a vow of nazirut is valid.  
The Gemara asks if a nazirite is forbidden from consuming grapes, wine, etc., but figs are not forbidden do we consider the person's intention, which was likely to be a nazirite in this case?  

Because the person stated "I am a nazirite" initially, do we consider this person bound by the halachot of nazirut regardless of the error in her/his secondary statement?   

Do we consider the vow to abstain from figs to be valid on its own? 

We continue our exploration of the nazirite vow with regards to the significance and holiness (?)  of hair from a mystical perspective.

Nazir 8: Nazir Olam

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 8

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The next Mishnah (1:5)  discusses a case where the person declared that “I am a nazir, a houseful”, or “basketful”. The Mishnah explains that we question the person regarding his intent. If he was alluding to a “large” nazir oath then, as we have learnt (1:3) it obligates him with the standard thirty-days. If however the person says he had not specific intent other than how the Chachamim interpret it, then we view the basket as if they are filled with mustard seeds and he is a nazir for “all his days”. The Bartenura explains that he is a nazir olam and can shave once every twelve months.

The Gemara discusses the difference between the case of one who says, "I am a Nazir like the hair on my head," and the case of one who says, "I am a Nazir from here until the end of the world." When one says, "I am a Nazir like the hair on my head," he observes as many Nazir periods as there are hairs on his head. In contrast, when one accepts to become a Nazir as long as "from here until the end of the world," he observes only a single Nezirus. 

We explore different types of Nezirus including Absalom.

Nazir 7: Nazirite Women

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 7

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna does discuss two types of life-long nezeeroot, known in rabbinic parlance as a nazir olam and a nazir Shimson, the latter for one who takes a vow to be like the Biblical Nazir of the same name. The difference between the two is that a nazir olam may trim his hair if it becomes uncomfortable and should such a nazir accidentally come in contact with a dead body would be obligated to bring the three sacrifices that a regular nazir has to bring in such a situation.

We continue exploration of Nazirite women.

Nazir 6: מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 6

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rav Masna and Bar Pada disagree about the length of a Nezirus with no specified duration, mid'Oraisa. Rav Masna maintains that the Nezirus is 30 days long, and Bar Pada maintains that it is 29 days long. Bar Pada proves his view that the duration of Nezirus is 29 days from the statement of the Tana, Rebbi Eliezer, who says that a Nazir becomes Tamei on the thirtieth day of his Nezirus, his Tum'ah is only "Soser Shiv'ah" -- he does not observe another 30 days, but rather he waits only seven days, after which time he may bring his Korbanos and conclude his Nezirus. The reason why he does not have to observe another period of Nezirus is that his Nezirus already ended before the arrival of the thirtieth day. This proves that Nezirus lasts for only 29 days.

We explore the commentators further on the laws of nezirut

Nazir 5: Thirty Days

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 5

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz writes:

Someone who accepts nezirut without specifying the amount of time remains a nazir for 30 days (in the language of the Mishna, “Stam nezirut sheloshim yom.“). This law appears in the Mishna on our page with no explanation.

The Gemara demands a source for this rule. Rav Matana suggests that the source is a gematria – that it is based on the numerical value of the letters of the word yihiyeh. Gematria assigns a numeric value to each of the Hebrew letters. The first ten letters (aleph through yod) are valued at 1-10. The next nine letters (kaf through kuf) are valued at 20-100. The final three letters (resh through taf) are the numbers 200, 300 and 400.

The Torah teaches (Bamidbar 6:5) that someone who accepts nezirut “will be holy” – kadosh yihiyeh. Taking the value of the letters:

י – yod = 10

ה – heh = 5

י – yod =10

ה – heh = 5

we arrive at a total of 30.

We explore the An Israelite Self-Offering A New Perspective on the Nazirite by Eliezer Diamond.

Nazir 4: הֲרֵינִי כְּשִׁמְשׁוֹן

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 4

To download, click/tap here: PDF

[If one says,] “Behold, I shall be like Samson”, “like the son of Manoah”, “like the husband of Delilah, or “like the one who uprooted the doors of Gaza,” or “like the one whose eyes the Philistines put out,” he is a nazirite like Samson.

Samson, son of Manoah, husband of Delilah, who uprooted the doors of Gaza, and whose eyes were put out by the Philistines, was perhaps the most famous nazirite ever (see Judges 13). One who uses one of these aspects of Samson’s life to vow a nazirite vow is a nazirite like Samson.

We explore the nazarite Samson and how his lifetime nezirus differed from the classic laws. And the personality of the latter day Nazir Reb Dovid Cohen the student of Rav Kook.

Nazir 3: Of Hair and Feathers

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 3

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our mishna states that if one says: An obligation is hereby incumbent upon me with regard to birds, Rabbi Meirsays: He is a nazirite, and the Sages say: He is not a nazirite. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Meir? Reish Lakish said: He accepted upon himself an obligation with regard to the birds that are juxtaposed in a verse to hair, as it is written (Dan 4):

The same hour was the thing fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar; and he was driven from men, and did eat grass as oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven, till his hair was grown like eagles' feathers, and his nails like birds' claws

Since the verse juxtaposes birds with growing hair, it is understood that when this individual accepted an obligation with regard to birds, he was referring to growing his hair as a nazirite.

We explore the literary and mythical themes of Daniels dream and Nebuchadnezer’s sentence and the curious connection between feathers and hair phylogenetically.

Nazir 2: Nazir

For the source text click/tap here: Nazir 2

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

Steinsalz says:

Standard collections of the Mishna include Massekhet Nazir after Massekhet Nedarim and before Massekhet Sota in Seder Nashim, even though Nazir has no direct connection to marital issues or family law. Nevertheless, since the parsha that discusses the laws of Nazir appears in close proximity with that of Sota – a wife suspected of adultery (see Bamidbar chapters 5–6) – they were placed next to each other in the Mishna, as well. The entire tractate focuses on the laws of a Nazir, although some of these laws were already discussed in Massekhet Nedarim and others find their place in the laws of sacrifices and ritual purity.

We begin the new masechta with some introductory thoughts...

Nedarim 91: מַיםִ גּנְוּביִם

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 91

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

The last story on the last Day of Nedarim describes a man who was in a married woman’s home, apparently with The last story describes a man who was in a married woman’s home, apparently with intentions to seduce her. When her husband suddenly came home, the seducer hid in the house, waiting for an opportunity to escape. While in hiding, he saw a snake eat from the vegetables on the table. He then saw the husband reaching to eat from those vegetables; fearing that the snake may have been venomous and may have tainted the food, he leaped out from his hiding place to warn the husband not to eat the vegetables.

Rava ruled that the concern shown by the seducer for the husband could be taken as proof that nothing untoward had occurred. The concern raised by the Gemara – that some people find a forbidden act (i.e. an affair with a married woman) more desirable than a permitted one (see Mishlei 9:17)

יז מַיִם-גְּנוּבִים יִמְתָּקוּ; וְלֶחֶם סְתָרִים יִנְעָם.

17 'Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.'

and thus we should worry that the seducer may prefer for the husband to remain alive – is rejected.intentions to seduce her. When her husband suddenly came home, the seducer hid in the house, waiting for an opportunity to escape. While in hiding, he saw a snake eat from the vegetables on the table. He then saw the husband reaching to eat from those vegetables; fearing that the snake may have been venomous and may have tainted the food, he leaped out from his hiding place to warn the husband not to eat the vegetables.

Rava ruled that the concern shown by the seducer for the husband could be taken as proof that nothing untoward had occurred. The concern raised by the Gemara – that some people find a forbidden act (i.e. an affair with a married woman) more desirable than a permitted one (see Mishlei 9:17) and thus we should worry that the seducer may prefer for the husband to remain alive – is rejected.

Nedarim 90: שמים ביני לבינך

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 90

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

Our MISHNA states: "Initially the Sages would say that three women are divorced even against their husbands’ will, and nevertheless they receive payment of what is due to them according to their marriage contract. The first is the wife of a priest who says to her husband: I am defiled to you, i.e., she claims that she had been raped, so that she is now forbidden to her husband.

The second is a woman who says to her husband: Heaven is between me and you, i.e., she declares that he is impotent, a claim she cannot prove, as the truth of it is known only to God. And the third is a woman who takes a vow, stating: I am removed from the Jews, i.e., benefit from sexual intercourse with any Jew, including my husband, is forbidden to me.”

. They subsequently retracted their words and said that in order that a married woman should not cast her eyes on another man and to that end ruin her relationship with her husband and still receive payment of her marriage contract, these halakhot were modified.

We explore further the status of women with Judith Baskin’s work and Michele Murray’s analysis using the feminist scholar Judith Butlers theory of gender construction.

Nedarim 89: תֵּשַׁע נְעָרוֹת

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 89

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We learn a new Mishna: Nine young women’s vows are upheld and cannot be nullified.  She must have taken these vows:

1) As a grown woman and an orphan

2) As an orphan

3) As a young woman who has reached majority and an orphan

4) As a young woman you has not reached majority and is an orphan

5) As a grown woman whose father has died

6) As a young woman whose father died and then she reached majority

7) As a grown woman and father is alive

8) As a young woman who became a grown woman and her father is alive

9)  As added by Rabbi Yeduda: as a minor daughter who was widowed/divorced and returned to her father while she is still a young woman by age.

The rabbis clarify: three young women cannot have their vows nullified: a grown woman, an orphan, and an orphan in her father’s lifetime.

We explore the mythology of the nine sisters and the fascinating speculation of St Michael’s line running from Ireland to Haifa (ley lines) by John Mitchell.  

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.