Nedarim 17: Vow Within a Vow

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 17

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Can we make two oaths, shavuot, at the same time? Can we make two vows, nedarim, at the same time?

The rabbis agree that two oaths cannot be made concurrently. However, vows seem to be more complicated. In the case of nazirut, vowing to become a nazirite, the rabbis suggest that two such vows might extend the nazirite's commitment. The minimum time to be a nazirite is 30 days. If a person makes this vow twice, s/he has promised at least two 30-day stints as a nazirite.

We examine the performative speech act in Jewish law as well as Jacob Mann’s monograph of oaths in the synoptic gospels and its attack on the pharisaic way of making vows.

Nedarim 16: 'מצות התורה לאו ליהנות נתנו'

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 16

To download, click/tap here: PDF

In continuing our discussion of the differences between a neder and a shevua, the Mishna teaches that nedarim can take effect on mitzvot while shevuot cannot. The example given by the Gemara is that a person who forbids on himself a sukka, a lulav or tefillin will be obligated to fulfill his neder even if he can no longer perform these commandments. If he takes an oath that he will not perform these mitzvot, however, he is still obligated to do them, since ein nishba’im la’avor al ha-mitzvot – a person cannot take an oath to abrogate a mitzva.

Rava said in objection to the explanation of Abaye: But were mitzvot given for the purpose of deriving benefit? The performance of mitzvot is not considered benefit. Why then would performance of the mitzva with the sukka be considered deriving benefit? Rather, Rava said a different explanation: This case is referring to one who said: Dwelling in a sukka is hereby prohibited to me, and that case is referring to one who said: I hereby take an oath that I will not dwell in a sukka.

We explore the notion that : מצות התורה לאו ליהנות נתנו

From different perspectives.

Nedarim 15: Sleep Deprivation

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 15

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Gemara points out another difficulty with a vow against sleeping.
If the person did not state a specific amount of time that he will not sleep, we know that Rabbi Yohanan teaches with regard to shevuot that a person who takes an oath not to sleep for three days is understood to have taken a false shevua – since it is impossible to go without sleep for 72 hours. 
Therefore, rather than forcing him to attempt the impossible we punish him immediately (for having made a false shevua) and allow him to sleep whenever he wants. 
We explore the rabbinic attitudes to sleep and napping
And the health effects of sleep deprivation ending with the use of sleep deprivation as a torture method.

Nedarim 14: קוֹנָם שֶׁאֲנִי יָשֵׁן

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 14

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Num 30:3 serves as a proof text for our

MISHNA:that states: With regard to one who says: Sleeping is forbidden for me as if it were an offering [konam], thereby prohibiting himself from sleeping; or: Speaking is konam for me; or: Walking is konam for me; or one who says to his wife: Engaging in sexual intercourse with you is konam for me, if he violates the vow he is in violation of the prohibition.

We review the commentators upon this critical verse and its application to our speech and language acts.

Nedarim 13: Vows of Charity

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 13

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our daf quotes a baraita that compares a neder and a shevua. According to the baraita, each of them has a strength that the other does not possess. Specifically, nedarim can be made on mitzvot, as well as on things that are permissible, while shevuot are limited and can be made only on permissible things. On the other hand, shevuot can take effect even on things that have no physical characteristics (davar she-en bo mamash) while nedarim can only take effect on things that have physical characteristics (davar she-yesh bo mamash).

It was said in the name of Rebbi how we know that there is a mitzvah to verbally sanctify a bechor that was born in his home etc.

The Gemara makes it clear that even though a firstborn animal (בכור) is sanctified automatically, nonetheless, it is appropriate to formally declare its sanctity. 

Sefer Likutei Haze’evi  extrapolates from this that when giving tzedaka it is appropriate to declare, “I am giving this money for tzedaka.” Although the money is tzedaka without a declaration, nevertheless there is a mitzvah to make this declaration. 

Rav Moshe Alshich  writes at length against those who publicly give tzedaka for their personal honor or the like. 

We explore the tzedakah pledge and the status of charity in early rabbinic literature.

Nedarim 12: כְּיוֹם שֶׁמֵּת בּוֹ אָבִי

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 12

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A vow can be made by a person who says, “I will not eat meat or drink wine, just like the day that my father died,” or, “…just like the day that Gedaliah ben Ahikam was killed,” or “…just like the day that I saw Jerusalem destroyed.”

Shmuel clarifies that this is true if the person took a personal vow not to eat or drink on those days.

We explore the halachot of fasting on Yahrzeit and some customs regarding celebrations on the same day.

Also the tortured history of Holocaust Memorial Day in Israel which split those who considered it in a long line of Jewish suffering (Soloveitchik and Hutner) vs those who saw it as a unique event in Jewish history requiring its own day of memorial (Weinberg)

Nedarim 11: כִּתְנַאי בְּנֵי גָד וּבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן a Double Condition

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 11

To download, click/tap here: PDF

What is the meaning of the Mishnaic term laḥullin? The individual is saying: It shall not [la] be non-sacred [ḥullin] but rather it should have the status of an offering.

The Gemara says: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? If you say it is that of Rabbi Meir, he does not hold that from a negative statement you can infer a positive statement. As we learned in a mishna:(Kidushin 3:4) Rabbi Meir says that any condition that is not like the condition of the sons of the tribe of Gad and the sons of the tribe of Reuben, when Moses gave them land on the eastern bank of the Jordan River...is not a valid condition.

Moses phrased the agreement as a double condition, stating that if they would join the other tribes in battle they would receive their inheritance on the eastern bank of the Jordan River, and if not, they would not receive that territory.

This mishnah contains a general principle of Rabbi Meir: any stipulation must be a double stipulation. This means that if I make a stipulation I must state both the consequences of the condition being fulfilled and the consequences of its not being fulfilled. For instance, if I want to say that I will come to your house if you give me chocolate cake (and I would), I must say, “I will come to your house if you give me chocolate cake, and I will not come to your house if you don’t give me chocolate cake.”

Otherwise the stipulation is not legally binding, and even if you give me chocolate cake, I am not legally bound to come to your house (but I would never do such a thing). Rabbi Meir derives this principle from Moses’s words to the children of Gad and Reuben, as we shall explain below.

Because Rabbi Meir holds that only a condition expressed in this manner is valid, it is clear that he holds that one may not infer a negative statement from a positive one or vice versa.

We explore what was this “double condition” the Tnai Kaful?

And the events surrounding the historical deal made with the two and a half tribes in Transjordan.

Nedarim 10: חֲסִידִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 10

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A number of pious men, chasidim, were alive during the time of the second Temple.

They were called chasidim because they went beyond observance of halacha.

Tzadikim, righteous people, are those who follow halacha to the letter of the law.

Who were these hasidim ha-rishonim?

Steinsaltz writes:

The concept of a hasid in the Talmud is a person on a particularly high religious level, who – in every aspect of his life – goes over-and-above what is required by the letter of the law (as opposed to someone who is scrupulous in his activities and does exactly what is required, who is referred to as a tzaddik).

It appears that during the Second Temple era, the hasidim were a loosely organized group. These hasidim were among the first supporters of the Hasmonean rebellion against Greek/Hellenist rule, but were also among the first to abandon the Hasmonean dynastic rule.

It is likely that the hasidim ha-rishonim mentioned here and in other places in the Talmud have their roots in this group.

According to Talmudic sources, the hasidim ha-rishonim devoted most of their lives to prayer and to developing a relationship with God, and they were careful in both mitzvot ben adam le-havero (between man and his fellow man) and ben adam la-Makom (between man and God).

We explore these pious hasidim and their morphing into medieval Chassidei Ashkenaz.

Nedarim 9: Narcissus

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 9

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rabbi Shimon HaTzadik tells the story of the one time that he ate the guilt-offering of a nazirite who was ritually impure. This young man with beautiful eyes was very good looking and his fringe of hair showed curls. The Rabbi asked him what he saw that would convince him to cut those curls. The man explained that he was a shepherd and he saw his reflection while drawing water. At that point his yetzer hara, evil inclination, overtook him. Whatever that yetzer hara was telling him (to partake in forbidden sexual relations? to be vain? that he was too good looking to be a shepherd?), he believed that it would expel him from the world. He chided himself and reminded himself that eventually he too would be eaten by maggots in his grave. He swore that I would shave for the sake of Heaven. Shimon HaTzadik rose and kissed him on the head, marvelling at the purity of the young man's vows.

The “evil inclination” alluded to by the nazir is understood in a variety of different ways. The Rivan suggests that realizing how good looking he was made him think that he could have his way with women. The Arukh also connects it with sexual behavior, suggesting that seeing how attractive he was made him desirous of homosexual relations. The Maharsha and others argue that this is not necessarily an issue of sensuality, but rather that his appearance gave him the idea that he should abandon his father’s flocks since someone of his talents should not remain a simple shepherd.

We explore the similarity of this story with the legend of Narcissus.

As enshrined in the later Roman poet Ovid’s classic retelling, the young man selfishly spurns countless romantic suitors and friends. One such nymph, who had been cruelly rejected, turns heavenward and beseeches the Gods, “So may he himself love, and so may he fail to command what he loves.” Narcissus, in other words, ought to be punished measure for measure: he will fall in love with himself, yet, like his suitors, never see that love reciprocated. The Goddess Nemesis overhears the nymph’s just request and punishes Narcissus accordingly.

The boy views his reflection in a fountain and is inexplicably drawn to his own image. Infatuated with his beauty, Narcissus is unable to tear himself away from his own reflection.

We look at the deeper psychological implications of narcisism with the help of Rabbi YY Jacobson, Tzvi Sinensky and Dr. Moshe Halevi Spero, a noted Jerusalem psychoanalyst and scholar.

Nedarim 8: Wings of the Sun

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 8

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our Daf ends with a discussion about the sun.

Many rabbis are part of this argument about the healing power of the sun.

Perhaps it is the dust that shines in the rays of the sun;

perhaps it is that righteous people are healed by the sun's light;

perhaps all of us can benefit from the sun's healing power.

And some rabbis believe that the wicked will be punished by the sun's heat.

Reish Lakish states that "in the World to Come, there will be no Gehinom.

Rather, Hashem will remove the sun from its sheath, and the righteous will be healed by it, while the wicked will be punished by it, as it says (Malachi 3:19), 'A sun will come which will burn like a furnace; all the wicked and all the evildoers will be like straw, and the sun will incinerate them.... But a sun of kindness will shine for those who fear Me, with healing in its rays.' Moreover, the righteous will derive pleasure from the sun, as it says (ibid.), '... and you will become sated, as fattened calves entering their pen to feed.'"

We explore the interpretation of the verse in Malachi: ״וְזָרְחָה לָכֶם יִרְאֵי שְׁמִי שֶׁמֶשׁ וְגוֹ׳״ and his prophecy (Steinsaltz) as well as ideas about the messianic era from different perspectives (Rebbe Nachman and Rav Kook).

Nedarim 7: Nidui

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 7

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A term of a vow that appears in the Mishna is menudeh ani lekha – “my relationship with you is one of nidui.”

A nidui is a type of ban, a basic type of ostracism that was used to distance a given individual from the community (more severe levels of excommunication include shamta and ḥerem).

We examine the Rambam’s halachot concerning this type of ban as well as Halakhah and Reality in the Gaonic Period: Takkanah, Minhag, Tradition and Consensus by Gideon Libson.

Nedarim 6: Hinting at Marriage

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 6

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We have already discussed the concept of yadot nedarim – a “short form” statement or intimation that creates a vow even though it is not an entirely clear statement. 

Our daf examines the concept of yad in other areas of halakha. Will a yad work in the case of kiddushin – betrothal? When separating pe’a? When giving charity? 

How clear does the statement need to be in these cases?

With regard to kiddushin, there is a basic difference between taking a vow and creating a marriage. 

While a neder works entirely through a verbal statement, kiddushin needs not only a statement but also an act of marriage – usually the transfer of money or a contract. 

Will yad work in such a case as well? 

We examine intimations of betrothal and the role of amir in kiddushin, as well as kiddushin as a speech act.

How do non orthodox marriages fit into this halachic scheme?

We review the curious hybrid of tradition and modernity through the lens of the Shertok family debate.

Nedarim 5: Ambiguous Intimations

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 05

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We have already learned that a person can accept a vow on himself by means of yadot nedarim – an abbreviation or “short form” of a neder that is understood to be an expression of a vow. Our Gemara raises the issue of clarity – how clear does such a statement need to be? While all agree that yadayim mokhihot – clear abbreviations – would create a neder, there is a dispute about yadayim she-ein mokhihot – abbreviated statements that are not clear.

We explore further the language of nedarim with reference to Dead Sea Scrolls as well as the use of oaths in ancient Greece

Nedarim 4: Avowals

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 4

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Beraisa earlier (3a) cites the verse, "Ish... Ki Yafli li'Ndor Neder, Nazir l'Hazir la'Shem..." (Bamidbar 6:2). 

This verse provides a Hekesh between Nedarim and Nezirus and teaches that certain laws of Nedarim are learned from Nezirus, and certain laws of Nezirus are learned from Nedarim. Among the laws of Nezirus learned from Nedarim is the law that a father may annul his daughter's oath of Nezirus, and the law that a husband may annul his wife's oath of Nezirus, just as a father or husband may annul his daughter's or wife's Nedarim.

We explore the nature of vows especially those around sacrifices, as well as midrashic interpretations of Jephtha’s vow.

Nedarim 3: לֹ֥א תְאַחֵ֖ר

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 3

To download, click/tap here: PDF

We have already learned that the most basic requirements of nedarim – or becoming obligated by making a vow – are for a person to have clear intent, that he express it in a clear manner.

Nevertheless, as the first Mishna makes clear, there is not set formula for taking on a neder, and substitutes – referred to by the Mishna as kinuyei nedarim – or abbreviated formulations – referred to by the Gemara as yadot nedarim – will also create a full obligation.

The Gemara explains that the Isur of Bal Te'acher applies to Nezirus in the case of a person who says, "I will not leave the world before I become a Nazir."

Why is that a case of Bal Te'acher of Nezirus? The person did not yet become a Nazir; he only promised to make himself a Nazir at a later time, and his obligation to make himself a Nazir is because his statement was a Shevu'ah or a Neder Mitzvah.

The Nezirus itself, however, does not obligate him to become a Nazir. Why, then, is this a case of Bal Te'acher of Nezirus? It is merely a case of Bal Te'acher of Neder!

We continue our exploration of vows with parallel texts in the Yerushalmi as well as Prof Shaul Lieberman’s chapter on oaths and vows in his classic "Greek in Jewish Palestine.”

Nedarim 2: Introduction

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 2

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The first Mishna in the massekhet teaches that a person does not need to use a specific formula to make a neder – a vow – but that kinuyim, which are substitutes for the formal language of a vow, will also be effective. This is true in other cases where a person makes a statement that has significance according to the halakha, like taking a shevua – an oath – or accepting the status of a nazir upon oneself.

We review the first daf of Nedarim and Moshe Benowitz’s informative review of post biblical vows...

Ketubot 112: Milk and Honey

For the source text click/tap here: Ketubot 112

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Massekhet Ketubot closes with discussions about the wonders of the Land of Israel and how much the Sages loved the land.

We end the masechta with further exploration of the notion of the land of "Milk and Honey”

ending with an analysis of Chabad and modern academic anti-zionism.

Ketubot 111: Three Oaths

For the source text click/tap here: Ketubot 111

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Based on passages in Shir HaShirim (2:7, 3:5, 8:4), Rabbi Yosei bar Hanina understands that there are three oaths that bind the Jewish people in their relationship with the non-Jewish world:

1. That the Jews should not return to the Land of Israel be-homah – “like a wall”;

2. That the Jews should not rebel against the nations of the world;

3. That the nations of the world should not oppress the Jewish people overmuch.

Rashi interprets the first oath to mean that the Jewish people should not return to Israel by force, all together (in fact, some manuscripts have ka-homah, which would indicate “all together”). The Maharsha argues that it refers to the actual building of a wall – which would indicate a rebellion against the ruling nation. Such building could not be done without the permission of the nations that ruled over the land, as took place with the return of Ezra and Nehemia at the beginning of the Second Temple era.

We continue our exploration of the prohibition to return to Eretz Yisrael according to various poskim as well as a review by Gil Student.

Ketubot 110: הַכֹּל מַעֲלִין

For the source text click/tap here: Ketubot 110

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

Our Mishnah states: All may force their family to ascend to Eretz Yisrael, i.e., one may compel his family and household to immigrate to Eretz Yisrael, but all may not remove others from Eretz Yisrael, as one may not coerce one’s family to leave. Likewise, all may force their family to ascend to Jerusalem, and all may not, i.e., no one may, remove them from Jerusalem.

Poskim dispute whether there is a mitzvah to live in Eretz Yisroel nowadays. According to some it is a Biblical mitzvah whereas according to others it is only a Rabbinic obligation. 

A third position  is that all opinions agree that one is not obligated to move to Eretz Yisroel, rather it is an optional mitzvah  and the dispute revolves around what mitzvah is fulfilled in the event that one moves to Eretz Yisroel. 

We explore the latter day mitzvah of Yishuv Eretz Yisreol from many perspectives including the Netziv, Reb Zadok, Rav Kook and The Satmar Rov.

Ketubot 109: וְחָנָן בֶּן אֲבִישָׁלוֹם אַדְמוֹן and Easements

For the source text click/tap here: Ketubot 109

To download, click/tap here: PDF 

Another law from Judge Admon:

With regard to one who went overseas and in the meantime the path leading to his field was lost,

e.g., the path he used to reach his land was taken over by the owner of the field through which it passed, so that its exact position is now unknown,

Admon says: Let him go to his field by the shortest possible route.

We explore the history of easements with regards cemeteries and holy sites, and in light of conservation efforts.