Nedarim 32: Melchizedek

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 32

To download, click/tap here:  PDF

Rabbi Zecharyah said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: The Holy One, Blessed be He, wanted to have the Kehunah descend from Shem (the son of Noach), as it is stated: and he was a priest of God, the Highest. However, once Shem recited a blessing of Avraham before the blessing of God, He decided that the Kehunah should emerge from Avraham. This is as it states: And he (Malkitzedek, who was Shem) blessed him (Avraham), and he said: Blessed is Avram to God, the Most high, Maker of heaven and earth, and blessed is God, the Most High. Avram said to him: Is it appropriate to mention first a blessing of the servant before the blessing of his Master?

Immediately, He gave the kehunah to Avraham, as it states: The word of Hashem to my master: Until I make your enemies into a footstool for your feet, and afterwards it is written Hashem has sworn and will not relent: You shall be a priest forever, for you are a king of righteousness (al divrei Malkitzedek).

This was on account of the words of Malkitzedek. And this explains that which is written: And he (Shem) was a priest of God, the Most high. This implies that he (Shem) was a kohen, but his children would not be kohanim.

We explore the curious history of this apparent minor character who exercised the rabbis and the early church fathers because of the historical lineage of the priesthood.

Nedarim 31: חֲתַן־דָּמִ֛ים

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 31

To download, click/tap here: PDF

A new Mishna tells us that if a person vows not to benefit from one who is uncircumcised, they are referring only to Gentiles and not to those Jews who were uncircumcised for heath or other serious reasons. The Mishna goes on to provide us with numerous proof texts on the significance of circumcision. Some of those include the notion that circumcision is more important that Shabbat, as we override the halachot of Shabbat to perform circumcision (Rambam, Sefer Ahava).

The Gemara picks up on this conversation and looks to Moses and the role that circumcision might have played in his life. Why was his punished by G-d and not allowed to see the promised land? Was it because he neglected the mitzvah of circumcision? Was it because he waited to circumcise his child while leaving for Egypt (on the third day, we have learned that people are incapacitated due to the pain of circumcision - was he protecting the child from the journey ahead?)? Was it because he was concerned about lodging first, ignoring his delay of the mitzvah of circumcision?

We explore aspects of this enigmatic pericope (Ex 4:24pp) and the role of Tzipporah.

Nedarim 30: שחורי הראש

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 30

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishnah states that a person who makes a Neder to prohibit himself from benefit from "Shechorei ha'Rosh" -- "those whose heads are covered with black hair" -- is prohibited from deriving benefit from all men and is permitted to derive benefit from women and children. 

The RAN explains that the term "Shechorei ha'Rosh" refers to men because had the person intended to prohibit himself from women, he would have said "those whose heads are covered." Had he intended to prohibit himself from children, he would have said "those whose heads are uncovered." He would not have referred to men as "those whose heads are covered" because some men cover their heads and some men do not. Hence, he used a different phrase. Since most men have black hair, he calls all men "Shechorei ha'Rosh."

The Halachah of the Mishnah (according to the Ran's explanation) implies that it is not obligatory for a man to cover his head.

The universal practice today is that every G-d-fearing Jew covers his head. The MISHNAH BERURAH (OC 2:10-12) cites the TAZ who says that one is forbidden from leaving his head uncovered, but even according to the opinion that it is not forbidden m'Ikar ha'Din, it certainly is proper to cover one's head, and it has been the practice of all Jewish men to do so throughout the generations. Hence, one should not walk four Amos without a head-covering (SHULCHAN ARUCH OC 2:6; see Mishnah Berurah there for various other details of this Halachah).

Based on the abovementioned opinions that wearing a head-covering is not obligatory m'Ikar ha'Din, RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN zt'l rules that one whose job or income will be jeopardized by his insistence on wearing a head-covering is permitted to remove his head-covering when he works (IGROS MOSHE OC 4:2).

We explore the halachic ramifications as well social implications of the yarmelke.

The mishna (66a) states that if one says: Onions are konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste them, because onions are bad for the heart, and others said to him: But isn’t the kuferi onion good for the heart, the vow is dissolved with regard to kuferi onions, and not only with regard to kuferi onions is it dissolved, but with regard to all types of onions. The mishna relates that an incident of this kind occurred, and Rabbi Meir dissolved the vow with regard to all types of onions.

We explore the history of the onion in antiquity as well as a metaphor in rabbinic literature.

Nedarim 29: Olah to Shlamim

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 29

To download, click/tap here: PDF

On our daf we read "Ulla said: [The Mishna means as follows:] Once they are knocked down, there is no reason for him to redeem them (for their sanctity departs automatically). Rav Hamnuna said to him (Ulla): The sanctity that was placed on them, where did it go? And what if someone said to a woman, “Today you are my wife, but tomorrow you will not be my wife,” does such a woman depart without a get?

[Obviously not! For once she is acquired as his wife, the marriage cannot simply disappear; so too here, the consecration cannot disappear by itself!?]

Rava said to him: How can you compare monetary sanctity (such as the plants) with physical sanctity (as the wife)? Monetary sanctity can depart by itself, while physical sanctity cannot depart by itself!? Abaye said to him (Rava): Is it true that physical sanctity cannot depart by itself? But it was taught in a braisa: If someone vows, “My ox should be a korban olah (burnt offering) for thirty days, and then after thirty days it should be a korban shelamim (peace offering), the law is: For the first thirty days it is an olah, and afterwards it is a shelamim. 

We explore the 30 day rule and the new taxonomy of the Olah into shelamim.

What was Rav Kook’s view on sacrifices and how was he misrepresented?

Nedarim 28: Church/State

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 28

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The Mishna states: If one says, “May these plants be a korban if they are not knocked down”, “This tallis should be a korban if it is not burned,” they must be redeemed (if the conditions are met, the value of these items becomes consecrated; the money from the redemption is used to purchase korbanos). If he declares, “May these plants be a korban until they are knocked down”; “This tallis should be a korban until it is burned,” they cannot be redeemed. 

The Gemora asks: But let the Mishna teach: [If the condition is fulfilled] they are consecrated, and [if they are not fulfilled] they are not consecrated? The Gemora answers: Since the latter part of the Mishna taught that they are not redeemed, the former part taught that they are redeemed. 

The Gemora asks: How did he vow? (All trees eventually fall down! Since the neder was dependent on the condition that they will not fall down, how can the neder take effect?) Ameimar answers: The Mishna is referring to a case where he said that they should be consecrated if they would not be knocked down today. The day passed and they were still standing. This is the reason why they are consecrated.

The Gemora asks: If so, what is the novelty of this case? The Gemora answers: There was a strong wind blowing at the time of his vow (he was assuming that the tree would fall and perhaps he did not intend to consecrate it if it did not fall). 

We continue the exploration of dina demalchuta with the conflict between church and state.

Nedarim 27: דִּינָא דְמַלְכוּתָא דִּינָא

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 27

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Dina demalchuta Dina, the law of the land is the law, is one of the most famous teachings of Jewish jurisprudence. While ostensibly a law relating to the paying of taxes, it reflects the deep loyalty Jews are to have to their countries of residence. This idea was initially formulated by the prophet Yirmiyahu (see chapter 29), when the Jewish people were about to go into exile for the first time following the Babylonian conquest of Israel. 

Most interestingly, this law is not mentioned in the Mishnah but emerges from our daf's questioning of the Mishnah regarding the payment (or non-payment) of taxes.

 "One may take a vow to murderers, robbers, and tax collectors that it is terumah even though it is not terumah, that it is from the royal palace even though it is not from the royal palace" (Nedarim 27b). 

What the Gemara does question is why one can lie to a tax-collector and claim one's assets are not really his own. 

After all, Dina Demalchuta Dina obligates one to pay taxes. 

We explore the parameters of Dina demalchusa…and how it affects even our paying taxes.

Nedarim 26: וַהֲלֹא הַכּוּפְרִי יָפֶה לַלֵּב

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 26

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The mishna (66a) states that if one says: Onions are konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste them, because onions are bad for the heart, and others said to him: But isn’t the kuferi onion good for the heart, the vow is dissolved with regard to kuferi onions, and not only with regard to kuferi onions is it dissolved, but with regard to all types of onions. The mishna relates that an incident of this kind occurred, and Rabbi Meir dissolved the vow with regard to all types of onions.

We explore the history of the onion in antiquity as well as a metaphor in rabbinic literature.

Nedarim 25: מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ כְּשֶׁהִשְׁבִּיעַ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 25

To download, click/tap here: PDF

One of the things that the Sages demanded of someone taking an oath is that they must mean what they say. The person is told that his statement must conform to the simple meaning of the words that he says without any secret meanings or intentions. 

Even though one might be telling the truth when he takes an oath, his oath must hold the same meaning to others - the court, the witnesses - that it holds for himself.  But don't people always make oaths according to their own understandings?  The rabbis go on to discuss the difficulty of defining what people hold in their hearts.  They find proof texts in the Torah that suggest that Moses helped us to understand this very point.

The Gemora asks: Let Moses make them swear to fulfill the Torah? The Gemora answers: This implies one Torah (and Moshe wanted them to fulfill the Written Torah and the Oral Torah). 

We explore the oaths Moses enjoined Am Yisrael to keep both the Oral and Written law, and how the oath at Sinai superseded subsequent later oaths.

Nedarim 24: Shumshemanei

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 24

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our new Mishna teaches us about vows of exaggeration.  These vows are understood as either tools to explain something unusual, or complete fabrications.  

Rava asks: What is the necessity of teaching us this case (that such an oath is permitted)? Furthermore, the braisa said that we are comparing the cases of insignificant oaths to the cases of nedarim (and we are only stating one case)! 

Rava answers: The case is as follows: He said, “All the fruits in the world should be forbidden to me if I didn’t see on this road as many people as went out from Egypt at the time of the Exodus.” 

Ravina asked Rav Ashi: Perhaps he is referring to an anthill (shumshemanei ) and he gave them the name “those who went out of Egypt,” and the oath is a proper one? Rav Ashi answers: One swears according to our understanding of the words..  

How many did in fact emerge from Egypt? We cite Colin Humphreys mathematical postulation.

We explore the world of the shumshemanei….in antiquity Herodotus, and the medieval beastiary.

Nedarim 23: Intentionality

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 23

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The first four mishnayoth of this chapter deal with vows that use valid language but are nevertheless not valid because the person did not really intend for his vow to be valid.

"A woman who took a nazirite vow and was [illicitly] drinking wine and defiling herself with the dead she is to be punished with lashes.

[However] if her husband had annulled her vow but she did not know that he had done so and was drinking wine and defiling herself with the dead she is not to be punished with lashes”

By luck of the draw the woman escapes punishment. Tried as she may, she did nothing wrong.

After all are her actions or intent really any different just because her husband -unbeknownst to her - annulled the vow?

We explore the notion of intentionality in performance of Mitzvot including Don Seeman’s monograph on the RAMBAM and the need for ta’amei Mitzvot not merely performative,

and some recent theories regarding ethics and intention.

Nedarim 22: Rage

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 22

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeini said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan: Whoever gets angry enables all kinds of Gehinnom to rule over him, as it is stated: and remove anger from your heart and remove evil from your flesh. The term “evil” refers to nothing but Gehinnom, as it is stated: Everything Hashem made was for His sake, and even the wicked one for the day of evil.

Moreover, he will suffer from hemorrhoids, as it is stated: and Hashem will give you there an angry heart, a longing of the eyes and suffering of soul.

We explore the rabbinic attitudes towards anger as well as the neurobiology and social aspects of anger.

Nedarim 21: ?לֵב זֶה עָלֶיךָ

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 21

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Steinsaltz tells us:

In order for a neder (vow) to take effect, the individual who is taking the vow must have true intent, and a vow that is uttered without meaning does not obligate the person who made it. Nevertheless, a person cannot simply claim that he did not mean what he said; we always work with the assumption that what a person said is what he meant. Still, the Sages of the Talmud teach that there are some instances where it is clear to all that the person making the neder did not really mean to obligate himself, and in such cases the person is not obligated to keep his word – his vow notwithstanding.

Aruch Hashulchan  explains that there are two methods of releasing a person from a vow. The first method is to find an opening - פתח –and the second method is for the power to express regret – חרטה .

We explore the notion of regret as applied to vows including studies regarding regret in intimate relationships and divorce.

Nedarim 20: Shame

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 20

To download, click/tap here: PDF

The verse states, “In order that the fear of Hashem will be on your face so you will not sin.”

Our daf explains that a feeling of shame and modesty leads to fear of sin.

We explore the rabbinic attitudes to shame as well as modern scientific experiments identifying the source of shame.

Nedarim 19: ״הֲרֵינִי נְזִיר שִׁמְשׁוֹן״

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 19

To download, click/tap here: PDF

Our dad includes as description of how one might become a nazirite by making a conditional promise.

The rabbis seem to be helping each other understand the parameters of nazirut through their discussion.

What are the details how a nazirite deals with hair that is heavy? How would this or other uncertainties affect one's ability to bring offerings?

And if a person vows to be a nazirite like Samson, well, that is impossible - Samson's status was decreed. One cannot use a vow to create a status equivalent to that of Samson.

The rabbis end our daf with a continuation of their argument. Do we treat conditional vows regarding nazirut with leniency?

Can vows of nazirut be conditional at all?

We explore different views of the life of Shimshon and his the Nazirite injunctions against drinking alcohol and eating unclean food placed upon his mother since the child is to be a Nazirite “from birth” (Judges 13:5).

Nedarim 18: Stam Nedarim

For the source text click/tap here: Nedarim 18

To download, click/tap here: PDF

When discussing nedarim, how clear does a statement need to be in order for a person to become obligated in it? What if the statement that is made can be interpreted in more than one way?

When discussing nedarim, how clear does a statement need to be in order for a person to become obligated in it? What if the statement that is made can be interpreted in more than one way?When discussing nedarim, how clear does a statement need to be in order for a person to become obligated in it? What if the statement that is made can be interpreted in more than one way?

Although our Mishna rules that stam nedarim le-hahmir – that we will be stringent with regard to the interpretation of vows – the Gemara quotes a Mishna that states sfeik nezirut le-hakel, seemingly indicating that regarding the laws of a nazir we will tend towards leniency. 

How do we understand this contradiction?

We explore the notion of scholastic failure with Lynn Kaye’s article.

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.