Nedarim 81 – Shabbat January 14

גוף כולו לא כל שכן אמרי אין כביסה אלימא לרבי יוסי דאמר שמואל האי ערבוביתא דרישא מתיא לידי עוירא ערבוביתא דמאני מתיא לידי שעמומיתא ערבוביתא דגופא מתיא לידי שיחני וכיבי

is it not all the more so the case that if one does not bathe, which affects the entire body, Rabbi Yosei would agree that he will suffer pain? The Gemara refutes this argument: The Sages say in response: Yes, the pain of refraining from laundering one’s clothes is stronger, according to Rabbi Yosei, than the pain of not washing one’s body. As Shmuel said: Grime on one’s head leads to blindness, and grime on one’s clothes leads to madness, whereas grime on one’s body leads to boils and sores, which are less serious than madness and blindness. Based on this it may be suggested that according to Rabbi Yosei, soiled clothing presents a greater danger than an unwashed body.

שלחו מתם הזהרו בערבוביתא הזהרו בחבורה הזהרו בבני עניים שמהן תצא תורה שנאמר יזל מים מדליו שמהן תצא תורה

§ With regard to this issue, the Gemara relates that the Sages sent the following message from there, i.e., Eretz Yisrael, to Babylonia: Be careful with regard to grime, as it can lead to disease and sickness. Be careful to learn Torah in the company of others, rather than study it alone. And be careful with regard to the education of the sons of paupers, as it is from them that the Torah will issue forth. As it is stated: “Water shall flow from his branches [midalyav]” (Numbers 24:7), which is expounded to mean: From the poor ones [midalim] among him, as it is from them that the Torah, which may be compared to water, will issue forth.

ומפני מה אין מצויין תלמידי חכמים לצאת תלמידי חכמים מבניהן אמר רב יוסף שלא יאמרו תורה ירושה היא להם רב ששת בריה דרב אידי אומר כדי שלא יתגדרו על הצבור מר זוטרא אומר מפני שהן מתגברין על הצבור רב אשי אומר משום דקרו לאינשי חמרי

With regard to a similar matter, the Gemara inquires: And for what reason is it not common for Torah scholars to give rise to Torah scholars from among their sons? Why are Torah scholars generally born to paupers, who are not Torah scholars themselves? Rav Yosef said: This is so that they should not say the Torah is their inheritance. Therefore, it is unusual to find that all the sons of a Torah scholar are also Torah scholars. Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: This is so that they should not be presumptuous [yitgadderu] toward the community, with the knowledge that they will be Torah scholars like their fathers. Mar Zutra said: Because they take advantage of their fathers’ standing to lord over the community and are punished for their conduct. Rav Ashi said: Because they call ordinary people donkeys.

רבינא אומר שאין מברכין בתורה תחלה דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב מאי דכתיב מי האיש החכם ויבן את זאת דבר זה נשאל לחכמים ולנביאים ולא פירשוהו

Ravina says: They are punished because they do not first recite a blessing over the Torah before commencing their studies. As Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “Who is the wise man that may understand this, and who is he to whom the mouth of the Lord has spoken, that he may declare it, for what the land is perished and laid waste like a wilderness, so that none passes through” (Jeremiah 9:11)? This matter, the question as to why Eretz Yisrael was destroyed, was asked of the Sages, i.e., “the wise man,” and of the prophets, “he to whom the mouth of the Lord has spoken,” but they could not explain it.

עד שפירשו הקדוש ברוך הוא בעצמו דכתיב ויאמר ה׳ על עזבם את תורתי וגו׳ היינו לא שמעו בקולי היינו לא הלכו בה אמר רב יהודה אמר רב שאין מברכין בתורה תחלה

The matter remained a mystery until the Holy One, Blessed be He, Himself explained why Eretz Yisrael was laid waste, as it is written in the next verse: “And the Lord said: Because they have forsaken My Torah which I set before them, and have not obeyed My voice, nor walked therein” (Jeremiah 9:12). It would appear that “have not obeyed My voice” is the same as “nor walked therein.” Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The expression “nor walked therein” means that they do not first recite a blessing over the Torah, and they are therefore liable to receive the severe punishments listed in the verse.

איסי בר יהודה לא אתא למתיבתא דרבי יוסי תלתא יומי אשכחיה ורדימוס ברבי יוסי אמר ליה מאי טעמא לא אתי מר לבי מדרשא דאבא הא תלתא יומין אמר ליה כי טעמיה דאבוך לא ידענא היכא איתאי אמר ליה לימא מר מאי קאמר ליה דלמא ידענא טעמיה אמר ליה הא דתניא רבי יוסי אומר כביסתן קודמין לחיי אחרים קרא מנלן

§ Returning to the issue of laundering clothes, the Gemara relates that it once happened that Isi bar Yehuda did not come to the academy of Rabbi Yosei for three straight days. Vardimus, son of Rabbi Yosei, found him and said to him: What is the reason that the Master did not come to Father’s academy these three days? He said to him: When I do not know your father’s reasoning, how can I come? Vardimus said to him: Let the Master say what he, my father, is saying to him; perhaps I know his reasoning. He said to him: With regard to that which is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says that their own laundry takes precedence over the lives of others, from where do we have a verse that teaches this halakha?

אמר ליה דכתיב ומגרשיהם יהיו לבהמתם וגו׳ מאי חייתם אילימא חיה והלא חיה בכלל בהמה היא אלא מאי חייתם חיותא ממש פשיטא אלא לאו כביסה דהא איכא צערא דערבוביתא

Vardimus said to him: As it is written with regard to the Levite cities: “And their open land shall be for their animals and for their substance, and for all their beasts” (Numbers 35:3). What is the meaning of “their beasts”? If we say an actual beast, there is a difficulty, as isn’t a beast included in the category of animal, which has already been mentioned in the verse? Rather, what is the meaning of “their beasts [ḥayyatam]”? It means their actual lives [ḥiyyuta]. This, however, is difficult, as it is obvious that the Levites received their cities in order to live their lives there. Rather, is it not referring to laundering clothes, as there is the pain caused by the grime on one’s unwashed clothes? Since it is vitally necessary for their well-being, laundering the clothing of the city’s residents takes precedence over the lives of others.

אמר רבי יוסי אין אלו נדרי עינוי נפש איבעיא להו לרבי יוסי מהו שיפר משום דברים שבינו לבינה תא שמע אמר רבי יוסי אין אלו נדרי עינוי נפש אבל דברים שבינו לבינה הויין

§ With regard to the vows: If I bathe, and: If I do not bathe, and: If I adorn myself, and: If I do not adorn myself, Rabbi Yosei said in the mishna that these are not vows of affliction. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to Rabbi Yosei, what is the halakha as to whether the husband can nullify these vows as matters that adversely affect the relationship between him and her? The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a resolution to this question from what Rabbi Yosei said: These are not vows of affliction, which indicates, however, that they are matters that affect the relationship between him and her.

דלמא לדידהו קאמר להו לדידי אפילו דברים שבינו לבינה לא הויין לדידכו דאמריתו הויין נדרי עינוי נפש אודו לי דאין אלו נדרי עינוי נפש

The Gemara refutes this proof: Perhaps Rabbi Yosei was speaking to the Rabbis in accordance with their own opinion, as follows: According to my opinion, they are not even matters that affect the relationship between him and her. But according to your opinion, that you say that they are vows of affliction, agree with me at least that these are not vows of affliction. In other words, one should not infer from the phrasing of Rabbi Yosei’s response to the Rabbis that he holds that these vows are concerning matters that affect the relationship between him and her, as he was merely countering the claim of the Rabbis that they are vows of affliction.

מאי רב אדא בר אהבה אומר מפר רב הונא אומר אין מפר

The question therefore remains: What does Rabbi Yosei maintain in this regard? Rav Adda bar Ahava says: He can nullify these vows as matters between him and her, whereas Rav Huna says: He cannot nullify them.

שלא מצינו שועל שמת בעפר פיר

And it cannot be argued that if the woman refrains from bathing or adorning herself, it will negatively impact on her relationship with her husband, as we do not find a fox dying in the earth of the lair to which it is accustomed. Similarly, a husband who is accustomed to his wife will not come to avoid engaging in sexual intercourse with her merely because she has not bathed.

תניא כוותיה דרב אדא בר אהבה דברים שיש בהן עינוי נפש מפר בין בינו לבינה בין בינה לבין אחרים שאין בהן עינוי נפש בינו לבינה מפר בינה לבין אחרים אינו מפר כיצד אמרה קונם פירות עלי הרי זה יפר קונם שאיני עושה לפי אבא לפי אחיך לפי אביך לפי אחי ושלא אתן תבן לפני בהמתך ומים לפני בקרך אין יכול להפר

The Gemara comments that it is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav Adda bar Ahava: Vows taken by a woman concerning matters that involve affliction the husband can nullify, whether they relate to matters between him and her or to matters between her and others. As for vows concerning matters that do not involve affliction, if they relate to matters between him and her, he can nullify them, but if they relate to matters between her and others, he cannot nullify them. How so? If she said: Produce is konam for me, he can nullify the vow, as it falls into the category of vows of affliction. If, however, she said: I will not prepare anything for my father, as that is konam for me or: For your brother, or: For your father, or: For my brother, or: I will not place straw before your animal, or: I will not place water before your cattle, he cannot nullify such vows, as they do not touch upon the relationship between husband and wife, nor do they cause her affliction.

שלא אכחול שלא אפקוס ושלא אשמש מטתי יפר משום דברים שבינו לבינה

A wife said: I will not paint my eyes, as that is konam for me; I will not rouge [efkos] my cheeks, as that is konam for me; or: I will not engage in sexual intercourse, as that is konam for me. If she made any of these statements, her husband can nullify them, as they are matters that adversely affect the relationship between him and her.

שלא אציע לך מטתך ושלא אמזוג לך את הכוס ושלא ארחץ לך פניך ידיך ורגליך אין צריך להפר

A wife said: I will not make your bed, as that is konam for me; or: I will not prepare your cup for you, mixing your wine with water, as that is konam for me; or: I will not wash your face, your hands, or your feet, as that is konam for me. If she made these statements, her husband need not nullify these vows. They do not take effect, since she is obligated to perform these tasks as part of her marital duties.

רבן גמליאל אומר יפר שנאמר לא יחל דברו דבר אחר לא יחל דברו מכאן לחכם שאין מתיר נדרי עצמו

Rabban Gamliel says: He should nevertheless nullify such vows, as it is stated: “He shall not profane his word” (Numbers 30:3), which teaches that it is improper for one to take a vow and not fulfill it. The Gemara presents another interpretation of the verse: Alternatively, the verse states: “He shall not profane his word,” from here it may be derived that a halakhic authority cannot dissolve his own vows.

מאן שמעינן דאמר שלא אכחול ושלא אפקוס דברים שבינו לבינה הויין רבי יוסי וקתני דמפר משום דברים שבינו לבינה

After having cited the entire baraita, the Gemara proceeds to analyze the relevant component: Of whom have we heard that he said that if a woman says: I will not paint my eyes, as that is konam for me, or: I will not rouge my cheeks, the vows fall into the category of matters that adversely affect the relationship between him and her? It is Rabbi Yosei, as the Rabbis, who disagree with him, maintain that they are vows of affliction, and the baraita teaches that the husband can nullify such vows as matters that adversely affect the relationship between him and her. Therefore, the baraita supports Rav Adda bar Ahava’s understanding of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

אמר מר ושלא אשמש מטתי יפר משום דברים שבינו לבינה היכי דמי אילימא דאמרה הנאת תשמישי עליך למה לי הפרה הא משועבדת ליה אלא באומרת הנאת תשמישך עלי וכדרב כהנא

The Master said in the baraita that if the woman said: I will not engage in sexual intercourse, as that is konam for me, her husband can nullify the vow as an example of matters that adversely affects the relationship between him and her. The Gemara raises a question: What are the circumstances of the case? If we say that she said: The benefit of my engaging in intercourse with you is forbidden to you, why do I need the husband’s nullification at all? She is obligated to engage in intercourse with him by the very nature of their marriage, and it is not within her power to release herself from this duty by means of a vow. Rather, the baraita must refer to a case where she said: The benefit of your engaging in intercourse with me is forbidden to me, and it is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Kahana.

דאמר רב כהנא הנאת תשמישי עליך כופה ומשמשתו הנאת תשמישך עלי יפר שאין מאכילין את האדם דבר האסור לו

As Rav Kahana said that if a woman says: The benefit of my engaging in intercourse with you is forbidden to you, he can compel her to have relations with him. If, however, she said: The benefit of your engaging in intercourse with me is forbidden to me, he must nullify her vow. Why must the husband nullify it if she is obligated to have relations with him? It is because we do not feed a person something that is forbidden to him. Although she cannot release herself from her duty, since she prohibited herself from deriving pleasure from the act, she may not engage in sexual intercourse, as it would entail forbidden pleasure.

מאן תנא הא דתניא דברים המותרים ואחרים נהגו בהן איסור אי אתה רשאי לנהוג בהם היתר כדי לבטלן משום שנאמר לא יחל דברו דבר אחר לא יחל דברו מכאן לתלמיד חכם שאין מפר נדרי עצמו מני רבן גמליאל היא

The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna who taught that which is taught in a baraita: With regard to matters that are permitted, but others were accustomed to treat them as a prohibition, you are not allowed to treat them as permitted in a manner that may cause the negation of their custom, as it is stated: “He shall not profane his word” (Numbers 30:3). The verse indicates that any vow in which a person renders a matter forbidden to himself, i.e., “his word,” is considered a quasi-vow, which may not be profaned. The Gemara presents another interpretation of the verse: Alternatively, the verse states: “He shall not profane his word”; from here it may be derived that a halakhic authority cannot dissolve his own vows. Whose opinion is this? It is that of Rabban Gamliel, who maintains that a man should nullify his wife’s vow even if it does not actually take effect.

בעא מיניה רבא מרב נחמן תשמיש המטה לרבנן עינוי נפש הוא או דברים שבינו לבינה אמר ליה תניתוה ונטולה אני מן היהודים

Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Naḥman: If a woman took a vow that sexual intercourse with her husband is forbidden to her, then, according to the Rabbis, is it a vow of affliction or does it fall within the category of matters that adversely affect the relationship between him and her? Rav Naḥman said to him: You learned the answer to this question in a mishna (90b): And if a woman said: I am removed from the Jews, i.e., the benefit of my engaging in intercourse is forbidden to all Jews,