Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

January 14, 2023 | 讻状讗 讘讟讘转 转砖驻状讙

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Nedarim 81 – Shabbat January 14

This is the daf for Shabbat. For Friday鈥檚 daf please click here.

Today鈥檚 daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in memory of her mother Shirley Tydor, Sara Raizel bat Mordechai Yitzchak and Freida Sima on what would have been her 94th birthday. 鈥淢ay she be a melitzat yosher for her beloved granddaughters zivug hagun bikarov mamash.鈥

How is the contradiction between what Rabbi Yosi says in our Mishna and what Rabbi Yosi says regarding a spring shared by two cities reconciled? A distinction is made between the importance of having clean clothes, as dirty clothes can lead to madness, and a clean body, which does not cause the same. In the context of problems that arise from dirt, a statement was sent from Israel stating the importance of three things – cleanliness, good company, and teaching Torah to poor people. Why is it that many Torah scholars do not have sons who become Torah scholars? There are five different answers to this question. Isi bar Yehuda did not understand how Rabbi Yosi could have held that one city’s laundry can take precedence over the other’s life. Rabbi Yosi’s son found a verse from which this can be derived. If Rabbi Yosi doesn’t hold that refraining from bathing is an affliction of the soul, can the husband nullify that kind of vow anyway as it is something that can affect the relationship between husband and wife? Or does he not put it in that category? There is a debate among amoraim about this. A braita is brought to support the opinion that Rabbi Yosi would allow the husband to nullify that vow. Some questions arise from the braita quoted and they are answered. Rava asks Rav Nachman if a vow to refrain from sexual relations is considered an affliction of the soul or something that affects the relationship between the husband and wife.

讙讜祝 讻讜诇讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讻讘讬住讛 讗诇讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗讬 注专讘讜讘讬转讗 讚专讬砖讗 诪转讬讗 诇讬讚讬 注讜讬专讗 注专讘讜讘讬转讗 讚诪讗谞讬 诪转讬讗 诇讬讚讬 砖注诪讜诪讬转讗 注专讘讜讘讬转讗 讚讙讜驻讗 诪转讬讗 诇讬讚讬 砖讬讞谞讬 讜讻讬讘讬

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鈥檚 clothes is stronger, according to Rabbi Yosei, than the pain of not washing one鈥檚 body. As Shmuel said: Grime on one鈥檚 head leads to blindness, and grime on one鈥檚 clothes leads to madness, whereas grime on one鈥檚 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.

砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讛讝讛专讜 讘注专讘讜讘讬转讗 讛讝讛专讜 讘讞讘讜专讛 讛讝讛专讜 讘讘谞讬 注谞讬讬诐 砖诪讛谉 转爪讗 转讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讬讝诇 诪讬诐 诪讚诇讬讜 砖诪讛谉 转爪讗 转讜专讛

搂 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: 鈥淲ater shall flow from his branches [midalyav]鈥 (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.

讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬谉 诪爪讜讬讬谉 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 诇爪讗转 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讘谞讬讛谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专讜 转讜专讛 讬专讜砖讛 讛讬讗 诇讛诐 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗讜诪专 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬转讙讚专讜 注诇 讛爪讘讜专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗讜诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪转讙讘专讬谉 注诇 讛爪讘讜专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚拽专讜 诇讗讬谞砖讬 讞诪专讬

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鈥 standing to lord over the community and are punished for their conduct. Rav Ashi said: Because they call ordinary people donkeys.

专讘讬谞讗 讗讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 讘转讜专讛 转讞诇讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 诪讬 讛讗讬砖 讛讞讻诐 讜讬讘谉 讗转 讝讗转 讚讘专 讝讛 谞砖讗诇 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讜诇谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜诇讗 驻讬专砖讜讛讜

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: 鈥淲ho 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鈥 (Jeremiah 9:11)? This matter, the question as to why Eretz Yisrael was destroyed, was asked of the Sages, i.e., 鈥渢he wise man,鈥 and of the prophets, 鈥渉e to whom the mouth of the Lord has spoken,鈥 but they could not explain it.

注讚 砖驻讬专砖讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讘注爪诪讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 注诇 注讝讘诐 讗转 转讜专转讬 讜讙讜壮 讛讬讬谞讜 诇讗 砖诪注讜 讘拽讜诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 诇讗 讛诇讻讜 讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 讘转讜专讛 转讞诇讛

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: 鈥淎nd the Lord said: Because they have forsaken My Torah which I set before them, and have not obeyed My voice, nor walked therein鈥 (Jeremiah 9:12). It would appear that 鈥渉ave not obeyed My voice鈥 is the same as 鈥渘or walked therein.鈥 Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The expression 鈥渘or walked therein鈥 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.

讗讬住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讗转讗 诇诪转讬讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讜专讚讬诪讜住 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗转讬 诪专 诇讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讚讗讘讗 讛讗 转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚讗讘讜讱 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讛讬讻讗 讗讬转讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬诪讗 诪专 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇诪讗 讬讚注谞讗 讟注诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻讘讬住转谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讞讬讬 讗讞专讬诐 拽专讗 诪谞诇谉

搂 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鈥檚 academy these three days? He said to him: When I do not know your father鈥檚 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪讙专砖讬讛诐 讬讛讬讜 诇讘讛诪转诐 讜讙讜壮 诪讗讬 讞讬讬转诐 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讞讬讛 讜讛诇讗 讞讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讘讛诪讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讞讬讬转诐 讞讬讜转讗 诪诪砖 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻讘讬住讛 讚讛讗 讗讬讻讗 爪注专讗 讚注专讘讜讘讬转讗

Vardimus said to him: As it is written with regard to the Levite cities: 鈥淎nd their open land shall be for their animals and for their substance, and for all their beasts鈥 (Numbers 35:3). What is the meaning of 鈥渢heir beasts鈥? If we say an actual beast, there is a difficulty, as isn鈥檛 a beast included in the category of animal, which has already been mentioned in the verse? Rather, what is the meaning of 鈥渢heir beasts [岣yyatam]鈥? It means their actual lives [岣yyuta]. 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鈥檚 unwashed clothes? Since it is vitally necessary for their well-being, laundering the clothing of the city鈥檚 residents takes precedence over the lives of others.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬谉 讗诇讜 谞讚专讬 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讛讜 砖讬驻专 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬谉 讗诇讜 谞讚专讬 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讗讘诇 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 讛讜讬讬谉

搂 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.

讚诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讛讜 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 诇讗 讛讜讬讬谉 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讚讗诪专讬转讜 讛讜讬讬谉 谞讚专讬 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 讚讗讬谉 讗诇讜 谞讚专讬 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖

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鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗讜诪专 诪驻专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪驻专

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.

砖诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 砖讜注诇 砖诪转 讘注驻专 驻讬专

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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讚讘专讬诐 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 诪驻专 讘讬谉 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 讘讬谉 讘讬谞讛 诇讘讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 诪驻专 讘讬谞讛 诇讘讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪驻专 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专讛 拽讜谞诐 驻讬专讜转 注诇讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讬驻专 拽讜谞诐 砖讗讬谞讬 注讜砖讛 诇驻讬 讗讘讗 诇驻讬 讗讞讬讱 诇驻讬 讗讘讬讱 诇驻讬 讗讞讬 讜砖诇讗 讗转谉 转讘谉 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪转讱 讜诪讬诐 诇驻谞讬 讘拽专讱 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专

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.

砖诇讗 讗讻讞讜诇 砖诇讗 讗驻拽讜住 讜砖诇讗 讗砖诪砖 诪讟转讬 讬驻专 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛

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.

砖诇讗 讗爪讬注 诇讱 诪讟转讱 讜砖诇讗 讗诪讝讜讙 诇讱 讗转 讛讻讜住 讜砖诇讗 讗专讞抓 诇讱 驻谞讬讱 讬讚讬讱 讜专讙诇讬讱 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛驻专

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.

专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讬驻专 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讞诇 讚讘专讜 讚讘专 讗讞专 诇讗 讬讞诇 讚讘专讜 诪讻讗谉 诇讞讻诐 砖讗讬谉 诪转讬专 谞讚专讬 注爪诪讜

Rabban Gamliel says: He should nevertheless nullify such vows, as it is stated: 鈥淗e shall not profane his word鈥 (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: 鈥淗e shall not profane his word,鈥 from here it may be derived that a halakhic authority cannot dissolve his own vows.

诪讗谉 砖诪注讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 砖诇讗 讗讻讞讜诇 讜砖诇讗 讗驻拽讜住 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 讛讜讬讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜拽转谞讬 讚诪驻专 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛

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鈥檚 understanding of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

讗诪专 诪专 讜砖诇讗 讗砖诪砖 诪讟转讬 讬驻专 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专讛 讛谞讗转 转砖诪讬砖讬 注诇讬讱 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛驻专讛 讛讗 诪砖讜注讘讚转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讘讗讜诪专转 讛谞讗转 转砖诪讬砖讱 注诇讬 讜讻讚专讘 讻讛谞讗

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鈥檚 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.

讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛谞讗转 转砖诪讬砖讬 注诇讬讱 讻讜驻讛 讜诪砖诪砖转讜 讛谞讗转 转砖诪讬砖讱 注诇讬 讬驻专 砖讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛讗讚诐 讚讘专 讛讗住讜专 诇讜

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.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讚讘专讬诐 讛诪讜转专讬诐 讜讗讞专讬诐 谞讛讙讜 讘讛谉 讗讬住讜专 讗讬 讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇谞讛讜讙 讘讛诐 讛讬转专 讻讚讬 诇讘讟诇谉 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讞诇 讚讘专讜 讚讘专 讗讞专 诇讗 讬讞诇 讚讘专讜 诪讻讗谉 诇转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 砖讗讬谉 诪驻专 谞讚专讬 注爪诪讜 诪谞讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗

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: 鈥淗e shall not profane his word鈥 (Numbers 30:3). The verse indicates that any vow in which a person renders a matter forbidden to himself, i.e., 鈥渉is word,鈥 is considered a quasi-vow, which may not be profaned. The Gemara presents another interpretation of the verse: Alternatively, the verse states: 鈥淗e shall not profane his word鈥; 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鈥檚 vow even if it does not actually take effect.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 转砖诪讬砖 讛诪讟讛 诇专讘谞谉 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讜谞讟讜诇讛 讗谞讬 诪谉 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐

Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an: 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 Na岣an 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,

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

  • This month鈥檚 learning is sponsored by Shlomo and Amalia Klapper in honor of the birth of Chiyenna Yochana, named after her great-great-grandmother, Chiyenna Kossovsky.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Elaine Hochberg in honor of her husband, Arie Hochberg, who continues to journey through Daf Yomi with her. 鈥淎nd with thanks to Rabbanit Farber and Hadran who have made our learning possible.鈥

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nedarim: 78-84 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn the law if a husband is silent about his wife鈥檚 vow. Does his silence signify...
Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

What Really Caused the Hurban? – Gefet 52

The land was destroyed because we didn鈥檛 say a Bracha on the Tora?! How could this be the reason for...
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 81: Swearing Off Makeup

Why are the children of Torah scholars not themselves also Torah scholars? With several possible answers. Also, going back to...
on second thought thumbnail

The Sons of Paupers: On Second Thought 2

What is special about the Torah of the children of the poor? On Second Thought: Delving Into the Sugya with...

Nedarim 81 – Shabbat January 14

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 81 – Shabbat January 14

讙讜祝 讻讜诇讜 诇讗 讻诇 砖讻谉 讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 讻讘讬住讛 讗诇讬诪讗 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讚讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讗讬 注专讘讜讘讬转讗 讚专讬砖讗 诪转讬讗 诇讬讚讬 注讜讬专讗 注专讘讜讘讬转讗 讚诪讗谞讬 诪转讬讗 诇讬讚讬 砖注诪讜诪讬转讗 注专讘讜讘讬转讗 讚讙讜驻讗 诪转讬讗 诇讬讚讬 砖讬讞谞讬 讜讻讬讘讬

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鈥檚 clothes is stronger, according to Rabbi Yosei, than the pain of not washing one鈥檚 body. As Shmuel said: Grime on one鈥檚 head leads to blindness, and grime on one鈥檚 clothes leads to madness, whereas grime on one鈥檚 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.

砖诇讞讜 诪转诐 讛讝讛专讜 讘注专讘讜讘讬转讗 讛讝讛专讜 讘讞讘讜专讛 讛讝讛专讜 讘讘谞讬 注谞讬讬诐 砖诪讛谉 转爪讗 转讜专讛 砖谞讗诪专 讬讝诇 诪讬诐 诪讚诇讬讜 砖诪讛谉 转爪讗 转讜专讛

搂 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: 鈥淲ater shall flow from his branches [midalyav]鈥 (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.

讜诪驻谞讬 诪讛 讗讬谉 诪爪讜讬讬谉 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 诇爪讗转 转诇诪讬讚讬 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讘谞讬讛谉 讗诪专 专讘 讬讜住祝 砖诇讗 讬讗诪专讜 转讜专讛 讬专讜砖讛 讛讬讗 诇讛诐 专讘 砖砖转 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讗讬讚讬 讗讜诪专 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬转讙讚专讜 注诇 讛爪讘讜专 诪专 讝讜讟专讗 讗讜诪专 诪驻谞讬 砖讛谉 诪转讙讘专讬谉 注诇 讛爪讘讜专 专讘 讗砖讬 讗讜诪专 诪砖讜诐 讚拽专讜 诇讗讬谞砖讬 讞诪专讬

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鈥 standing to lord over the community and are punished for their conduct. Rav Ashi said: Because they call ordinary people donkeys.

专讘讬谞讗 讗讜诪专 砖讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 讘转讜专讛 转讞诇讛 讚讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 诪讗讬 讚讻转讬讘 诪讬 讛讗讬砖 讛讞讻诐 讜讬讘谉 讗转 讝讗转 讚讘专 讝讛 谞砖讗诇 诇讞讻诪讬诐 讜诇谞讘讬讗讬诐 讜诇讗 驻讬专砖讜讛讜

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: 鈥淲ho 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鈥 (Jeremiah 9:11)? This matter, the question as to why Eretz Yisrael was destroyed, was asked of the Sages, i.e., 鈥渢he wise man,鈥 and of the prophets, 鈥渉e to whom the mouth of the Lord has spoken,鈥 but they could not explain it.

注讚 砖驻讬专砖讜 讛拽讚讜砖 讘专讜讱 讛讜讗 讘注爪诪讜 讚讻转讬讘 讜讬讗诪专 讛壮 注诇 注讝讘诐 讗转 转讜专转讬 讜讙讜壮 讛讬讬谞讜 诇讗 砖诪注讜 讘拽讜诇讬 讛讬讬谞讜 诇讗 讛诇讻讜 讘讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 专讘 砖讗讬谉 诪讘专讻讬谉 讘转讜专讛 转讞诇讛

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: 鈥淎nd the Lord said: Because they have forsaken My Torah which I set before them, and have not obeyed My voice, nor walked therein鈥 (Jeremiah 9:12). It would appear that 鈥渉ave not obeyed My voice鈥 is the same as 鈥渘or walked therein.鈥 Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: The expression 鈥渘or walked therein鈥 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.

讗讬住讬 讘专 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讗 讗转讗 诇诪转讬讘转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬 讗砖讻讞讬讛 讜专讚讬诪讜住 讘专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诇讗 讗转讬 诪专 诇讘讬 诪讚专砖讗 讚讗讘讗 讛讗 转诇转讗 讬讜诪讬谉 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讻讬 讟注诪讬讛 讚讗讘讜讱 诇讗 讬讚注谞讗 讛讬讻讗 讗讬转讗讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讬诪讗 诪专 诪讗讬 拽讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚诇诪讗 讬讚注谞讗 讟注诪讬讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讜诪专 讻讘讬住转谉 拽讜讚诪讬谉 诇讞讬讬 讗讞专讬诐 拽专讗 诪谞诇谉

搂 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鈥檚 academy these three days? He said to him: When I do not know your father鈥檚 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?

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讚讻转讬讘 讜诪讙专砖讬讛诐 讬讛讬讜 诇讘讛诪转诐 讜讙讜壮 诪讗讬 讞讬讬转诐 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讞讬讛 讜讛诇讗 讞讬讛 讘讻诇诇 讘讛诪讛 讛讬讗 讗诇讗 诪讗讬 讞讬讬转诐 讞讬讜转讗 诪诪砖 驻砖讬讟讗 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 讻讘讬住讛 讚讛讗 讗讬讻讗 爪注专讗 讚注专讘讜讘讬转讗

Vardimus said to him: As it is written with regard to the Levite cities: 鈥淎nd their open land shall be for their animals and for their substance, and for all their beasts鈥 (Numbers 35:3). What is the meaning of 鈥渢heir beasts鈥? If we say an actual beast, there is a difficulty, as isn鈥檛 a beast included in the category of animal, which has already been mentioned in the verse? Rather, what is the meaning of 鈥渢heir beasts [岣yyatam]鈥? It means their actual lives [岣yyuta]. 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鈥檚 unwashed clothes? Since it is vitally necessary for their well-being, laundering the clothing of the city鈥檚 residents takes precedence over the lives of others.

讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬谉 讗诇讜 谞讚专讬 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 诇专讘讬 讬讜住讬 诪讛讜 砖讬驻专 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 转讗 砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗讬谉 讗诇讜 谞讚专讬 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讗讘诇 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 讛讜讬讬谉

搂 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.

讚诇诪讗 诇讚讬讚讛讜 拽讗诪专 诇讛讜 诇讚讬讚讬 讗驻讬诇讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 诇讗 讛讜讬讬谉 诇讚讬讚讻讜 讚讗诪专讬转讜 讛讜讬讬谉 谞讚专讬 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讗讜讚讜 诇讬 讚讗讬谉 讗诇讜 谞讚专讬 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖

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鈥檚 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.

诪讗讬 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讗讜诪专 诪驻专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讗讜诪专 讗讬谉 诪驻专

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.

砖诇讗 诪爪讬谞讜 砖讜注诇 砖诪转 讘注驻专 驻讬专

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.

转谞讬讗 讻讜讜转讬讛 讚专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讚讘专讬诐 砖讬砖 讘讛谉 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 诪驻专 讘讬谉 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 讘讬谉 讘讬谞讛 诇讘讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 砖讗讬谉 讘讛谉 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 诪驻专 讘讬谞讛 诇讘讬谉 讗讞专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 诪驻专 讻讬爪讚 讗诪专讛 拽讜谞诐 驻讬专讜转 注诇讬 讛专讬 讝讛 讬驻专 拽讜谞诐 砖讗讬谞讬 注讜砖讛 诇驻讬 讗讘讗 诇驻讬 讗讞讬讱 诇驻讬 讗讘讬讱 诇驻讬 讗讞讬 讜砖诇讗 讗转谉 转讘谉 诇驻谞讬 讘讛诪转讱 讜诪讬诐 诇驻谞讬 讘拽专讱 讗讬谉 讬讻讜诇 诇讛驻专

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.

砖诇讗 讗讻讞讜诇 砖诇讗 讗驻拽讜住 讜砖诇讗 讗砖诪砖 诪讟转讬 讬驻专 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛

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.

砖诇讗 讗爪讬注 诇讱 诪讟转讱 讜砖诇讗 讗诪讝讜讙 诇讱 讗转 讛讻讜住 讜砖诇讗 讗专讞抓 诇讱 驻谞讬讱 讬讚讬讱 讜专讙诇讬讱 讗讬谉 爪专讬讱 诇讛驻专

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.

专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讗讜诪专 讬驻专 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讞诇 讚讘专讜 讚讘专 讗讞专 诇讗 讬讞诇 讚讘专讜 诪讻讗谉 诇讞讻诐 砖讗讬谉 诪转讬专 谞讚专讬 注爪诪讜

Rabban Gamliel says: He should nevertheless nullify such vows, as it is stated: 鈥淗e shall not profane his word鈥 (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: 鈥淗e shall not profane his word,鈥 from here it may be derived that a halakhic authority cannot dissolve his own vows.

诪讗谉 砖诪注讬谞谉 讚讗诪专 砖诇讗 讗讻讞讜诇 讜砖诇讗 讗驻拽讜住 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 讛讜讬讬谉 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讜拽转谞讬 讚诪驻专 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛

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鈥檚 understanding of the opinion of Rabbi Yosei.

讗诪专 诪专 讜砖诇讗 讗砖诪砖 诪讟转讬 讬驻专 诪砖讜诐 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专讛 讛谞讗转 转砖诪讬砖讬 注诇讬讱 诇诪讛 诇讬 讛驻专讛 讛讗 诪砖讜注讘讚转 诇讬讛 讗诇讗 讘讗讜诪专转 讛谞讗转 转砖诪讬砖讱 注诇讬 讜讻讚专讘 讻讛谞讗

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鈥檚 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.

讚讗诪专 专讘 讻讛谞讗 讛谞讗转 转砖诪讬砖讬 注诇讬讱 讻讜驻讛 讜诪砖诪砖转讜 讛谞讗转 转砖诪讬砖讱 注诇讬 讬驻专 砖讗讬谉 诪讗讻讬诇讬谉 讗转 讛讗讚诐 讚讘专 讛讗住讜专 诇讜

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.

诪讗谉 转谞讗 讛讗 讚转谞讬讗 讚讘专讬诐 讛诪讜转专讬诐 讜讗讞专讬诐 谞讛讙讜 讘讛谉 讗讬住讜专 讗讬 讗转讛 专砖讗讬 诇谞讛讜讙 讘讛诐 讛讬转专 讻讚讬 诇讘讟诇谉 诪砖讜诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讗 讬讞诇 讚讘专讜 讚讘专 讗讞专 诇讗 讬讞诇 讚讘专讜 诪讻讗谉 诇转诇诪讬讚 讞讻诐 砖讗讬谉 诪驻专 谞讚专讬 注爪诪讜 诪谞讬 专讘谉 讙诪诇讬讗诇 讛讬讗

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: 鈥淗e shall not profane his word鈥 (Numbers 30:3). The verse indicates that any vow in which a person renders a matter forbidden to himself, i.e., 鈥渉is word,鈥 is considered a quasi-vow, which may not be profaned. The Gemara presents another interpretation of the verse: Alternatively, the verse states: 鈥淗e shall not profane his word鈥; 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鈥檚 vow even if it does not actually take effect.

讘注讗 诪讬谞讬讛 专讘讗 诪专讘 谞讞诪谉 转砖诪讬砖 讛诪讟讛 诇专讘谞谉 注讬谞讜讬 谞驻砖 讛讜讗 讗讜 讚讘专讬诐 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谞讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 转谞讬转讜讛 讜谞讟讜诇讛 讗谞讬 诪谉 讛讬讛讜讚讬诐

Rava raised a dilemma before Rav Na岣an: 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 Na岣an 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,

Scroll To Top