נדרים סו

נדרים סו

לוֹמַר שֶׁאֵין מְקָרְעִין שְׁטַר כְּתוּבָּה.

In fact, arrangements are made with creditors. Rather, Rabbi Akiva is saying that they do not tear the document of the marriage contract. Even if in practice he is left with enough to survive on, the debt remains in force, so that when he will have more money, she will be paid in full.

מַתְנִי׳ פּוֹתְחִין בְּיָמִים טוֹבִים וּבְשַׁבָּתוֹת. בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: אוֹתָן הַיָּמִים — מוּתָּרִין, וּשְׁאָר כׇּל הַיָּמִים אֲסוּרִין. עַד שֶׁבָּא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְלִימֵּד שֶׁהַנֶּדֶר שֶׁהוּתַּר מִכְּלָלוֹ — הוּתַּר כּוּלּוֹ.

MISHNA: If one vowed that certain food or drink or all food and drink be forbidden to him, the halakhic authorities may broach dissolution by raising the issue of Festivals and Shabbatot. They ask him whether he realized at the time he stated his vow that he would have to uphold it on these festive days as well. At first they said that on those days that he did not intend to include in his vow, that item is permitted, but on all the rest of the days, food and drink are still forbidden by his vow, until Rabbi Akiva came and taught that a vow that is partially dissolved is dissolved entirely.

כֵּיצַד? אָמַר ״קֻוֽנָּם שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לְכוּלְּכֶם״, הוּתַּר אֶחָד מֵהֶן — הוּתְּרוּ כּוּלָּן.

How so? In the case of one who said to a group of people: I will not benefit from all of you as it is konam for me, if benefit from one of them was permitted for whatever reason, benefit from all of them is permitted.

״שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לָזֶה וְלָזֶה״, הוּתַּר הָרִאשׁוֹן — הוּתְּרוּ כּוּלָּן, הוּתַּר הָאַחֲרוֹן — הָאַחֲרוֹן מוּתָּר וְכוּלָּן אֲסוּרִין. הוּתַּר הָאֶמְצָעִי, הֵימֶנּוּ וּלְמַטָּה — מוּתָּר, הֵימֶנּוּ וּלְמַעְלָה — אָסוּר.

However, if one said: I will not benefit from this one and from that one as it is konam for me, then if benefit from the first one was permitted for whatever reason, benefit from all of them is permitted. But if benefit from the last one was permitted, benefit from the last one alone is permitted, but benefit from all the others is forbidden, as the benefit from each is considered to have been prohibited by a separate vow. If benefit from the middle one was permitted, then from him and below, i.e., all those enumerated after him, benefit is permitted; from him and above, i.e., those listed before him, benefit is forbidden.

״שֶׁאֲנִי נֶהֱנֶה לָזֶה קׇרְבָּן וְלָזֶה קׇרְבָּן״ — צְרִיכִין פֶּתַח לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד.

The mishna gives another example of interconnected vows: If one stated: I will not benefit from this one, as if he were an offering, and from that one, as if he were an offering, then an extenuation enabling the dissolution of a vow is required for each and every one, as they have the status of separate vows.

״קֻוֽנָּם יַיִן שֶׁאֲנִי טוֹעֵם, שֶׁהַיַּיִן רַע לַמֵּעַיִים״, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: וַהֲלֹא הַמְיוּשָּׁן יָפֶה לַמֵּעַיִים! הוּתַּר בִּמְיוּשָּׁן. וְלֹא בִּמְיוּשָּׁן בִּלְבַד הוּתַּר, אֶלָּא בְּכׇל הַיַּיִן. ״קֻוֽנָּם בָּצָל שֶׁאֵינִי טוֹעֵם, שֶׁהַבָּצָל רַע לַלֵּב״, אָמְרוּ לוֹ: הֲלֹא הַכּוּפְרִי יָפֶה לַלֵּב! הוּתַּר בַּכּוּפְרִי. וְלֹא בַּכּוּפְרִי בִּלְבַד הוּתַּר, אֶלָּא בְּכׇל הַבְּצָלִים. מַעֲשֶׂה הָיָה, וְהִתִּירוֹ רַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּכׇל הַבְּצָלִים.

The mishna gives another example of a vow that was partially dissolved. If one stated in a vow: Wine is konam for me and I will not taste it, as wine is bad for the intestines, and they said to him: But aged wine is good for the intestines, then the vow is dissolved with regard to aged wine. And not only with regard to aged wine is it dissolved, but with regard to all types of wine, since a vow that has been partially dissolved is entirely dissolved. Likewise, if one stated in a vow: Onions are konam for me and I will not taste them, as onions are bad for the heart, and they said to him: But the kuferi onion is good for the heart, then, in this case too, it 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.

גְּמָ׳ הוּתַּר הָאַחֲרוֹן — הָאַחֲרוֹן מוּתָּר, וְכוּלָּן אֲסוּרִין. מַאן תַּנָּא?

GEMARA: The mishna taught: If benefit from the last one was permitted, benefit from the last one alone is permitted but benefit from all the others is forbidden. If one stated: I will not benefit from this one, as if he were an offering, and from that one, as if he were an offering, then an extenuation enabling the dissolution of a vow is required for each and every one. The Gemara poses a question: Who is the tanna that taught this mishna?

אָמַר רָבָא: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר ״שְׁבוּעָה״ לְכׇל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד.

Rava said: It is taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who said that one who utters a false oath to several people at once is not liable to bring an offering for each false oath unless he says: An oath, in his oath to each and every one (Shevuot 38a). If he said: An oath, only once, even if he specified each person by saying: Not to you, not to you, it is still considered to be a single oath. Otherwise, it is viewed as one oath. The mishna, which requires a separate extenuation for each person only if he stated: As if he were an offering, with regard to each of them, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon stated with regard to oaths.

קֻוֽנָּם יַיִן שֶׁאֲנִי טוֹעֵם וְכוּ׳. וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּאֵין רַע! אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: וְעוֹד, ״יָפֶה״ קָתָנֵי.

The mishna taught that if one said: Wine is konam for me and I will not taste it, as wine is bad for the intestines, his vow is dissolved, for aged wine is good for the intestines. The Gemara asks: And let him derive that the vow is dissolved from the fact that aged wine is not bad for the intestines. Even if it is not actively good for the intestines, the vow should nevertheless be considered mistaken. Rabbi Abba said: The mishna teaches: And furthermore, it is good. In other words, even if aged wine is merely not harmful to the intestines the vow is dissolved, and they strengthened their claim by pointing out that it is in fact beneficial.

קֻוֽנָּם בָּצָל שֶׁאֲנִי טוֹעֵם שֶׁהַבָּצָל וְכוּ׳. וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ דְּאֵין רַע! אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: וְעוֹד, ״יָפֶה״ קָתָנֵי.

The mishna taught: If one said: Onions are konam for me and I will not taste them, as onions are bad for the heart, his vow is dissolved, for kuferi onions are good for the heart. The Gemara asks: And let him derive that the vow is dissolved from the fact that the kuferi onion is not bad for the heart. Rabbi Abba said: The mishna teaches: And furthermore, it is good. Here too, they added that the kuferi onion is actually good for the heart, but this addition was not needed to justify the dissolution of the vow.

מַתְנִי׳ פּוֹתְחִין לָאָדָם בִּכְבוֹד עַצְמוֹ וּבִכְבוֹד בָּנָיו. אוֹמְרִים לוֹ: אִילּוּ הָיִיתָ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁלְּמָחָר אוֹמְרִין עָלֶיךָ ״כָּךְ הִיא וִוסְתּוֹ שֶׁל פְּלוֹנִי, מְגָרֵשׁ אֶת נָשָׁיו״, וְעַל בְּנוֹתֶיךָ יְהוּ אוֹמְרִין ״בְּנוֹת גְּרוּשׁוֹת הֵן״, ״מָה רָאֲתָה אִמָּן שֶׁל אֵלּוּ לְהִתְגָּרֵשׁ״. וְאָמַר: ״אִילּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁכֵּן, לֹא הָיִיתִי נוֹדֵר״ — הֲרֵי זֶה מוּתָּר.

MISHNA: The halakhic authorities may broach dissolution for a person by raising the issue of his own honor and the honor of his children. For example, if he took a vow that resulted in his needing to divorce his wife, they may say to him: Had you known that tomorrow people will say about you: This is the habit [veset] of so-and-so, that he divorces his wives due to vows, and they will say about your daughters: They are daughters of divorce, or they will ask: What did their mother see to divorce, thereby giving them a bad reputation. And if the man who vowed said: Had I known it was so, I would not have vowed, it is dissolved.

״קֻוֽנָּם שֶׁאֲנִי נוֹשֵׂא אֶת פְּלוֹנִית כְּעוּרָה״ וַהֲרֵי הִיא נָאָה, ״שְׁחוֹרָה״ וַהֲרֵי הִיא לְבָנָה, ״קְצָרָה״ וַהֲרֵי הִיא אֲרוּכָּה — מוּתָּר בָּהּ. לֹא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהִיא כְּעוּרָה וְנַעֲשֵׂת נָאָה, שְׁחוֹרָה וְנַעֲשֵׂת לְבָנָה, קְצָרָה וְנַעֲשֵׂת אֲרוּכָּה — אֶלָּא שֶׁהַנֶּדֶר טָעוּת.

The Mishna continues: If a man said: Marrying ugly so-and-so is konam for me, and she is in fact beautiful, or if, in vowing not to marry her, he called her black, and she is in fact white, or if, in vowing not to marry her, he called her short, and she is in fact tall, he is permitted to her. Not because she was ugly and became beautiful, black and became white, or short and became tall, but rather, because the vow was mistaken from the outset.

וּמַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁנָּדַר מִבַּת אֲחוֹתוֹ הֲנָיָיה, וְהִכְנִיסוּהָ לְבֵית רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְיִיפּוּהָ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: בְּנִי, מִזּוֹ נָדַרְתָּ? אָמַר לוֹ: לָאו, וְהִתִּירָהּ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל.

The Mishna relates: And an incident occurred with regard to one who vowed against deriving benefit from the daughter of his sister, as he did not wish to marry her. And they brought her into the house of Rabbi Yishmael and he beautified her. When she was later brought before the one who took the vow, Rabbi Yishmael said to him: My son, did you vow that you would not derive benefit from this woman? He said to him: No, and Rabbi Yishmael permitted her to him, as he demonstrated that the vow had been made in error.

בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה בָּכָה רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְאָמַר: בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל נָאוֹת הֵן, אֶלָּא שֶׁהָעֲנִיּוּת מְנַוַּולְתָּן. וּכְשֶׁמֵּת רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל הָיוּ בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל נוֹשְׂאוֹת קִינָה, וְאוֹמְרוֹת: ״בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּכֶינָה״, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר בְּשָׁאוּל: ״בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל שָׁאוּל בְּכֶינָה״.

At that time Rabbi Yishmael wept and said: The daughters of Israel are beautiful, but poverty makes them ugly. And when Rabbi Yishmael died, the daughters of Israel raised a lamentation, saying: Daughters of Israel, weep for Rabbi Yishmael. And it likewise states about Saul, who also concerned himself with the welfare of the daughters of Israel: “Daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet with other delights, who put ornaments of gold upon your apparel” (II Samuel 1:24).

גְּמָ׳ מַעֲשֶׂה לִסְתּוֹר?! חַסּוֹרֵי מְחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: אֲפִילּוּ כְּעוּרָה וְנַעֲשֵׂת נָאָה, שְׁחוֹרָה וְנַעֲשֵׂת לְבָנָה, קְצָרָה וְנַעֲשֵׂת אֲרוּכָּה. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד שֶׁנָּדַר מִבַּת אֲחוֹתוֹ וְהִכְנִיסוּהָ לְבֵית רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל וְיִיפּוּהָ וְכוּ׳.

GEMARA: The Gemara poses a question: Was an incident cited to contradict what was just taught? It first taught that if she was ugly and was later beautified, the vow is not dissolved, and then the mishna quoted an incident involving Rabbi Yishmael where he did dissolve the vow. The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: Rabbi Yishmael says: Even if she was ugly and became beautiful, black and became white, short and became tall, the vow can be dissolved. An incident occurred with regard to one who vowed against having benefit from the daughter of his sister, as he did not wish to marry her. And they brought her into Rabbi Yishmael’s house and he beautified her.

תָּנָא: שֵׁן תּוֹתֶבֶת הָיְתָה לָהּ, וְעָשָׂה לָהּ רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל שֵׁן שֶׁל זָהָב מִשֶּׁלּוֹ. כִּי שְׁכֵיב רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, פְּתַח עֲלֵיהּ הַהוּא סַפְדָנָא הָכִי: ״בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּכֶינָה הַמַּלְבִּישְׁכֶן וְכוּ׳״.

It was taught: She had a false tooth [shen totevet], which disfigured her, and Rabbi Yishmael made her a gold tooth from his own money, thereby beautifying her. When Rabbi Yishmael died, a certain eulogizer began his eulogy about him like this: Daughters of Israel, weep for Rabbi Yishmael, who clothed you.

הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לַהּ לִדְבֵיתְהוּ ״קֻוֽנָּם שֶׁאִי אַתְּ נֶהֱנֵית לִי עַד שֶׁתַּטְעִימִי תַּבְשִׁילֵךְ לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וּלְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן״. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה טְעֵים, אֲמַר, קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה לַעֲשׂוֹת שָׁלוֹם בֵּין אִישׁ לְאִשְׁתּוֹ אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה שְׁמִי שֶׁנִּכְתַּב בִּקְדוּשָּׁה יִמָּחֶה עַל הַמַּיִם הַמְאָרְרִים בְּסָפֵק, וַאֲנִי עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה.

§ The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to his wife: Benefiting from me is konam for you until you have given Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon your cooked food to taste, so they can see for themselves what a bad cook you are. She brought the food to them, and Rabbi Yehuda tasted it, without concern for his honor. He said: This is an a fortiori inference: And what can be seen, that in order to make peace between a man and his wife, the Torah said: My name, that is written in sanctity, shall be blotted out in the waters that curse, as the words written on a scroll, including the name of God, were blotted out during the ceremony of preparing the water that a sota would drink. And this is so even in a case of where it is uncertain if this will bring peace between them, as she may or not be guilty of adultery. I, all the more so, should waive my honor in order to bring peace to this couple.

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן לָא טְעֵים, אֲמַר: יָמוּתוּ כׇּל בְּנֵי אַלְמָנָה, וְאַל יָזוּז שִׁמְעוֹן מִמְּקוֹמוֹ. וְעוֹד: כִּי הֵיכִי דְּלָא לִתְרַגְּלִי לְמִינְדָּר.

Conversely, Rabbi Shimon did not taste. He said: Let all the children of the widow die, and Shimon will not budge from his place. In other words, the husband can die and leave his wife a widow and his children orphans, and let them die too, rather than have people belittle the dignity of Torah scholars by taking such vows. And furthermore, there is another reason for my refusal: So that they should not become used to taking vows.

הַהוּא דְּאָמַר לִדְבֵיתְהוּ ״קֻוֽנָּם שֶׁאִי אַתְּ נֶהֱנֵית לִי עַד שֶׁתָּרוֹקִּי בּוֹ בְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל״. אֲתָת וּרְקַק אַלְּבוּשֵׁיהּ. אָמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: וְהָא הַאי לְזִילוּתָא קָא מִיכַּוֵּין! אָמַר לֵיהּ: מִירָק עַל מָנֵי דְּרַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל זִילוּתָא רַבְּתָא הִיא.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to his wife: Benefiting from me is konam for you until you have spat on Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. She came to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and spat on his clothing. Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: But this man intended the humiliation of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, which is not achieved by spitting on his clothing. Ravina said to him: Spittle on the clothing of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is a great humiliation for him, and she has thereby fulfilled the vow.

הָהוּא דַּאֲמַר לִדְבֵיתְהוּ ״קֻוֽנָּם שֶׁאִי אַתְּ נֶהֱנֵית לִי עַד שֶׁתַּרְאִי מוּם יָפֶה שֶׁבִּיךְ לְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי״.

The Gemara relates: There was a certain person who said to his wife: Benefiting from me is konam for you until you show some beautiful [yafeh] part of you to Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei. Rabbi Yishmael attempted to find something beautiful about the woman.

אָמַר לָהֶם: שֶׁמָּא רֹאשָׁהּ נָאֶה? אָמְרוּ לוֹ: סְגַלְגַּל. שֶׁמָּא שְׂעָרָהּ נָאֶה? דּוֹמֶה לַאֲנִיצֵי פִּשְׁתָּן. שֶׁמָּא עֵינֶיהָ נָאוֹת? טְרוּטוֹת הֵן. שֶׁמָּא אׇזְנֶיהָ נָאוֹת? כְּפוּלוֹת הֵן. שֶׁמָּא חוֹטְמָהּ נָאֶה? בָּלוּם הוּא. שֶׁמָּא שִׂפְתוֹתֶיהָ נָאוֹת? עָבוֹת הֵן. שֶׁמָּא צַוָּארָהּ נָאֶה? שָׁקוּט הוּא. שֶׁמָּא כְּרֵיסָהּ נָאֶה? צָבֶה הוּא. שֶׁמָּא רַגְלֶיהָ נָאוֹת? רְחָבוֹת כְּשֶׁל אֲווֹזָא. שֶׁמָּא שְׁמָהּ נָאֶה? ״לִכְלוּכִית״ שְׁמָהּ. אָמַר לָהֶן: יָפֶה קוֹרִין אוֹתָהּ לִכְלוּכִית, שֶׁהִיא מְלוּכְלֶכֶת בְּמוּמִין, וְשַׁרְיַיהּ.

He said to his students: Perhaps her head is beautiful? They said to him: It is round [segalgal]. Perhaps her hair is beautiful? They replied: Her hair resembles stalks of flax. Perhaps her eyes are beautiful? They are narrow [terutot]. Perhaps her ears are beautiful? They are double in size. Perhaps her nose is beautiful? It is stubby. Perhaps her lips are beautiful? They are thick. Perhaps her neck is beautiful? It is low and short. Perhaps her stomach is beautiful? It is swollen. Perhaps her feet are beautiful? They are as wide as a goose’s. Perhaps her name is beautiful? Her name is Likhlukhit. He said to them: It is fitting [yafeh] that she is called by the name Likhlukhit, as she is dirty [melukhlekhet] with blemishes, and he permitted her to benefit from her husband, because she did have one beautiful feature, her fitting name.

הָהוּא בַּר בָּבֶל דִּסְלֵיק לְאַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל, נְסֵיב אִיתְּתָא. אֲמַר לַהּ: בַּשִּׁילִי לִי תְּרֵי טַלְפֵי. בַּשִּׁילָה לֵיהּ תְּרֵי טַלְפֵי. רְתַח עֲלַהּ. לִמְחַר אֲמַר לַהּ: בַּשִּׁילִי לִי גְּרִיוָא. בַּשִּׁילָה לֵיהּ גְּרִיוָא. אֲמַר לַהּ: זִילִי אַיְיתִי לִי תְּרֵי בוּצִינֵי. אֲזַלַת וְאַיְיתַי לֵיהּ תְּרֵי שְׁרָגֵי.

The Gemara cites another incident: There was a certain Babylonian who went up to Eretz Yisrael and married a woman there. He said to her: Cook two lentils, i.e., some lentils, for me. She cooked exactly two lentils for him. He grew angry with her. On the following day, so that she would not repeat what she had done, he said to her: Cook a se’a [geriva] for me, intending: A large amount. She cooked an actual se’a for him, far more than what one person could eat. He said to her: Go and bring me two butzinei, intending small gourds, as butzinei are small gourds in the Aramaic dialect spoken in Babylonia. She went and brought him two lamps [sheraggei], called butzinei in the Aramaic dialect spoken in Eretz Yisrael.

אֲמַר לַהּ: זִילִי תְּבַרִי יָתְהוֹן עַל רֵישָׁא דְבָבָא. הֲוָה יָתֵיב בָּבָא בֶּן בּוּטָא אַבָּבָא וְקָא דָאֵין דִּינָא. אֲזַלַת וּתְבַרַת יָתְהוֹן עַל רֵישֵׁיהּ. אֲמַר לַהּ: מָה הָדֵין דַּעֲבַדְתְּ? אֲמַרָה לֵיהּ: כָּךְ צִיוַּנִי בַּעְלִי. אֲמַר: אַתְּ עָשִׂית רְצוֹן בַּעְלִיךְ, הַמָּקוֹם יוֹצִיא מִמֵּךְ שְׁנֵי בָּנִים כְּבָבָא בֶּן בּוּטָא.

In anger, he said to her: Go and break them on the head of the bava, intending the gate, as bava means a gate in the Aramaic dialect spoken in Babylonia. She did not recognize this word. At that time, the Sage Bava ben Buta was sitting as a judge at the gate. She went and broke them on his head, as his name was Bava. He said to her: What is this you have done? She said to him: This is what my husband commanded me to do. He said: You fulfilled your husband’s desire, may the Omnipresent bring forth from you two sons, corresponding to the two candles, like Bava ben Buta.

הַדְרָן עֲלָךְ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר

נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה, אָבִיהָ וּבַעְלָהּ מְפִירִין נְדָרֶיהָ.

MISHNA: With regard to a betrothed young woman, her father and her husband together nullify her vows.