Nedarim 66 – I will not marry this girl!

Initially the rule was that if a part of a vow is annulled, one still has to fulfill the rest of it. Let's say someone vowed against drinking wine, or eating meat. They tell him, did you realize that on Shabbat and Yom Tov one is not supposed to deprive himself? He says, “Had I known that, I would never have vowed” - and he can drink on Shabbat.

However, Rabbi Akiva extended this: once is permitted to drink on Shabbat, he is also permitted to drink on other days, the vow is void. How did Rabbi Akiva derive that? – From the phrase, “The full vow that you pronounce you should fulfill.” The other side of this is: once you don't have the “full vow” obligatory on you, you don't even have a part.

If one says, “I am not marrying this girl because she is ugly” and she turns out to be beautiful, his vow is annulled, because it was a mistake. We assume that he just did not see her beauty at first.

Rabbi Ishmael takes this further: even if she was ugly and was made beautiful - so that this is something unforeseen, not something that he did not realized - his vow can still be annulled. Once a man vowed that he will not marry his niece because she was ugly (she had a bad-looking false tooth). Rabbi Ishmael paid the dentist to fix it, provided beautiful clothes to her, and then asked the man, “Is it this one that you vowed against?” The man said, “Had I known that she will be so beautiful, I would never have taken the vow!” Rabbi Ishmael cried and said, “All daughters of Israel are beautiful, it is only poverty that makes them sometimes homely.”

Art: Company drinking tea and wine in an inn by Heroman Van Der Mijn

Nedarim 65 – How to cancel (annul) a vow

One may want to annul a vow which he took hastily and which causes him inconvenience. Or, one may realize that a vow is not a good thing to do. In either case, he should go to a Sage and petition for his vow to be annulled.

The Sage will ask about the circumstances. If it transpires that the man who made the vow did not realize some special circumstance that existed when he made the vow, and had he known about it, he would never have made the vow, the vow is considered a mistake from the beginning, and the Sage annuls it.

For example, a man came to Rabbi Akiva and said that he made a vow against his wife, so that she should not be able to benefit from him. Since he is obligated to give her benefits, in order not to transgress now he had to divorce her. Rabbi Akiva told him that: “Divorce and pay the full amount of the Ketubah.” The Ketubah was 4,000 dinars. The man then said, “I inherited 8,000 dinars from my father, and half of it went to my brother. Of the remaining 4,000, couldn't my wife take half and I – also half?” But Rabbi Akiva told him that he would have to pay it all, even if he has to sell his hair. The man then said, “Had I known about this, I would never have vowed!” And this was exactly what is required for his vow to be annulled.

Art: Portrait Of The Artists Wife by Kazimir Severinovich Malevich

Nedarim 59 – Vows are bad

In trying to answer the question about an onion – whether new growth in it removes the prohibitions of the old one – the Talmud compares it to tithes, to Kohen's portion (terumah), and finally to our original ruling about vows that one takes against a fruit. In this last case, all that grows from that fruit was forbidden, which must prove that new growth does not nullify the old one.

However, even this proof does not stand. Vows are different because they are inherently wrong, and no common laws can be derived from them. Why are vows wrong? – Just like Rabbi Nathan said – one who makes a vow is like one who builds a private altar for sacrifices (which is now forbidden, there should be only one Altar in Jerusalem), and one who fulfilled his vow is as if he brought a sacrifice on this altar.

To explain, one who builds a private altar probably thinks he does a mitzvah by worshiping in this manner. And one who makes a vow also feels that he did a great thing by creating another prohibition for himself. In truth, the argument should be just the opposite: there are enough prohibitions already, and one should not make more.

Art: Still Life: Fruit by Gustave Courbet

Nedarim 58 – The question of an onion

Rabbi Ishmael from a village by the sea asked a question about an onion, and some say that he brought an actual onion. This onion was picked up in a Shmita year and thus was prohibited from trading to keep after there were no more such onions in the fields, and so on. However, it was replanted in the next year, experienced significant growth, and now the question is: does this new permitted growth nullify the prohibitions of the base onion, or does the new growth itself have the limitations of the Shmita produce.

Rabbi Ishmael asked about the complete onion and not just the new growth because the answer to this question would automatically give him the answer about the new growth. So he preferred to ask one question that combined the two.

The Talmud attempts to find the answer by comparing this to other contemporary or older rulings but finds differences; for example, in our case, the onion does not entirely decompose in the ground, but other rulings may be talking about cases where a seed does decompose.

So far, the question is unresolved. The question is unrelated to vows (Nedarim), but it is discussed here because, on the next page, the Talmud will attempt to derive proof from a law of vows we just learned.

Art: Sardines suspended from twine and onions on a stone ledge by Giuseppe Recco

Talmud Illuminated Coffee Table Edition

About this project

Talmud Illuminated blog/website was started seven years ago, and by now it is almost complete, see here. It aims to provide a concise and clear summary of each page of the Talmud, illuminated by a selection from world's best art.

Many people asked about a printed edition of it, and by now we can try to print one of the tractates, which we will find most fitting for the first publication.

All money collected will go toward publishing, a la Chofetz Chaim style.

Kickstarter: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1572306154/talmud-illuminated-coffee-table-edition

Nedarim 57 – I am not eating this fruit!

If one vows that he will not eat specific fruit or that they are forbidden to him like a sacrifice, then even if he exchanges them for something else, or if something grows from them, this, too, is forbidden. When he compared his prohibition to sacrifice, he implied the same laws. Just as for a sacrifice – its exchange and its fruit (offspring) are forbidden – so too the fruit he forbade on himself.

However, if he vows against a specific type of fruit, he can exchange it for something else and eat it. This is true for fruit whose seeds decompose in the ground. But those that partially remain, such as onions, are forbidden even as offshoots.

If one is upset with his wife's going to visit her family's home and vows that any benefit from him is forbidden to her in case she does go, we need to look at time limits. If he said that his vow was until Passover, she has to watch not to go before Passover or not to derive any benefit from him. But if he said that the benefit is forbidden until Passover if she goes anytime this year, until Sukkot (which is seven months later), then if she still plans to go, she should be careful not to derive any benefit from him before Passover, because is she finally went, she would violate his vow retroactively.

Art: Still life with fruit bowl and lemons by Paul Gauguin

Nedarim 56 – A bed for good fortune

If one vows not to enter a house, he can still use the attic – so says Rabbi Meir because people think of the attic as something separate from the house. But the Sages disagree since they estimate that people mean the complete house, including the attic. However, if he specifically said that he won't enter the attic, all agree that he meant that, and he can still enter the house.

If one vowed not to sleep in a bed, he is still allowed to use a special bed called "dargash," - which is again the opinion of Rabbi Meir. But what is dargash?

Ulla said that this was a bed of good fortune. It was customary to designate a bed for a good angel protecting the home to elicit good luck for the house. Since this "dargash" is mentioned in many other rules, the Talmud argues that it could not be the good fortune bed and that dargash means a bed with a leather interior and loops in which the ropes were tied and could be untied. So the bed of good fortune is not disproved, but it must go under a different name.

Art: The Bedroom By Pieter De Hooch

Nedarim 50 – The vow of the satiated dog

Kalba Savua was a rich man who got his name because everybody who entered his house hungry as a dog (Kalba) would leave it satisfied (Savua). His daughter Rachel saw Akiva, who was an unlearned shepherd forty years old, and made a deal with him: she would get engaged to him if Akiva promised her to go study Torah. Akiva pledged to, and they got engaged in secret. When Kalva Savua found out, he vowed against her getting any benefit from him and his possessions, and Rachel had to leave the house. They lived in poverty, and Akiva cried, removing a straw from her hair, and promised to give her a gold diadem in the form of Jerusalem if he ever got rich.

Once Elijah, the prophet, appeared as a poor man asking for the straw to cover his wife, who had just given birth. This was to console Akiva, who could tell Rachel that they at least had straw.

Rachel convinced Akiva to study at an academy, so he left the house and studied for twelve years. As he was coming back, he heard Rachel's neighbor saying to Rachel, "Your husband is not your equal, and moreover, he left you for twelve years – your father did right to disinherit you!" Rachel answered her, "If he listened, I would want him to study another twelve years." On hearing this, now a Rabbi, Akiva went back for another twelve years. He came back as the leading scholar of the generation.

Eventually, Kalba Savua was able to annul his vow because he would never make it had he known that Akiva would become a scholar of such level. Rabbi Akiva became rich from Kalba Savua and because of the other five incidents. Here is the one.

A Roman by the name of Tinneius Rufus kept losing arguments with Rabbi Akiva in front of the Roman Emperor. The wife of Tinneus, who was extremely beautiful, suggested this: if the husband gives her permission, she will go and seduce Rabbi Akiva. Since Jewish God hates promiscuity, Rabbi Akiva will lose God's favor, and Tinneus will win over him. She got permission. When Rabbi Akiva saw her, he spat, laughed, and cried. She asked, why? He said he would tell her two reasons, but not the third one. He spat because, beautiful as she was, she came from a putrid drop. He cried because even her exceeding beauty would one day rot in a grave. He did not tell her that he saw that in the future, she would convert and marry him. She then became remorseful and asked him if she could repent her previous misdeeds. He answered, "yes." She converted and eventually married him, bringing him wealth.

Art: Peasant Woman Cutting Straw by Vincent Van Gogh

Nedarim 45 – When partners fight

If two people jointly owned a courtyard – a widespread situation – and then they had a falling out so that each prohibited himself, by a vow, to benefit from his fellow's property, they have a problem entering their own courtyard. Since the courtyard is not divided, each portion of it is jointly owned by both. Thus, when one treads on the ground, he is partially transgressing the property of his fellow, which is prohibited to him by a vow.

However, Rabbi Elazar ben Yakov says that each one enters his own property when he enters the courtyard. When people buy property in common, they divide the ownership of it for use by area and in time. Exactly which portion and at what time belongs to each is determined by the future event of him entering it. So, when he comes into the courtyard, we say that this is precisely what they had agreed to, and now his action clarifies their agreement. This idea of retroactive designation, that is, "I see what happens, and I say that in the past we had actually agreed to exactly this division," is called "breira" or "clarification."

Thus, the argument between the Sages and Rabbi Elazar ben Yakov is whether or not we can apply "clarification" in this case. The Sages do not permit it, but Rabbi Yakov uses it because there is no other choice. Should the courtyard be larger so that they can divide? Even he would not allow them to use it until they split.

Art: A Dutch Courtyard by Pieter De Hooch

Nedarim 44 – Because of the cheats

People found the following loophole in order not to give tithes: they would declare their field ownerless – and ownerless fields do not need tithes – and then immediately acquire it back. In this way, they would not need to part with about 22% of the crop.

To counteract this, the Sages changed the nature of the ownership and decreed that anyone who declares his field ownerless is allowed to change his mind and get it back within the next three days. Now, he still owns the field and has to give tithes. So that people would take this decree seriously, the Sages had to allow one to get the field back even if someone had already taken possession of it.

Why is this mentioned here? Because it seems to answer who is right in the previous question of feeding one who does not have what to eat – there Rabbi Yose did not allow the circumvent a vow by declaring the food ownerless. If at least after three days, one cannot retract, then such declarations are to be taken seriously, and the food in question is really ownerless and not subject to a vow, and the hungry person can eat it – despite what Rabbi Yose said.

However, the Talmud finds a way to explain this rule, even according to Rabbi Yose. Thus we do not have a definitive conclusion.

Art: Field of Flax by Edgar Degas

Nedarim 43 – Vagaries of vows

If A is prohibited by a vow to receive any benefit from B, and then A does not have what to eat, what is B to do if he wants to feed A? B can go to a storekeeper whom he frequents and tell him, "A does not have what to eat, and I don't know what to do about it." The storekeeper can take the hint and feed A, and B can then repay him. This is allowed since B never explicitly promised to repay, so the storekeeper acts on his own accord.

If they are traveling together on the road and A does not have what to eat, B can give food as a present to other travelers, and they can feed A. If there is no traveler with them, B can put the food on a rock and say, "This food is ownerless, and anyone can take it," and A can then eat it.

Rabbi Yose does not allow B to feed A by putting food on a rock because it is evident that he is giving food as a gift. Some say that even passing through other travelers is not permitted by Rabbi Yose.

Art: Feeding Time by V. Chevilliard

Nedarim 41 – Moral lessons from Rav Ami

Rabbi Ami was quoted earlier, so we continue with his teachings. When the Torah says, “Because you did not serve God when you had everything and lacked nothing, now you will serve your enemies in hunger and cold and nakedness... without anything,” what does “without anything” mean? What does it add? – Without a wife, he has been without joy, blessing, goodness, Torah, protection, assistance, atonement, peace, and life, and he is considered only half-man.

Others say that it means without assistance, others - without understanding. One born with understanding has everything within him, but one born without it should work hard to achieve it. If he mastered it, what does he lack? And if he did not achieve understanding, what has he acquired?

Rav Yosef got sick and forgot his learning. His student Abaye often reminded him, "This is what you taught us, and you derived it from here."

Rabbi Yehudah the Prince, who compiled and wrote down the Mishnah, initially had thirteen complete versions. He taught seven of these to Rabbi Chiya. Later he got sick and forgot the other six. However, a certain laundryman heard Rabbi Yehudah repeat them out loud, so now he taught them back. Rabbi Yehudah then said, "You made me!" - anyone who teaches a fellow Torah is as if he made him, just like Abraham and Sarah, who "made souls in Charan."

Art: My Wife and I by Istvan Desi-Huber

Nedarim 40 – Curing the sick

The mitzvah of visiting the sick has no limit. How so? Does it mean that the reward for it is limitless? – Why, all mitzvot are that way! Instead, even a person of great importance should visit people of more diminutive stature. Or it could mean that there is no limit to how many times one may see a sick person, provided that it does not tire the sick one.

Rabbi Akiva noticed that one of his students did not attend the classes. He visited the student and found him sick and in a dirty, dusty room. Rabbi Akiva cleaned the room and cared for the student – some say that because of this visit, the innkeeper started watching for the student more – and the student recovered. The student told Rabbi Akiva, "Teacher, you brought me back to life!" Rabbi Akiva then taught that one who does not visit the sick is as if he spills blood.

When Rava would get sick, he first told no one – so that his luck would not turn to the worst through the people wishing him ill. But after three days, he would announce it, saying, "Whoever does not like me will rejoice, and then God will have mercy on me, just as He does for anyone over whom enemies rejoice, and my friends will pray for me."

Art: The Sick Woman  by Jan Steen

Nedarim 39 – Visiting the sick

The hint to the mitzvah of visiting the sick comes from the Korah's rebellion. Moses said, “If these people die like all men and are visited...” – and from here, we see that usually when people get sick before they die, it is expected that they should be visited.

If one vows against a fellow, he may still visit him if the fellow gets sick, but he should stand and not sit. What are we talking about? If the visitor is prohibited from benefiting the sick one, then the visitor should be allowed to sit: he is doing a mitzvah. And suppose the visitor is prohibited from receiving benefits from the visitor. In that case, no visits should be allowed since the visitor inevitably derives some benefit by entering the house, which is more protected than being in the street!?

Really, possessions of the visitor are prohibited to the sick. So the visitor should be able to enter and even sit with the sick person. However, the visitor may sit more than necessary, going beyond the bounds of the mitzvah and providing the sick person with the extra benefit, for which one could even claim a reward. By doing this for free, the visitor would be violating the vow. Therefore, the Sages allowed him to stand – since he would leave on time – but not to sit.

Art: The Sick Room by Emma Brownlow

Nedarim 38 - Only Moses had to observe the Torah

Rabbi Yose, the son of Rabbi Chanina, said, "The Torah was given only to Moses and his descendants" because it clearly states, "Carve for yourself" and "Write for yourself." However, Moses was friendly and gave it to all of Israel.

Now, how could it be? Aren't all Israel obligated to fulfill the Torah? Moses himself said, "I was commanded by God at this time to teach you the laws and statutes." – Sure, Moses was commanded, he alone, but he chose to teach to all.

But what about the song Moses wrote so that "it will be for God a testimony?" What testimony is needed if they were not commanded to keep the Torah?

The Talmud concedes the point and explains that the Torah was given to all of Israel. However, only Moses and his descendants were initially given the power for logical analysis and deductions. Out of the goodness of his heart, he taught this to all.

Art: Moses with the Ten Commandments by Philippe de Champaigne