Nazir 4 – To be like Samson

If one accepts to be a nazir and to abstain only from grapes – he is a complete nazir, with all the prohibitions. Since the Torah forbade separately "...from new wine and aged wine," we see that partial prohibition has the force to impose a complete nazir vow on him.

The above is the view of the Sages. Rabbi Shimon disagrees: since the Torah said, "From anything made of grapevine," we see that only a complete declaration takes effect. Each disputant, the Sages and Rabbi Shimon, then explains away the other one's proof.

One can become a "nazir like Samson" or even just a "permanent nazir." The permanent nazir observes the laws of wine, ritual impurity, and not cutting hair all his life. However, if his hair is too heavy, he can trim it – and bring sacrifices – then continue. "Nazir like Samson" cannot cut his hair at all, but on the other hand, he is not bringing sacrifice even if he becomes impure – he just purifies himself and continues. Others say that "Nazir like Samson" does not exist – because Samson never became a nazir himself.

The categories of "Nazir like Samsom" and "permanent nazir" are nowhere mentioned in the Torah but constitute part of "unwritten laws." These were initially taught only from teacher to student and later recorded.

Art: The Wedding of Samson Rembrandt Van Rijn

Nazir 3 – Proximity search

If a person says, "I take on myself an obligation to bring birds (sacrifice)," – this also serves as a declaration that he is becoming a nazir. Since talking about Nebuchadnezzar, Daniel says that "His hair has grown like the feathers of an eagle" the person does a mental proximity search and, finding the two words "hair" and "eagle" (bird) close, he means the hair of a nazir when he refers to birds – this is the opinion of Rabbi Meir. The Sages, however, say that he is not a nazir because people do not do such proximity searches in their heads.

This explanation is hard to accept, though – not everybody is so knowledgeable. It could be that nobody does such searches. Instead, the man meant those birds that a nazir needs to bring if he becomes ritually impure – and this explains why Rabbi Meir says that he becomes a nazir. But perhaps he meant to pay for the bird sacrifice for someone else but not become a nazir himself? – We have to say that a nazir was passing before him.

The Sages, however, consider all these explanations of the point of view of Rabbi Meir as forced and say that the man does not become a nazir by promising a bird sacrifice.

Art: Exotic Pheasants and Other Birds By Charles Collins

Nazir 2 – What is a nazir?

A nazir is a person who makes a vow which includes abstaining from wine, cutting his hair, or coming into contact with a human course. It is wrong to become a nazir as self-punishment. Instead, if one chooses to become a nazir, it should be for self-improvement, and such a one is called “Holy to God.”

To become a nazir, one must make a declaration to this effect and entirely mean in. One does not become a nazir by mistake. If he changes his wording, and instead of “nazir,” says, for example, “nazik” – since this was a common form these days – he would also become a nazir.

Finally, if one makes an incomplete statement, such as “I will become...” and does not conclude, but there is enough evidence to what he really means, for example, by a nazir passing by and him pointing at this nazir – this is also effective.

Art: Two Peasants Drinking At A Table By David The Younger Teniers

Nedarim 91 – Adultery

If a woman says to her husband, "I am defiled for you," - he has to divorce her and pay her the Ketubah. We are talking about the situation where a wife of a Kohen was violated. Unlike a regular Jew, the Kohen cannot remain married to her.

Similarly, if she says, "Heaven between us," – this is a euphemism to say that he is impotent – she is likewise believed and gets a divorce and Ketubah. And a similar law applies if she says, "I am removed from all Jews." This is because she finds cohabitation painful. He cannot annul such a vow but instead has to divorce her and pay a Ketubah.

All these rulings were changed when the Sages saw that people were applying them to cheat others. Therefore, for all such claims, the wife is not believed. For impotence, they make a "polite request." However, there are many ways to understand this: a husband makes a banquet for his wife to convince her to be silent about this, or the court makes such a request, etc.

One time a husband entered a house where a man, known for his adventures with women, was hiding. The husband wanted to eat some cress, but the hiding man saw that a snake had tasted it, so he warned the husband. The question arose: Was the man's wife now prohibited to him because of possible adultery? Rava said that she was permitted, for had infidelity really happened, the man would instead prefer to see the husband dead. Rava supported his view with the quote, "They committed adultery, and the blood is on their hands."

Why did Rava need a quote? His logic seems right!? – There is an opposing idea, "Stolen waters are sweet, and the bread of secrecy is pleasant." So perhaps the lovers would prefer occasional meetings in secret to full availability. – This is why Rava needed his proof.

Art: A snake in the grass William Oliver

Nedarim 90 – How to revoke an non-existent vow

Usually, a husband can annul his wife's vow if it afflicts him or her. Suppose, however, she makes the following vow: she will be prohibited to derive any benefit from her husband if she ever does any service to his father. This vow does not yet exist. Nevertheless, it can be annulled for the following reasons: it involves self-affliction and is bound to happen.

A man prohibited himself from any benefit from the world if he married without first learning the laws of proper behavior. Ultimately, he could not learn, and due to his vow, he could not get married. Rav Acha tricked him into marrying by telling him the vow was invalid. Then, after the vow became valid, he pushed him into the dirt – so he needed a cleaning service, which his vow prohibited.

In this state, Rav Acha brought the man to Rav Chisda, a Sage empowered to annul vows. Who can be as wise as Rav Acha to act like this? Why did Rav Acha have to do this? – Because he disagreed with the ruling above that an inevitable vow can be annulled before it happens. Instead, according to him, the vow had to exist before anything could be done about it.

Art: Double Portrait of a Husband and Wife with Tulip Michiel Jansz. van Mierevelt

Nedarim 89 – A vow of a widow

The Torah said, “A vow of a widow shall stand.” But this is obvious, for who could potentially annul a vow of an independent woman? So why are these words necessary? – This teaches the following case: if she took a vow while being a widow – for example, if she said that she would have something prohibited to her after thirty days – and then she got married. Such a vow the new husband will not be able to annul.

Conversely, if she vowed while being married, and her vow was to take effect after thirty days, and the husband annulled it but later divorced her. Even though by the time thirty days pass, she is no longer married, his annulment is valid, and her vow is ineffective.

If she vowed, then divorced, and then her husband re-married her, he can no longer annul her vows. Therefore, this is the general rule: if she has been on her own even for one minute, the husband can no longer annul her vows.

Art: A Proposal of Marriage By Jules Worms

Nedarim 88 – The husband did not know

If the husband did not know in principle that he can annul his wife's vows – even though he understood the concept of vows – then his failure to confirm or revoke is meaningless. Therefore, once he finds out that he has this capability, he has a day to revoke the vow or confirm it.

However, if he knew about revocation, just did not know that a specific vow could be revoked by him – then it's his problem. Even if he revokes this vow, just to be on the safe side, this revocation does not work because he lacks complete knowledge. And later, it would be too late because the first day had passed. Why is this case different? – He should have gone to a Sage to clarify on that very day. This is the view of Rabbi Meir.

The Sages, however, disagree: since he knew about vow revocation but just did not know that this particular vow could be revoked by him – and he revoked it just in case – it works. The Sages consider partial knowledge the same as complete knowledge. Afterward, he cannot revoke it any longer since the first day of the hearing has passed.

Art: Portrait of a Husband and Wife by John Parker

Nedarim 87 – The husband against grapes but not against figs

If the wife makes a vow to not eat grapes and figs, and the husband confirms only the grape prohibition, then the figs prohibition is also established. This is because the Torah said, “The husband hears (and confirms) about it,” which can be translated as “even a part of it.” However, if he annuls only the figs part, he still needs to revoke the grapes. Some say that he needs to rescind the complete vow – because the Torah said, “Revokes it,” meaning the whole vow needs to be revoked.

We thus see that confirming the vow and annulling it are different. There is another way to look at it. Since the Torah said that “The husband will confirm and the husband will annul,” we compare the two: just as in confirming it, once he confirms part, the whole is confirmed, and so is annulment: once he annuls part, the total is annulled. This is indeed the view of Rabbi Akiva.

Moreover, if she says, “I am not eating grapes, and I am not eating figs,” – these are two separate vows that need to be annulled separately. This is the view of Rabbi Shimon, who requires separate legal statements about everything. That is why our rule above forbidding grapes and figs is considered a single vow. Those who disagree will consider the initial statement as two separate vows, and the above discussion about separate annulment would not even apply.

Art: A Still Life Of Grapes In A Basket by Frans Snyders

Nedarim 86 – Who made the vow?

If one thought that his wife made a vow, and he revoked it, and then it turned out that it was his daughter who made this vow – he must now revoke it for his daughter. His original revocation for this wife does not count. Similarly, if he thought that his wife vowed to abstain from grapes, and it turns out that she wanted to abstain from figs, he needs to do the revocation once more.

That is strange because you can compare this case to one where he heard that his father died – and he tore his clothing, as required – and then they told him that it was his son who died – he does not have to tear his clothing again. Thus we see that he is not required to know the precise identity!

What is the difference? – in the case of tearing, they actually did not tell him who it was, and he tore without specifying the relative. This is why it worked for another relative. But usually, one has to be aware of the identity.

Another possible explanation is this: they did tell him who died; he tore the clothing, but then they informed him about a different identity – within a few seconds of the first statement. Thus, their correction is a continuation of the statement, and his tearing applies to a new relative. And how many seconds is required? – Enough to say “Peace to you, my teacher.”

Art: Mourning And Melancholia by Charles Zacharie Landelle

Nedarim 85 – I am not giving anything to Kohanim and Levites!

If a man makes a vow prohibiting the Kohanim and the Levites to benefit from his property, he achieves nothing. After he separates from his crop those tithes that are due to them – he does not own them any longer. Therefore, they can take tithes against his will. Even though he usually can choose which Kohen or Levy to give it to and even accept a small tip for it, now that he forbade this produce to them anyway, he has no right to it either. Thus, he is not providing them with any benefit whatsoever.

However, if he specified which Kohanim or Levites he is vowing against, they indeed cannot take his tithes. Others should come and take that.

If a woman is upset with her husband and makes a vow that the product of her work will be forbidden to him, the vow does not take effect – because he is entitled to this product. However, Rabbi Akiva says that he better revoke it anyway: she might make more than required, and that would actually be forbidden to him. Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri gives another reason for annulling such a vow: what if he divorces her? – Not being able to revoke the vow now, he would be unable to re-marry her.

Art: My Wife and I by Istvan Desi-Huber

Nedarim 84 – What's allowed when everything is forbidden

As we have seen, a husband has veto power over his wife's vows – but this is only if it concerns him in some way. For example, if she vows not to benefit from any human – he cannot annul that because she can still avail herself of "owner-less" produce, which includes fallen grapes, forgotten sheaves, and the corners of the fields. All these are left by the field owner for the poor in the "owner-less" state.

Why did this ruling leave out the tithe left for the poor? Do people leave over this 10% tithe at all? They do – because anyway, they have an easy loophole to keep it: just declare all your possessions owner-less, then you are considered poor and can appropriate the poor men's tithe, and then reclaim your possessions. Thus those who want to be good and leave the tithe can be relied upon. Another view is that they can't avoid the tithe easily since they are afraid that someone will claim their owner-less possessions. Regardless, there is a group of people who do leave the poor man's tithe.

The question then is back, why not the tithe? – That is because he distributes it in his gates to whomever he wants. Thus she is benefiting from his goodwill, which she forbade herself. She could take even that if he distributes it in his granary by leaving it over for all.

Art: Harvesting the Sheaves by Sandor Nagy

Nedarim 73 – I annul your vows – whatever they are!

Earlier, we learned that knowledgeable people annulled their brides' vows, whatever they were. This indicates that a vow can be annulled even without hearing what it is. However, this is not really so. The rule may be that the husband inquires about every vow and then annuls it.

Let us try to approach this question from another side. A deaf husband cannot annul his wife's vows, because "and the husband hears..." cannot be fulfilled. Does it mean that a regular husband also needs to hear the vow? – Perhaps not: a deaf husband cannot hear at all, that is why "and the husband hears..." is impossible, so he cannot annul. However, if he can hear, then maybe actual hearing is not required.

Once the groom marries his wife under the huppah, he alone, not her father, has veto power for her vows. What if he is supposed to make a wedding feast but delays it. He is already obligated in her support, so maybe he can annul the vows – or perhaps since he is not fully married, he cannot? – This question is also not resolved because related rules can be interpreted as supporting or disproving this fact.

Art: Preparing The Wedding Veil by Frederic Wenz

Nedarim 72 – Why did he divorce her?

Imagine that a husband heard his wife make a vow and then divorced her without telling us why. Since he knows that he cannot revoke the vow any longer after divorce, is he affirming it by his action? Or he does not care and offers no comment.

What is the difference? If she made a vow and a day passed, her vow is now binding anyway!? – The difference is in the case where he remarried her on that same day. Since the day has not passed, then if we say that he offered no comment, he can still annul the vow. But if his divorce was a confirmation, he could no longer change his mind.

Can we resolve our question from our previous ruling? There the husband could still revoke the vow, so it must be that divorce is tantamount to silence and expresses no opinion! – No, perhaps our ruling only discusses the case where the husband did not hear her vow. The ruling just gives us the fundamental law that if the father heard about the vow and the groom did not, they only have one day to veto it. About our question, the ruling may be offering no opinion whatsoever.

A custom of the learned people: before the wedding, the groom would annul all his bride's vows while being betrothed to him. Could he annul even those that he had never heard about? – This will be researched on the next page.

Art: The Wedding Candles by Marc Chagall

Nedarim 71 – The father and his son-in-law

If a young girl makes a vow (for example, not to eat something), her father has veto power, and he can cancel her vow. However, this veto power only lasts for one day, after which the vow becomes valid like any other vow. Similarly, if a married woman makes a vow, her husband has veto power for one day.

If a young girl is engaged (this is a complete engagement, requiring a proper divorce Get) for dissolution) but not living with her husband yet, then both the husband and the father have the veto power, which they would exercise jointly.

What happens if a girl in this situation took a vow, then divorced, or her husband died, and then she got engaged again on the same day? The answer does not change even if she divorced and got engaged a hundred times on this day – her father and her last-in-row husband can jointly cancel her vow during this day.

We see thus that the veto power does not go over to the father on the death of the husband, but rather the father and the last-in-row husband can jointly cancel the vow; as long as the girl was not fully married, she remains in part under the jurisdiction of her father.

Art: The Broken Engagement By George Bernard O'Neill