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