Gittin 17 – When Rabba bar bar Channa got sick

When Rabba bar bar Channa got sick, the Sages came to visit him and, while there, asked a question: "If two messengers brought a Get, do they still need to say that it was written and signed in front of them?" He said, "No, they don't." He then presented a new argument: "If they testified that the husband divorced her, they would be believed, no? So we should believe them that the Get is valid."

Meanwhile, a Persian follower of the cult of "Chabar" came and extinguished their candles because, at the time of the "Chabar" holidays, the light was allowed only in their temples of idol worship. Rabba bar bar Channa said, "God, either protect us here or exile us to the Roman empire, for at least they come from Esau!" But we learned that Persia was better!? – Yes, it was before the "Chabar" people came.

A divorce document (Get) must have a date in it. Therefore, if they started writing it in the afternoon, but by the time the witnesses got to signing, it was night – it is already another day, the Get is invalid and must be rewritten. On the other hand, if they started at night, they can sign it the next morning because it is still the same calendar day.

And why do they require a date in the Get? – A man is allowed to marry his sister's daughter. In fact, there were times when this was commendable. Since he marries his niece, he may exhibit avuncular behavior. For example, to protect her in case she is unfaithful to him, he may give her a Get without a date. Now if she is ever caught being unfaithful, she can bring the Get to court and claim that she was already divorced at the time of unfaithfulness. Others say that this is rare and that the date on the Get is needed to support monetary claims.

Art: Uncle Fred by James Jacques Joseph Tissot

Gittin 13 – Is there divorce after death?

If a man says, "Give a divorce (Get) to my wife," and then dies, they should not give her a Get any longer. Why? When the husband dies, the wife is free. Because of that, divorce after death does not make sense.

A parallel situation is the Get of a slave: if the master dies and nobody inherits the slave, he is free by himself, and giving him a Get now is meaningless. And if someone does inherit, then this slave is no longer in the domain of the dead man to give him freedom.

However, if one says, "Give a hundred zuz ($5,000) to a certain person," and then he dies, the heirs are obligated to give the money to the named recipient. This is not obvious at all. There was no act of acquisition, "Give him money" are just words. Once the man dies, normal inheritance laws should take effect, meaning that his estate goes to his closest relatives. Therefore, Rav wanted to say that perhaps this is only talking about money on the shelf, which had previously been given as a deposit, or that the man who said these words was dying. In that special case, the money is considered already given; otherwise, the dying person would die even sooner.

However, the law is correct in all cases, and they do fulfill the will of the deceased.

Art: The Money Changers by Christian Van Donck

Gittin 11 – Is it good to be divorced?

A man does not have to personally deliver the divorce (Get) to his wife; he can appoint a messenger. If, while the messenger is on his way, the husband changes his mind, the Get becomes invalid, and the divorce does not happen. Thus, the husband can change his mind while the messenger is en route.

Why don't we say it is good for the wife to become free, and therefore the messenger should acquire the Get on her behalf immediately, thus affecting the divorce? – That is because a divorce has certain disadvantages: the husband is no longer obligated to provide his wife with sustenance. The rule is that if something is unquestionably good, the messenger can acquire it on behalf of a receiving person, but not if there are minuses in such acquisition.

However, when the master sends an emancipation letter (also called Get) to his slave, he cannot change his mind. Freedom is unquestionably good, and the minute the messenger receives the Get, he acquires it for the slave, who now goes free – this is the opinion of the Sages. Rabbi Meir disagrees about the slave: his freedom has this drawback the master won't feed him. And the Sages? – They say that the master is allowed to stop feeding his slaves anyway. This may not be wise and is not sustainable, but since the master has this right, the slave actually loses nothing when he becomes free.

Rabbi Meir told the Sages, "But if he is a slave of Kohen, he loses the right to eat the Kohen's portion. So that is a disadvantage!" To this, the Sages replied, "He loses it not because he is free, but because he is no longer the acquisition of a Kohen. So he loses nothing - therefore, let him be free; the master cannot change his mind."

However, what about the slave of a regular Jew, not a Kohen? What does he lose by getting freedom? - He gains by being able to marry a Jewess!! - No, he loses the availability of female slaves, who are cheap to get, available and permissive.

Art: The Freedom Ring by Eastman Johnson

Gittin 9 – Letter of freedom

A divorce document (Get) is essentially a letter of freedom for the woman, who can now marry anyone she wants. In the same way, a Get can be given to a slave, and it will be a letter of his emancipation, reading "You are free" or "You belong to yourself."

The similarity goes further: a woman can bring her own Get to court, and they will use it to effect a divorce, as long as she can tell them it was written and signed before her. So too, can do the slave.

However, if in the Get, the master says to the slave, "You and all my possessions are yours," - he indeed goes free because it is similar to a Get of a woman, but the second part, "all my possessions are yours," does not take effect because, for any monetary transaction, one needs two witnesses. There are two clauses in this Get, and they work differently.

What happens if the Get says, "You acquire all my possessions." Since "all my possessions" includes the slave, he acquires himself and becomes free, and in the same step, acquires all the possessions as well. At least, this is what Abaye opined.

Rava disagreed. Since the slave did not have two witnesses, he did not acquire the possessions. And since he did not acquire the possessions, he did not acquire himself and is thus still a slave. Rava later changed his mind but still divided the single statement "You acquire all my possessions" into two. This is called severability, but here it is applied to one sentence! They continued to argue about this principle.

Art: The Hour of Emancipation by William Tolman Carlton

Gittin 8 – What is the difference between a ship and a flower pot?

We saw that a messenger bringing a divorce document (Get) from outside of Israel must confirm that he saw it being written and signed. The Talmud also discusses which neighboring cities and areas are still considered the Land of Israel for this purpose and which are not. Would writing a Get on a ship close to Israel be regarded the same as on land?

Finally, is a ship the same as a flower pot? We mean the laws of tithes. Anything that grows on a ship does not directly draw sustenance from the Land of Israel, and anything that grows in a hanging pot does not do this either, so at first glance, they should be the same. But perhaps this is not so: a ship constantly moves and thus cannot be considered connected to the ground, but a stable pot can. Or the opposite is true: the air divides between the pot and the earth, so the pot does not draw sustenance from the earth and is not liable to tithes, but a ship is in the water, which can be considered as a continuation of the water bed, and so maybe it is liable to tithes.

Art: Ships Close Inshore at Low Tide by Willem van de, the Younger Velde

Gittin 7 – To fight the bad or not to fight

One should never be too assertive with the members of his household; if he is, they will lie to him out of fear and lead him to multiple sins. For example, Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel used to put fear into his servants, and they fed him a prohibited thing. What happened? A part of a properly slaughtered animal was lost, and they substituted it with another cut from a live animal.

But is it possible that a righteous Rabbi Chanina would eat anything not kosher? God watches even over the animals of the righteous, like in the story where a donkey would not eat food from which tithe was not separated; how much more so over the righteous themselves? – True, they wanted to feed him a prohibited item, but something prevented this.

Mar Ukva sent a question to Rabbi Elazar, "There are bad people who hurt me, and I can give them away to the government, should I?" Rabbi Elazar took out a piece of parchment, made lines for writing, and wrote, "Let me not do wrong with my mouth with an evil person is in front of me." Mar Ukva replied, "But they are torturing me!" Rabbi Elazar then wrote, "Be silent unto God, and the enemies will disappear." Rabbi Elazar's words took effect right away, and the enemies of Mar Ukva were led away in chains.

The Talmud then discusses why, according to Mar Ukva, a meal can be accompanied by joyous music only if it is a meal connected to a mitzvah, as well as other signs of diminished joy, decreed after the destruction of the Temple.

Art: Wedding Dance by Pieter Brueghel the Younger

Gittin 3 – Why did we believe the messenger?

Earlier, we said that a husband can divorce his wife through a messenger. As long as the messenger (who comes from overseas) brings the divorce document (Get) and states that he saw it being written and signed, the divorce can proceed.

But why do we believe the messenger at all? After all, we have a rule that there should always be two witnesses. And if you tell me that this messenger testifies to the fact of a woman being divorced and that here one witness is enough, just as we believe anybody when he says that the food he or she prepared is kosher, then I will answer that this is not the same. About kosher food, I have no prior knowledge, but the woman was known to be married, and now he is testifying to a change of status, an event, and two witnesses should be needed.

So then, how do we believe one messenger? – The answer is that the Sages established this so that it would be easier for a woman to get a divorce and to re-marry. But you might have another problem: in the absence of two witnesses, the husband may later claim that the Get was forged. – That is exactly the point: since the messenger knows that he will have to testify in court that he saw the Get being written and signed, he will make sure that it is completely proper. If the husband later protests, people will believe the messenger and not the husband.

Art: The Messenger by Johannes Verkolje

Gittin 2 – A messenger of divorce

To divorce his wife, the husband must write her a document of divorce, called Get, and give it to her. He can even appoint a messenger to bring and give her the Get.

In case he appoints a messenger, and this messenger comes from overseas, there is an additional requirement for him. He has to verify that he saw the Get written by the scribe and signed by the witnesses. Why this requirement? – People outside of Israel were not experts in divorce laws and might have missed a critical condition: that the Get is written for the specific woman the husband wants to divorce. It cannot, therefore, be written in advance, nor can a printed form be used. So if the scribe or the witnesses miss this, the Get would be invalid, even though the document would look OK, and this could create a problem later on. This is the opinion of Rabbah.

However, Rabbah's student, Rava, said that the reason is different: people who live overseas stay overseas, and should the husband protest the Get and claim that it is forged, it would be hard to find these witnesses and make them testify in court. Thus, the husband could nullify the Get, which could also create a problem.

What does it matter what the reason is if the messenger has to say these words, "written and signed in front of me" anyway? – For example, if two messengers came. The reason Rava – that they can't find two witnesses would not apply any longer, so they don't need to make the statement. But the logic of Rabbah – that they may not write the document specifically for her – would still apply, and accordingly they would have to talk about how it was written and signed.

Art: Still Life with Documents by John Turing

Sotah 49 – Losses

After the Temple was destroyed, people of faith disappeared, and only people of small faith remained. And who are these? – Those who have what to eat for today and worry about tomorrow. Honesty, authentic learning, and filial piety were gone. On whom are we to rely? Only on God.

When Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa died, there were no more people of good deeds, and after Rabbi Akiva,  there were no more supporters of the Torah, and the wells of wisdom were closed.

After Rabbi Yehudah the Prince died, there was no more humility and fear of sin. However, when this teaching was recited in his academy, Rav Yosef corrected the students and told them that there was still genuine humility because he was there. Similarly, Rav Nachman said to take out “no fear of sin” since he was yet alive.

Art: Filial Piety by Jean Baptiste Greuze

Sotah 44 – What is there to be afraid of?

We mentioned that there was a special one among the exclusions from military service: if someone is afraid of war and cannot face danger, he should go back. Some people are soft-hearted, and they may lead the army to lose its morale, contributing to defeat. This is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.

Rabbi Yosi HaGlili says he is "afraid and fainthearted" because of his transgressions. For example, he may have spoken between putting on the head and arm tefillin. Or he spoke between the second part of morning prayer (Yishtabach) and the third one – the blessing of Shema. This category is then placed at the end so the transgressors won't be embarrassed, and people may think they claim other exemptions.

After that, the army should be steadfast. Strong soldiers are put in front so that if any of their brothers fall, they help him stand up. Strong soldiers are also placed in the back: if anyone wants to run away, they have authority and axes to stop him – because running away is the beginning of defeat, just as it happened when the Israelites first ran away from Plishtim and then were defeated.

As mentioned before, in times of national danger, the exemptions do not apply, but everyone goes to war, even a groom from his room and the bride from her chuppah.

Art: The Soldier's Return by Girolamo Induno

Sotah 43 - Exclusions from military service

After the Kohen at war has spoken the words we discussed, it is the turn of army leaders to list exceptions. Anyone who built a new house but has not lived there should return. This applies to buying a home, not only to building it, and the type of house can also be a barn, woodshed, or any other livable structure.

Anyone who planted a vineyard and has not used it (this includes three years of it being "orlah" and the fourth year after that) - goes back. And anyone who has engaged to a woman but did not get married to her - goes back to his wife and spends a year with her. Finally, anyone who is scared also goes back. He may feel that he did something wrong, and therefore he does not have the merit to win in war. Other reasons are mentioned first so that people who are afraid do not have to be humiliated by admitting it.

However, these exceptions apply only to voluntary wars that Sanhedrin approves for national reasons. If enemies wage war against Israel with the intent to harm, it is a mitzvah for everyone to participate.


Art: The Engagement Ring by John Shirley Fox

Sotah 42 – Kohen at war

A Kohen is appointed and anointed to go to war with the army. When the army approaches the enemy, he talks to the soldiers and says the following words, speaking in Hebrew. How do we know that he is talking in Hebrew? Because of the term, "he will say (vediber)." The same word describes Moses, "and Moses said, and God replied with a voice." Since Moses spoke to God in Hebrew, the Kohen at war also spoke in Hebrew.

He says, "Listen, Israel (Shema, Israel!), you are approaching an enemy." He uses the word "enemy" to emphasize that if Jews were fighting against Jews, as it happened between the tribes at times, they could expect the victors to be merciful with the captives. He then quotes historical episodes to prove the point. However, with enemies, it is not like that; they will not pity you. This understanding caused them to fight with all their might.

"They come against you with human might, as Goliath. You, however, will win, like David did, because your God is walking with you."

Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai said, "Why is God walking with them? – because they say the 'Shema' prayer, just like the Kohen at war mentioned. From here, we see that if only all Israel said 'Shema' in the evening and in the morning, they would never fall into the hands of the enemies."

Art: David Beheading Goliath by Michiel van Coxie

Sotah 40 – The humility of Rabbi Abbahu

While the Kohanim bless the people, the people recite phrases that support and explain those blessings. Why? Is there a servant who will remain silent and not express his appreciation while being blessed by his master?

An opposite point of view: people should be silent. Is there a servant who will keep talking while he is being blessed instead of listening?

Rabbi Abbahu said, "Initially, I used to say these phrases during the blessing of the Kohanim. But once I saw Rabbi Abba from Akko being silent, I also stopped talking." Rabbi Abbahu continued, "I thought that I had real humility. But once I observed the following behavior of Rabbi Abba. He was delivering a lecture to a large audience, and his helper – whose task was to repeat the lesson in a loud voice and explain it – was giving different explanations for the same points as Rabbi Abba mentioned. Nevertheless, Rabbi Abba said nothing to him! Compared to him, I do not have humility."

Then why did Rabbi Abbahu think initially that he had humility? Because of the following incident. Rabbi Abbahu also had a helper to loudly repeat and explain his lectures. The helper's wife told the wife of Rabbi Abbahu that her husband (the helper) had as much knowledge as Rabbi Abbahu, and he showed obeisance just to be polite. The wife of Rabbi Abbahu took affront, but Rabbi Abbahu told her, "It does not matter! Between the two of us, we ensure the people learn Torah."

Art: A humble question by Herman Frederik Carel ten Kate

Sotah 38 – How to bless

Every day the Kohanim (Priests) should bless the people and say to them, "May God bless you and keep watch over you. May God make His presence enlighten you and grant you grace. May God direct His providence toward you and grant you peace."

They say these three phrases outside the Temple, and the people answer "Amen" to each one. They also say the Name of God not as written, but using a changed form called "Adnut" and denoting ruler or master.

In the Temple, they said the blessing as one long phrase, without an interruption for "Amen." In the Temple, people, as a rule, did not say Amen, but responded with a longer term; here, this phrase would interrupt the blessing. Moreover, in the Temple, the Priests pronounced the Name of God as it is written, in the form that implies "was, is, and will be." The exact pronunciation of it is not known today.

Art: Jacob Blessing the Children of Joseph by Rembrandt Van Rijn

Sotah 36 – Why to learn languages

The words that the Kohen says to a suspected wife can be expressed in any language because the procedure is described as "And the Kohen will say to the women," – which means that any language in which he says it is good.

By contrast, the blessings and the curses that the Jews pronounced before entering Israel, on the mounts Eival and Grizim, had to be said in Hebrew because these it is described as "And they will answer and say" – and the same words ("answer and say") are used when doing chalitzah, which has to be done exactly as written, in Hebrew.

The Talmud then describes how the blessing and curses were pronounced, what else happened on the day when the Jews crossed the Jordan River and entered the Land of Israel, and about the Torah, which had to be written on stones in seventy languages, in precise translations, for everyone to know.

It then turns to Joseph, who knew seventy languages, as mentioned in the story of his appointment to be viceroy. He was given a test by Pharaoh, and he replied in every language that Pharaoh spoke. But how did he learn all of them? – Angel Gabriel visited him the night before and taught them. Joseph would go up one step on the way to Pharaoh's throne with each language. In the last step, he spoke in Hebrew, and Pharaoh could not answer. Pharaoh made Joseph give an oath not to reveal this.

Art: Joseph in the Pharaoh's Palace by Jacopo (Giacomo) Amigoni

Sotah 31 – Parrot

A husband who jealously warns his wife not to seclude herself with a particular man is putting himself into several complications. If he hears that she did seclude herself with the man, even as told to him by a parrot, he then needs to divorce her. This is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that we would even believe the husband himself, so once the husband is sure about the seclusion, his warning is triggered. However, he has to pay her the money of the Ketubah since he does not have any proof, and it was his fault that he got into this situation.

Rabbi Yehoshua says that the evidence of seclusion must be more substantial: if the affair is the talk of the town, so that women who get together to weave and chat at night discuss this, then the situation is certain to the point that the water drinking test will not work anyway. It is not, however, certain to the point of her losing the Ketubah, so in that situation, the husband still pays.

If seclusion is established, she gets exonerated by drinking bitter water in the Temple. However, there are also witnesses that cohabitation has taken place during seclusion. In that case, again, the water test is unnecessary; this time, she gets divorced and loses the Ketubah. This witness can be anyone who usually needs to be a better witness. Even those five close female relatives, like her mother-in-law, who would not be believed to testify about the death of her husband (because of their vested interest in her downfall) are believed here. Except if these five women testify to cohabitation, she still retains the Ketubah payment right.

Art: Woman With Parrot by Paul Cezanne

Sotah 30 – Purity, Song at the Sea, and other sundry questions

We mentioned that one special day saw many novel interpretations from newly-admitted students. The list continues with Rabbi Akiva's rule of the degrees of ritual impurity.

Actually, a thing is either pure for Temple service or not. However, the Sages classified the impurity into six levels, from the dead body (called the grandfather of impurity) down to the "father of impurity," the first level, the second level, and all the way to the fourth. For example, some say that if you have a dough from which the priest portion (challah) needs to be separated, then this dough has the same law as the challah itself and can become impure with third-degree impurity. Others say that since the challah has not separated, the dough can only become impure in the second degree, not the third.

Another point that Rabbi Akiva explained was the way the Israelis sang the Song at the Red Sea. He said that Moses sang the phrase, and they repeated the summary. Others – that they repeated the phrase itself. For example, Moses said, "I will sing to God," and they repeated, "I will sing to God." Then Moses said, "Since He is exalted," but they said, "I will sing to God." Others say that they repeated, "Since He is exalted."

Art: The Israelites after the Crossing of the Red Sea by Hieronymous III Francken

Sotah 29 – Can you ask him?

Earlier, we saw a difference in the laws of purity between humans, whom you can ask about the situation, and inanimate objects that cannot be questioned. If a doubt about purity arises in a yard (or another private area), then if it is about a human, who can be queried, he is declared impure. But if it is about a piece of meat, for example, then it is declared pure. We learned this law from the purity of a suspected wife, but there is yet another source for it.

“If sacrificial meat comes into touch with something impure, then it cannot be eaten; otherwise, a ritually clean person may eat it.” 

The beginning of the phrase says that impure meat is not eaten. So we understand that doubtfully impure meat can be eaten. But the end talks about pure meat that may be eaten. And we can derive that doubtfully pure meat cannot be eaten. So now we have two contradictory indications, whether one can eat doubtfully pure meat. You can only explain it if you say that the doubt is prohibited when it refers to a human, who can be asked, and allowed if it refers to the meat itself, which obviously cannot be questioned.

Art: A pottery bowl, cuts of meat and onions on a table by French School

Sotah 28 – Laws of purity

Laws of purity are learned from the laws of a suspected wife. Here's how. Her innocence is in doubt because she went into a private hiding place with a particular man. But her purity would not be in doubt if she was talking with him in public.

In the same way, if there is a doubt about some other purity, such as, for example, a man who might have touched a dead rat, the question now is whether he is considered ritually impure. If this happened in the street, he is declared pure; if it occurred in a cave, he is impure. This unusual law goes beyond the regular rule of "let's treat it as a doubt." There is no doubt that he is definitely pure in the street but impure in the cave.

Another law can be learned by noticing that a suspected wife is a human being who can be asked about her status. So with other situations, the distinction between happenings in the street and in a cave applies only to a human who can be questioned. For example, he is unsure whether he touched a rat. Then the rule about the street or cave applies. But if he is sure that he touched the rat, and the doubt is about the rat itself, such as whether it was alive at this time or already dead – then he is always declared pure because a rat cannot be asked.

Art: Two Rats by Vincent Van Gogh

Sotah 27 – Just as she, so is he

We mentioned that the paramour of the suspected wife does not go unpunished. What is the source of this statement? – In the phrase "The waters will go," the word "will go" is mentioned twice, once for her and another time for him. So whatever happens to her in the Temple also happens to him - in whichever place he is.

The other word that is repeated is "became prohibited." Why is that? The first time it tells us that after the husband warns his wife and she nevertheless hides away with a specific man, the husband cannot live with her any longer; he must either give her a divorce (Get) or take her to the Temple to be cleared of suspicions. The second repetition applies to the paramour – should he desire to marry the woman after the divorce, he cannot because she is also prohibited to him.

Rabbi Akiva derives the same law from an extra "and" (letter vav in Hebrew), that is, "and the waters will go." Many more laws were expounded by Rabbi Akiva and others on that day. What is the story of "that day"? It is the day mentioned in tractate Brachot when the Sages removed Rabban Gamliel from his control over the Sanhedrin and changed the policy of allowing only strictly selected students into the study hall. Now anybody who wanted could come in. As a result, many talented students could offer groundbreaking insights.

Art: Young lovers interrupted by Henry John Yeend King

Sotah 22 – On falsehood

One who learned something about Torah but did not complete his education by learning the Talmud is called progressively an unlearned person, an ignoramus, one not trusted on any issue of kosher foods, and even an evil person. Why is all that? Because such people appear knowledgeable, but in reality, their opinions are not based on accurate knowledge.

Also despised are those who pretend to be modest and turn their eyes away from women, and as a result, they may bump into a wall or hit their foot against a stone, but it is all just a pretense. Evil is those who say, "Tell me how I can improve, and I will do it," which implies that they have already perfected themselves in their estimation.

King Yannai (who killed all members of the Sanhedrin) bequeathed this to his wife: not to be afraid of the Sages' vengeance because they are righteous and will not do wrong, and neither be afraid of the followers of King's Yannai sect, because they esteem her. She should only be scared of false people who pretend to be righteous like Pinchas, but their deeds are licentious as those of Zimri.

Art: Old Man Reading by Johannes Weiland

Sotah 20 – The importance of teaching one's daughter Torah

In order to exonerate the wife of a jealous husband, the Kohen prepared flour sacrifice and a drink as described before. He then copies the words of the Torah concerning this onto a separate scroll. If she refuses to drink before these words are erased into the drink, the flour is burned as invalid, and the drink is poured out. If she refuses to drink after the scroll is erased, they help her, presuming that she is blameless, as she maintains, just became scared.

If she and her lover actually committed adultery, then he dies in whatever place he is, and she dies in the Temple. However, if she has merit related to Torah, it will protect her for a year, two, or three. Because of this, Ben Azzai said that a man is required to teach his daughter Torah – so that this will protect her, even if she has a problem with her husband.

Rabbi Eliezer, on the contrary, says that teaching Torah to women is frivolous. Incidentally, Kabbalah maintains that eventually, women will desire and get the opportunity to learn Torah. Baal Shem Tov founded a secret society for teaching Torah to women.

Art: Elegant Couples In Interiors by Pio Ricci

Sotah 15 – The sacrifice of jealousy

A husband who suspects his wife brings a sacrifice different from all other sacrifices. Usual flour offerings use wheat, but this one is made of barley. Regular offerings have oil and frankincense added, but this one is brought without. Why is it he, and not the wife, that brings it? – Because one should not be his or her own accuser. But why does the husband deserve this inferior sacrifice? – The wife is unfaithful when the husband is unfaithful or gives another reason.

Proceeding, the Kohen brings an earthenware cup and pours in water from the purifying water of the priests. This large vessel stands in the Temple courtyard for the Kohanim to pour water on their hands and feet before they start their service. It is made of copper mirrors used by Jewish women in Egypt to look beloved to their husbands.

How much water does the Kohen put in? Half a log, or about 5 ounces. Rabbi Yehudah says he takes only a quarter of a log or about 2.5 ounces. Parenthetically, Rabbi Yehudah will also require a shorter text to be erased into this water later in the preparation. The Kohen enters the Temple building, turns to the right, and finds a particular stone with a ring. He lifts up the stone, gets the dust from under it, and makes it float on the water.

Art: The Mirror by William Merritt Chase

Sotah 5 – Haughty or humble?

When one is haughty – God's presence in this world sheds tears because of all the tribulations that will eventually befall him. Moreover, when someone is arrogant, God says, "This world is too small for the two of us," or more precisely, "One who is haughty and proud – him I cannot bear (says God)."

And yet, a Sage must have a small measure of haughtiness. How much? One-eighth of one-eighth. And for a Sage, it is an ornament, like the upper part of a wheat stalk. Rava said, "One who has it is damned, and one who does not is damned." But it is better to err on the side of humility.

When one prays, though, she should definitely be humble. Following this, "Humble spirit is like God's sacrifices," – which means that prayer with a humble heart is equal not to a specific one but to all sacrifices together.

Art: Old Man Praying by Rembrandt Van Rijn

Sotah 4 – How long do they need?

We learned that if a man gets especially jealous of his wife in relation to a particular fellow, he can warn her not to hide with that fellow. The warning is really for both, and later consequences may befall both. Now if they do hide, suspicion has grounds, and the husband is not allowed to continue living with his life normally any longer but needs to clear her of the suspicions in the Temple.

How long do they have to hide? - Enough to do the thing. What thing? - Cohabitation. And what is that? – We learned before that the beginning of it – the touch of the genitals – is sufficient; the disagreement was only about was is considered a touch.

So how long is that? Rabbi Ishmael said, “The time it takes to mix a cup of wine.” Rabbi Yehoshuah said, “Time to drink it.” Ben Azai said, “Time to fry an egg.” Rabbi Akiva: “Time to swallow that egg.” Chanin ben Pinchas said, “The time it takes her to put a hand into a basket and take out a bread.” The Talmud discusses these and other opinions and changes them; for example, “Time to drink” really means “Time to mix and then drink.” It also wants to know what kind of bread, wheat or barley, warm or cold, and what type of basket, but does not find an answer.

Every opinion came from personal experience, except perhaps for Ben Azai, who was never married, because Torah study took all his time. Then how did he know? Some say he married but separated, some – that his teacher told him, and yet others – that God tells His secrets to those who are aware of Him.

Art: An elegant couple on a bench by a pond by Johann Heinrich The Elder Tischbein

Sotah 3 – Is jealousy good or bad?

Previously we learned that a man can warn his wife not to conceal herself with a particular fellow. Is that jealousy good or bad? Some say it is forbidden for a man to warn his wife this way. He should always try to maintain peace. A warning of this sort will lead to strife between the husband and wife or a conflict between her and her neighbors. Others say jealousy is caused by the spirit of purity and is good.

A long time ago, the spiritual level of men declined. Since men were not blameless themselves, the test of a suspected wife stopped working.

Even when circumstances warrant this, Rabbi Ishmael only permits a man to warn his wife, but Rabbi Akiva makes it an obligation. They have also disagreed similarly in another matter: a Kohen is not allowed to go to a cemetery and become ritually impure. However, he is allowed to do it for his relative. Here too, Rabbi Ishmael says that he is only allowed to do so, but Rabbi Akiva says he should insist and bury his relatives.

Art: Couple at the window by Georg Friedrich Kersting

Sotah 2 – Man deserves what he gets

If a husband becomes particularly jealous of his wife in regard to a certain fellow, he can warn her not to seclude herself with that fellow. If she does, she is suspected of adultery and needs to go to the Temple with her husband to be cleared of the suspicion. The Talmud will discuss the details of this warning, but first, it asks how the previous Tractate, Nazir, is connected to this one?

The answer is that a man who sees such strife between a husband and wife should abstain from wine because he too may become involved in similar affairs, and often through wine. However, this is not a good reason because, in that case, Sotah should come first, and then Nazir. Rather, the connection is more roundabout: in Ketubot (Dowry),  we mentioned one who vows in regard to his wife, from there, we went to discuss Vows (Nedarim) and then Nazir, which is a type of vow, and finally, we are back to Sotah, just as we said before, but in a different order.

In truth, man should blame himself for any marital trouble since the wife one deserves is in proportion to his own good qualities; in general, finding the right spouse is as hard in the eyes of God as splitting the Red Sea. But why should it be so hard? We know that the spouse is predestined for every person when he or she is born!? – When we say that it is hard, we mean the second marriage.

Art: Portrait of a Couple by French Unknown Masters

Nazir 66 – Is it better to bless or to be blessed?

About Samuel the prophet, it says that a razor ("morah") will not pass over his hair. This means that he was a nazir, just like Simeon, about whom the same is said. This is the opinion of Rabbi Nehorai.

However, Rabbi Yose translates the word “morah” as fear and says that fear of man would never be upon Samuel. To this, Rabbi Nehorai replies that Samuel was afraid once when he said, “What if the king hears and kills me?” The answer of Rabbi Nehorai is not given here.

The same Sages agree on something else, though. Rabbi Yose says that the one who responds with “Amen” (which signals his agreement to the blessing) is greater than the one who says the blessing. Rabbi Nehorai said, “By Heaven, so it is! Look at a battle: regular soldiers start, but champions seal the battle.” And yet, another Sage disagrees and says that one should rush to say the blessing first because he is then blessed from Heaven first – and afterward, the one who answers “Amen” receives the same reward (but not greater).

And talking about battles, Sages, through their Torah study, increase peace in the world since their war of arguments substitutes for the physical conflict.

Art: The Soldier's Return by Girolamo Induno

Nazir 62 – Willing slaves

A slave acquired by a Jew has to undergo circumcision and accept on himself the majority of the mitzvot: he will be obligated to keep all the "don't do” prohibitions but not all of the “do” commandments. Thus, his obligations are the same as a Jewish woman keeps.

What happens if a slave does not want to undergo circumcision or accept the commandments? – The master can keep him for a year to see if he changes his mind, but afterward, must sell him back.

Another uncommon feature of such slaves is that if the master accidentally or intentionally kicks out his tooth, eye, or finger, the slave goes to freedom. Once any slave acquires his freedom – he cannot be made a slave again. In fact, he becomes a full Jew, with the additional mitzvot of a Jewish man.

There is a difference between the laws of nazir for women and for slaves. For a woman, a husband can annul her vow, particularly of becoming a nazir (nazirah). The annulment is still active if they divorce or if the husband dies. However, with the slave, it is not so. While the master can force the slave to drink wine and go to a cemetery, this does not cancel the vow; when the slave goes free, he needs to complete his term of nazir.

Art: Slaves on the West Coast of Africa by Francois-Auguste Biard

Nazir 61 – Who can become a nazir?

A Jewish man can become a nazir, but a non-Jew cannot. Also, a Jewish woman can become a nazir (nazirah), and one can even force his slave to become a nazir.

All three rules above are not obvious. Why is it that a non-Jew cannot become a nazir? – Because the Torah said, "Speak to the sons of Israel," but not to other peoples. However, this cannot serve as proof because later, the Torah uses the term "man," which should mean "any man." In fact, a non-Jew can bring sacrifices in the Temple, so why can't he be a nazir?

Perhaps it is because a nazir is not allowed to bury even his father, and maybe for a non-Jew, it is different? – Can't be because inheritance laws apply to all people, including inheriting from the father. Or perhaps it is because a nazir should avoid impurity, and a non-Jew, since he does not go to the Temple and does not have the concept of impurity, cannot be a nazir? – No, that is not convincing either: perhaps he does have a concept of impurity, just that he gets no punishment for being impure!?

The Talmud tries a few more attempts but concludes that this rule is impossible to prove. Rabbi Yochanan summarized that God tells this law directly to Moses and not written anywhere in the Torah.

Art: Burial on The Plains by Richard Lorenz

Nazir 59 – Two nazirs, complicated further

Continuing the story of two nazirs, one who became ritually impure and had to bring sacrifices together, making conditional statements about whose sacrifice it was, let us suppose that one of them dies. Now the surviving one does not have a friend with whom to make those conditions. What is he to do?

He must find someone "in the street" willing to help. This volunteer has to put himself in a condition of doubt by saying, "I adopt to be a nazir, but conditionally. If the survivor was impure, I am a nazir immediately." After thirty days, they bring the same two sets of sacrifices, one required for a pure nazir and one for an impure one, and declare that if the survivor was impure, then the impure sacrifices are his, and the other ones are for the volunteer. But if the survivor was pure, the pure sacrifices are his, and the impure ones are offered as sacrifices in doubt (since such a category exists). Then the volunteer continues, "If the surviving nazir was pure, then my term of being a nazir starts after thirty days." Then they keep offering more sacrifices and making more conditions.

This was the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. But Ben Zome asked, "Who will go out to this extent to extricate his friend out of his doubts?" Rather, the survivor should bring the minimal sacrifice that would allow him to conclude his being a nazir, even though they involve bird sacrifices, which is not standard - but it will enable him to achieve his purpose. Even though Rabbi Yehoshua argued that this was not the preferred way, the Sages agreed to Ben Zoma as more practical.

A question to Rabbi Yehoshua: "What is really wrong with Ben Zoma's solution?" - Actually, nothing; Rabbi Yehoshua just wanted to sharpen the minds of his students with a more complicated one.

Art: David Street in Jerusalem by Gustave Bauernfeind

Nazir 57 – One out of two nazirs

If two nazirs (correctly, nazirim) were walking together on the road, and somebody saw that one of them became ritually impure, they have a problem on their hands. The impure one must shave and bring sacrifices to purify himself, and the pure one simply continues being a nazir. But they don't know who is who.

Here is their way out. They both continue being nazir until the end of their term. Then they both shave because it would be required for both pure and impure nazir. Then they take two sets of sacrifices, one for a nazir who is pure, and another, a different set, for one who is impure, and bring them together to the Temple.

Each of them now says: "If I am really pure, and my friend is impure, then the sacrifices of purity are mine, and the other set is his." Then they bring both sets. But this works only for a pure nazir. Now they continue for yet another thirty days, and at the end, they bring just one set of sacrifices – for the nazir who is pure. Each one says: "If I was the pure one – then this sacrifice is my friend's, and previously my sacrifice was already brought. But if I was the impure one, then this sacrifice is now mine."

The Talmud then asks: why is there any doubt at all? We know how to resolve all such doubts based on the laws of the doubts of a suspected wife (next Tractate). That is, if the suspected people hid, the doubt is confirmed. And if they were in a public place, there is no doubt at all. Here they did not hide from the one who saw them!? – He was far, so it is as if they were hiding.

Art: Portrait of a Clean-Shaven Young Man by Lucas The Elder Cranach

Nazir 55 – Nazir outside of Israel?

The Sages decreed that anyone who left Israel would immediately become ritually impure to discourage people from leaving the Land of Israel. Ostensibly, this is because people who live outside of Israel are not as careful marking off graves (ground-based impurity), and one can pass over an unknown grave. However, the Sages may have declared the airspace outside Israel impure (air-based impurity).

The laws of nazir may shed some light on this. A nazir who went outside of Israel becomes ritually impure and will have to continue his days after he purifies himself. We also saw that he purifies himself with the ashes of Red Heifer. Now, the ashes are only needed for the impurity of the dead. This proves that the out-of-Israel impurity was because of the unmarked graves, and it is a ground-based impurity, does it not? – Actually, no. It could be that this is sheer air-based impurity, and the ashes of the Red Heifer are mentioned only regarding a plowed-over cemetery but not anything else.

Art: Graveyard under Snow by Caspar David Friedrich

Nazir 54 – Not to shave!

There are cases when the ritual impurity does not really exist, but it was “decreed by the Sages.” Take, for example, a field where a grave was previously located, then the location of it was lost, and then the field was plowed over. Since anyone who is walking through the field can potentially touch a bone and become impure, the Sages said that such a field should be treated as ritually impure, and anyone who went through it without precautions will have to purify himself.

However, from the Torah point of view, accidentally touching a bone is unlikely because a plow does not usually reach that deep, and the person is really pure. A nazir who becomes impure should cut his hair and bring sacrifices, but a nazir who is pure is not allowed to touch even one hair. What is a nazir to do if he passes through a “field full of fragments," as it is called?

Here is what he should do: purify himself with the ashes of the red heifer on days three and seven, and then continue being a nazir. The seven days of his impurity are removed from his count, but otherwise, he continues to count as before. And he does not shave his hair or bring sacrifices because, in truth, he is pure. Other similar cases, such as being under the same branch as a corpse (but not a real roof that transmits impurity) are treated the same way.

If, in addition to being a nazir, he became a metzora (spiritual leper), he purifies himself from that but continues being a nazir since metzora, even though it requires purification, is not the same as the impurity of the dead. Thus, he does not lose all the previous days, as he would if we were to go to a cemetery.

Art: Plowing ox By Rudolf Koller

Nazir 52 – Skull and spine

If a nazir comes in touch with a dead body, he loses his previous days, has to shave, must bring sacrifices, and then restart. How much of a dead body? One example is a skull and spine – just bones, even if they have no meat.

This rule had two versions; one read "skull and spine," but the other read "skull or spine." According to the second one, a skull or a spine is enough for a nazir to lose his days and shave. Which one is right?

The Talmud tries to resolve this in many ways. For example, since there are six questions related to nazir where Rabbi Akiva initially held a more stringent position but eventually conceded to the Sages, if his position was more stringent here, too, and read "skull or spine," - then the total count would be seven, not six. However, Rabbi Shimon says there was another rule about a "quarter-measurement of blood from two different deads," which Rabbi Akiva never conceded. This changes the count and ruins our proof.

Incidentally, Rabbi Shimon emphasized his points: "While Rabbi Akiva was alive, he never changed his mind on this question, and whether he retracted after death - I don't know about that." Unfortunately, there were more refined ways of putting it. Rabbi Shimon felt remorse and fasted to atone for it until his teeth darkened.

Art: An old man, holding a skull by Jan Lievens

Nazir 47 – Who is more important, nazir or High Priest?

The High Priest and nazir have this in common: they are not allowed to become ritually impure by touching a dead body. And yet, if any of them finds an unattended corpse so that the obligation to bury the body devolves on him, he should attend to it, even though he will become ritually impure.

What if a High Priest and a nazir find this corpse together – who is obligated to bury this dead and thus preserve the other one from becoming impure? This should be the High Priest because to purify himself, he only needs to wait for seven days and get himself sprinkled with the ashes of the Red Heifer. By contrast, a nazir would need to bring special sacrifices before he can restart being a nazir. This is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. The Sages say just the opposite. Nazir should bury because his limitations are temporary, whereas the High Priest should always be pure.

In this argument, the positions are clearly stated. But now the Talmud compares other gradations, such as the Priest Anointed for War and a Deputy High Priest; who is more important? This is resolved as follows: to preserve the life of the Priest Anointed for War, he is more critical because he serves the needs of many people. But concerning purity, the Deputy is more important concerning purity because he can be called to serve in the Temple any time the chief High Priest becomes impure.

Art: Burying the Dead by Michael Sweerts

Nazir 43 - How to get multiple punishments

If a nazir is warned not to drink wine, and then he drinks all day, he is liable only for the first drink. However, if they warn him again before every sip, he is liable (to lashes) for each separate act.

Similarly, if they tell him not to become ritually impure by coming in contact with a dead body, and he does it, he is liable only once. Still, he is liable multiple times if they keep warning him before each act.

But how can one be liable for ritual impurity more than once? Once he is impure - that's it, and he cannot become any more impure than this!? - He can achieve it by coming into a house where there is a dead body (for this is a separate prohibition) and then actually becoming impure.

However, this is not possible. If his nose comes in first, he is already impure but has not entirely come into the house. And if he leans back, so his nose is in line with his body, his toe comes in first!

We can invent a solution: he should come in while in a big box, since big boxes protect from impurity. And then somebody must remove the roof of his box. For this, he really does get punished twice - provided that he assists in removing the roof, for otherwise, it is not he but the one who removed the roof would be to blame. Thus, we found an answer.

Art: Peasants Drinking In A Tavern by Jan Miense  Molenaer

Nazir 40 – Real shaving is done with a razor

The Torah said about a nazir that a "razor shall not pass over his head." However, the words "razor" or really "no razor" is already sufficient for us to know the law. Then why are the words "will not pass over his head" written at all? – to include any other way of hair removal, such as pincers or depilatory, and to make it prohibited for nazir to remove his hair in any way.

But now the word "razor" becomes extra: if, in the end, the Torah is going to prohibit all kinds of hair removal, then why mention "razor?" Now, this teaches an additional law: that when the nazir concludes his term and shaves his head, that shaving must be done only with a razor. If he uses any other instrument, the shaving does not count; he has to re-do the last thirty days of a nazir and shave again, this time correctly.

There are, in general, three categories of people who must shave all their hair: a nazir, a metzora (spiritual leper), and all Levites on the day of their first inauguration for Temple service. The Talmud tries to derive the laws of one of these categories from the others.

Art: Portrait of a Clean-shaven Man by Lucas The Elder Cranach

Nazir 39 – The direction of hair growth

If a nazir shaves his head – or bandits grab him and shave it – he must wait at least thirty more days before concluding his term. This is because the standard (and the minimal) term is thirty days, and when he shaves his hair, it must have at least thirty days of growth.

A question: is the hair growing from the root or the end? Why would we want to know? – If the hair is growing from its root, and the bandits gave him a haircut but left seven days' worth of hair growth on his head – does he now wait for thirty days still, or only for twenty-three? For example, if the hair grows from the root, then that hair he consecrated has grown down by now and was cut by the bandits, so he will have to wait another thirty days. But if the hair grows from the end down, then he will only need twenty-three days. So?

Let's look at a nit (louse). It always remains at the root – so it must be that the hair grows from the end! – Not so fast! Maybe the nit is alive and keeps crawling to the root. Well, let's look at a dead nit – it is always found at the end of the hair, so it must grow from the root! – No, because perhaps when the nit is dead and cannot resist gravity, it keeps sliding down as the hair grows.

The final proof comes from the beards of old men who die them black. We see that the whitish color of gray hair appears at the root – so it is proven that it grows from the root!

Art: Portrait of a bearded old man by Rembrandt Van Rijn

Nazir 33 – Five answers to one problem

Six people were walking together on the road, and they saw someone coming toward them. The first said, "I am a nazir if this is John." The second one said, "I am nazir if this is not John." The third one said to the first two - "I am a nazir if one of you is now a nazir." The fourth one said, "I am a nazir if one of you two is not a nazir." The fifth one said, "I am a nazir if both of you are nazirim." And the sixth said – talking to all five – "I am a nazir that you are all nazirim." What is their status?

1) Beit Shammai says that they are all nazirim. They all wanted to become nazirim and added their qualifications as a by-the-way, but not essential to their vow.

2) Beit Hillel said that only those with fulfilled conditions become nazirim. This is the most straightforward logic.

3) Rabbi Tarfon says that nobody is a nazir. A conditional vow does not make a nazir; it must be clear and direct.

If now the person in question suddenly turned back, and they never found out who he was, what is their status then?

4) Rabbi Yehudah says that no one becomes a nazir because a person never accepts to be a nazir out of doubt.

5) Rabbi Shimon says that he has a real problem: he is a nazir out of doubt, but cannot get out of this because only a real nazir is allowed to shave his head, so if he is not a nazir, he cannot complete his vow. Therefore, he should declare: "If I am a real nazir – well and good, but if not, I am now become one out of my free will."

Art: Still Life With Wine, Bottles, And A Cigar by Christian Schmidt

Nazir 32 – They knew when the Temple would be destroyed

If one became a nazir but kept drinking wine – hoping, perhaps, that his vow would be annulled – but a Sage affirmed his vow – he continues his period of being a nazir and finishes it. However, the Sages imposed upon him a penalty: he cannot even ask about annulment until he behaves appropriately for as many days as he previously violated by drinking wine. Suppose a Sage annulled his vow of being a nazir, and he already separated an animal for the concluding sacrifices. In that case, we are back to the argument between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai. Beit Hillel simply allow the animal to go back to its flock.

If one thought that he had an animal to conclude his nazir's vow and declared himself a nazir, but then discovered that the animal was stolen – if it was stolen before the vow, then he is not a nazir. If it was stolen after his vow, then he was a valid nazir for the time the animal was still in his possession, so his vow is valid.

Nachum HaMede made this mistake: he annulled all nazir vows for people who made them close to the Temple destruction. The Sages corrected him: if they vowed before the destruction, their vows were, in fact, valid. But they knew the Second Temple would be destroyed 490 (seventy weeks ) years after the first one, so how could they vow in earnest?! – They still hoped their period of being a nazir would finish while the Temple stood.

Art: In The Wine Cellar by Jan David Col

Nazir 31 – Mistakes

What if one said, "The black ox, which will emerge out of my house first, shall be a sacrifice," – and instead, a white ox comes out first? Will the white ox become a sacrifice?

Beit Shammai says that, indeed, it will. Why? Because Beit Shammai claims that even done by mistake, consecrations are still valid. One cannot undo a consecration to the Temple if done by mistake. Another explanation is that he really made no mistake. He planned for the first ox to become sacred. To emphasize, he specified that it would be black (as this was more valuable to him). But even if a white one comes out first – it will become sacred, and the color does not matter.

Which reason is the real one? Do his mistakes become consecrations, or do we simply reinterpret his words to make sense? The Talmud tries to derive the answer from the rule above, but to every proof, it finds an exception disproving it. Thus, the question remains unresolved – in this particular discussion.

Beit Hillel states that his statement must agree precisely with the intended effect, and his consecration becomes valid only then.

Art: Cart With Red And White Ox by Vincent Van Gogh

Nazir 30 – Father's money

If a father was a nazir, separated some money to bring the concluding sacrifices, and died, his son can declare, “I am a nazir, and I will use my father's money for MY concluding sacrifices.” Usually, you cannot re-use someone else's sacrifice, but you can in this case.

This rule was taught by God to Moses on Sinai and has not been recorded in the Torah. But what is its logic? Is it an exception to all rules, or does it work as an inheritance? And if you say that a daughter would not share in the inheritance anyway, what if the man has only one daughter? Can she become a nazir (nazirah) and use her father's money? The rule above tells us that only a son can do so.

And yet we can ask another question. If there are many sons, do they equally share in this money? If one of the sons is a firstborn, does he get the double portion? And furthermore, is this rule valid only for a regular nazir? What about a lifetime nazir or a Samson-like nazir? – To all these questions, the Sages did not find an answer.

Art: Maria Riezler-White, granddaughter of the artist Max Liebermann

Nazir 29 – Father and son, a nazir

We said that a father can pronounce his son a nazir. This can only be true if the son is not grown up because the father would have no rights over his son's religious observances after that. Only if the son is young and the father feels that this would be a proper measure for his son's education could such a law be possible.

And yet, who mandated it? Was it the Torah that made a notable exception to its usual rules? Or did the Sages decide to give this additional power to the father? If it is the Torah, then we will not question, for example, why it gave this power to the father but not to the mother. This is indeed the view of Rabbi Yochanan. However, Resh Lakish ascribes the rule to the Sages. Now Resh Lakish will have to explain every detail of this enactment. First, he answers that only the father, not the mother, is responsible for the son's observances.

Furthermore, why did the Sages establish that relatives can annul this father's decree? – Because if the relatives teach the boy to negate the father's command, it is hardly conducive to proper education. But how did the Sages allow to shave off the hair on the head? Isn't it prohibited to shave off the peyot? Resh Lakish will tell you that shaving the whole head is permitted. And yet, how can the Sages permit an animal sacrifice of a nazir if it is not needed!? – Resh Lakish will answer that it is actually permitted to bring unnecessary sacrifices

The father of (future) Rabbi Chanina pronounced his son Chanina a nazir, and they took the boy to Rabban Gamliel to examine if he was still a child. But Chanina said, “Please do not trouble yourself. If I am still a minor, I do what my father says. And if I am a grownup, then I declare myself a nazir.”

Rabban Gamliel kissed Chanina on the forehead and predicted that he would be a great Sages, which soon came to pass.

Art: Haircut day By Hugh Carter

Nazir 28 – A wife must drink with her husband

If a husband hears of his wife's vow, he can annul it – but only on the day he hears it. If he heard of his wife becoming a nazir (or "nazirah") on the last day of her vow, he can annul it then. However, if the blood of one of the required sacrifices was already thrown on the Altar, he cannot annul it any longer – because from then on, she is not deprived of anything and can drink wine and go to the cemetery. His rights extend only to her self-deprivation, but not further.

This is true, however, if she concluded her promised time of being a nazirah correctly. Suppose she accidentally touched a dead body and is bringing sacrifices because of that. In that case, he can still annul the vow so that she does not continue her period of abstinence because he can demand that she drink wine with him.

Rabbi Meir says that even if she did everything right, he can stop it at the last moment – because he can claim, "I don't want my wife to shave off her hair!" (which every nazir finally does). And the first teacher, what did he think? – That she can wear a wig. And Rabbi Meir? – That the husband won't like the wig.

The father can declare his son a nazir. However, his son or any relative can stop that and free the son from the obligation. Another unusual law (known only to those who study unwritten Torah): if the father was a nazir and prepared money for his concluding sacrifices but died, the son can use that money for his own nazir sacrifice. This is not true for any other type of sacrifice or money – they cannot be re-used by the son.

Art: Young Woman with a Wine Glass by Octave Tassaert

Nazir 27 – What to do with the remaining money?

If a woman became a nazir (more correctly, nezirah), fulfilled her promised term, and prepared the animal sacrifices required at the end – and then her husband annulled her vow of a nazir – the sacrifices are, of course, not needed. What should she do with them?

If the animal is from the husband's flock, it can go back to graze. The husband implicitly gives permission to his wife to use the animals – but only if she indeed has to bring a sacrifice. If, on the other hand, she used her own animals, then there is no way out, and the sin offering will have to remain in this state until it dies. What about the money she separated for the libations? – It should be dropped into the communal collection box in the Temple.

What happens if she separates metal pieces (ingots)? Such pieces were used for trading for animals and then used for metal works. The same questions would arise if one separated the ingots for his being a nazir but did not specify how they should be used and then died. Since these ingots require appraisal and cannot be readily sold, they remain in their unresolved state and should be destroyed to avoid confusion. That is what the Sages say. However, Rav Nachman disagreed. One can easily barter the ingots for animals and then sell the animals. Therefore, they are equivalent to cash. And just as cash should be deposited into communal boxes for voluntary offerings, so too the ingots should be disposed of in the same manner.

Art: Guiding The Flock by Francesco Paolo Michetti

Nazir 19 – Deriving different things from the same word

A nazir is forbidden to visit a cemetery. Suppose he accidentally comes in contact with a dead body and thus becomes ritually impure. In that case, he needs to purify himself, shave all his hair, bring sacrifices, and restart being a nazir. Say he became impure again the night before he could bring the sacrifices. Then later, he will need to bring two sets of sacrifices. Why? – The Torah said, "He shall sanctify his head on that day and restart being a nazir" – even if he did not bring his sacrifices yet. Thus the new impurity happens to a fresh new nazir and causes another obligation.

This is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. It results in bringing the most sacrifices. The Sages also pay attention to the extra words of "on that day," but it teaches them that that he does not restart his being a nazir until he brings the guilt offering. Thus, right now, he has not started another term yet and just needs to purify himself. This is all one long period of impurity, and later he brings only one set of sacrifices.

This seems to cover all possibilities. But Rabbi Ishmael says something else: if he did not bring all sacrifices, including the burnt offering, he is still not a nazir again. Until then, he only brings one set of sacrifices when he finishes being a nazir.

Practical law? – Follow what the Sages have said since they are the majority.

Art: View of Pere Lachaise Cemetery by Pierre Courvoisier