Nedarim 5 – How to properly vow

We learned earlier that one can formulate a simple vow, “I am separated from you,” and the vow will take effect. However, who is forbidden to do what? This is now subject to interpretation.

Shmuel says, “He has to specify what exactly is forbidden.” If he does not, there is no vow at all. This is because Shmuel follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah about a Get: It is not enough to put into the Get “You are hereby permitted to all men.” This may still mean that he divorces her with the verbal statement and treats the Get as a confirmation. Instead, he needs to write, “This will be for you the document of removal, bill of release, and letter of abandonment.”

In other words, it does not help that we understand what the one who makes his vow wants to say. (Technically, his vow is called “partial but sufficient declaration.”) According to Shmuel, this is not enough and must be put into words.

Incidentally, why do we pay so much attention to legalese in the case of vows? Because vows represent the power of words that existed before the Torah was given.

Art: A Legal Matter by George Fox

Nedarim 4 – Or perhaps, “Do not delay” does not apply?

For the past two pages, we discussed why the prohibition of "Do not delay" applies to Nazir. We even found a particular case when it would apply – when one says, "I will be a Nazir before I die."

However, is that even true? After all, the laws of Nazir are an unusual innovation not found in other parts of the Torah. What is unusual? – The fact that one can complete his vow of a Nazir by offering only one of the three required sacrifices; is not ideal, but acceptable. You might have thought that just as the laws of a Nazir are more lenient here, so too they are more forgiving in regards to the "Do not delay" requirement. For that, we have to rely on the rule of similarity: vows and Nazir are similar; as such, all laws of vows apply to the Nazir.

On the other hand, maybe applying the rule of similarity is an overkill? Perhaps a simple rule of "context" would work? "Context" means if we find a law in one case, it applies to all other similar areas. For example, the father can annul a vow of his daughter. Therefore, he should be able to annul other similar vows, such as if she wants to be a Nazir (technically, "Nazirah"). – No, that logic would not work: vows are stricter in that they have no limit, but a usual Nazir is for thirty days. So maybe that's why the father needs the power to annul a vow but not a Nazir vow. Thus, we are back to using the rule of similarity.

Art: Father And Daughter In A Landscape by Pierre Duval-Lecamus

Nedarim 3 – Do not delay

On the previous page, we were left with the question of why the teacher sometimes chooses to explain the concepts out of order, while sometimes he does present them in the order of introduction. The answer is that the teacher loves complicated and non-obvious derivations and prefers to explain them first.

Just as one can vow not to eat, drink, or use an object, one can vow to become a Nazir so that he won't drink wine, cut his hair or go to a cemetery. The laws of vows and of Nazir are parallel: one should not violate his vow, nor should he delay it.

However, how can one violate a "do not delay" to become a Nazir? All the time that he is not a Nazir, he is not, and there is no requirement to become one. And once he vows to be a Nazir, he is, and he is not delaying anything.

This situation can be found when he says, "I will be a Nazir before I die." Since he does not know when he will die, he should become a Nazir immediately because he might break his vow the next moment. He violates the "do not delay" prohibition when he does not become a Nazir. This is similar to the one who says to his wife, "Here is your divorce (Get) an instant before I die." Suppose, for example, she is married to a Kohen. In that case, she is immediately prohibited from eating Kohen's portion (terumah) since he may die the next moment, and it would come out that she ate terumah illegally.

Art: A seated Peasant eating a Meal at German School

Nedarim 2 – What is a vow?

A man can vow against eating meat, for example, and then he will become liable for eating it as if it were non-kosher. He can use the words, “I am making a vow (neder),” but he can also say, “This is prohibited to me as a sacrifice (“korban”). He can use a synonym, such as “konam” instead of a “korban.” Finally, he can say an incomplete vow, such as “I am separated from you” or “I am distanced from you,” and as a result, he will not be able to derive any benefit from his fellow who was the subject of his vow.

The same rule applies to oaths as well. But how is an oath different from a vow? – Vow is usually directed at an object (bread), but an oath talks about the person's action (eating this bread).

For the following ten pages, we will discuss incomplete vows, and now the Talmud discusses why the teacher chose to discuss incomplete vows, which were mentioned last, and not synonyms, which were mentioned first. Examples of word sequences are brought from all areas of law, such as adornments that women can wear on Shabbat, flour sacrifices in the Temple, and inheritance laws.

Art: Making bread by Frank Bramley

Ketubot 109 – The girls should be supported

The second of the two judges promulgating decrees was Admon. However, some of his seven decrees were hotly contested. Here is one example.

By Torah law, when a man dies, only his sons get a portion of his inheritance, not his daughters. The Sages changed this in favor of the daughters: if there is enough money in the estate, the daughters are supported until they marry or grow up, and the sons divide the rest of the inheritance; but if there is not enough money, then the daughters are supported from whatever there is, and the sons can go begging.

Admon argued: just because they are males, they should lose all? Instead, divide the estate equally! – but the Sages still did not agree, and their logic was that the boys could look for sustenance easier than the girls.

Another example is if the bride's father promised money to his son-in-law as dowry but defaulted, the son-in-law can insist on his rights and say that he is not marrying until the promise is paid – or until the bride's hair turns white.

Admon suggested that the bride should argue thus: “I could understand this if it was I who promised the money, but it is my father, so what am I to do?” She can then force the groom to either marry her or write her a Get releasing her. This reasoning of Admon was accepted.

Art: The young bride by John Phillip

Ketubot 108 – One who puts his money on the horns of a gazelle

A husband who goes overseas still must provide for his wife. As we learned, his possessions may even be sold for this purpose.

Imagine that someone else, the husband's benefactor, decided to provide for the wife's upkeep. Even though he thus saves the husband from potential losses, the husband, when he returns, has no obligation to repay his benefactor. In general, if one pays up his fellow's debt, that fellow does not have to compensate for this – this is the opinion of Chanan, one of the two judges we met before.

Other Sages (who were sons of High Priests) disagree and require the husband to reimburse the benefactor. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai concurs with Chanan and expresses it thus: "The benefactor is like one who puts his money on the horns of a gazelle" (where he is likely to never see it again).

Art: Deer In A Landscape by Johannes Christian Deiker

Ketubot 107 – The husband went on a trip, leaving his wife penniless

Imagine that the husband went on a trip, leaving his wife penniless - or, at least, this is what she claims. In this case, she comes to court, asking the court to start selling the husband's property to provide her support.

One of the two judges we mentioned above as promulgating beneficial decrees, by the name of Chanan,  ruled that she would have to swear afterward when she comes to collect her Ketubah payment. However, right now, she does not have to swear about her claim and is provided with sustenance. Others disagreed, but Chanan's law was accepted.

But in general, do we really provide sustenance by selling the estate? – If he left not on good terms, we can believe he left her nothing. But typically, does a man leave his house empty? – For these reasons, Shmuel ruled that the court does not give her sustenance. What about the ruling of Chanan? Even those who disagreed with Chanan only argued about an oath but not sustenance. Can we assume that Shmuel is wrong? – No, Shmuel will tell you that Chanan was talking about a specific case where there is a rumor that the husband died. Then we can give her sustenance, but not in the usual case.

Rav disagreed with Shmuel: there is no reason to suspect the wife, and sustenance is given to her, even including money for fragrances.

Art: In the estate by Boris Kustodiev

Ketubot 106 – Influence of the judge

A man brought a basket of cheap small fish to Rav Anan, a righteous man. Rav Anan, who was a judge, said, "I am not taking your fish, and I am disqualified from judging your case." The man said, "Giving a present to a righteous man is like bringing the best sacrifice in the Temple; please accept." Rav Anan, who has disqualified himself from the case, accepted the gift. Still, this is what happened.

Rav Anan sent the man to Rav Nachman's court, saying that he, Rav Anan, was disqualified from judging it. Rav Nachman assumed that the reason was that Ran Anan was a relative of the man and treated the man with honor. Seeing this, the man's opponent was confused in his arguments and lost the case.

Consequently, the Prophet Elijah, who used to visit Rav Anan every day, stopped coming. Rav Anan fasted and prayed, and Elijah came back, but now he had a scary appearance, and Rav Anan had to study with Elijah while hidden in a box. The first set of teachings, before the incident, is called "The Great Book of Elijah," whereas the second set, after the incident, is called "The Small Book of Elijah," and the above is the reason.

Art: The Golden Fish by Paul Klee

Ketubot 105 – Judges' salaries

There were two prominent judges in Jerusalem who were setting new laws. Actually, there were 394 courts in Jerusalem and the corresponding number of schools for adults and children, but we are talking only about judges promulgating new decrees.

Each of these judges had a court of twenty-three people, with a budget of ninety-nine maneh, to support the court members and their families. This amounted to 140 zuz per family per year, about 70% of the Ketubah amount on which a woman can live for a year. The court salaries came from the Temple treasury.

A judge named Karna would take payment from both litigants and then judge them. How is that possible, being that it amounts to a bribe? It is forbidden to take a bribe to judge incorrectly or even correctly, even if the judge may miss a chance to make a living!? – Karna was a well-known wine taster; by smelling the wine in the storage, he could advise if it should be sold immediately. Since he was losing these definite earnings, he was allowed to take payment for lost wages.

Shmuel was once crossing a bridge, and a man helped him. Shmuel immediately disqualified himself from being a judge in his case. Even praise is considered a bribe.

Rabbi Yishmael had a sharecropper who would bring produce due to Rabbi Yishmael every Friday. Once, he brought it on Thursday, saying he had a court case, so he brought the fruit earlier. Rabbi Yishmael disqualified himself from judging but went to listen to the proceedings and found himself constantly advancing the best arguments for the sharecropper in his mind. He said, “If I, who did not accept the bribe, and the produce was mine anyway, react so, then how much more false is the judgment of one who accepts bribe!”

Art: The Roman Wine Tasters by Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema

Ketubot 92 – Mind twisting problems

The Talmud first discusses a problem where our previous ruling is used for comparison and then continues with a series of difficulties helpful in training the mind.

Let us say that debtor D owes $1,000 to his creditor C. Meanwhile, he owns two houses and sells them to buyer B, each for $500.

Now C wants his money, and D cannot pay, so C repossesses the first of the houses because real estate always guarantees the loan. B loses one of the houses he bought. Still, he wants to keep the second one, so he comes with $1,000 cash to C and proposes the following: if C wants to consider the first house, the one he just repossessed, as worth $1,000, then all is well; but if not, then this $1,000 should cover both houses, and C gets his money but loses the repossessed house.

Rami bar Chama wanted to say that this is precisely our previous rule: there, the orphans could not artificially inflate the worth of their mother's Ketubah,  so here too, the argument of considering the $500 house worth $1,000 does not stand. Without this, the second part of the proposal does not stand either, and the creditor can collect the second house. However, Rava reversed him: in the case of orphans, their suggestion would hurt the other group of children, but in our case, the creditor would always get his $1,000 loan back.

The following cases are abbreviated with mnemonics ("thousand" - that is our case, "hundred," "mitzvah of Ketubah"...). Such abbreviations, or "signs," contain clues to the mystical meaning of the subjects discussed.

Art: A thinking girl by Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot

Ketubot 91 – Two groups of children from two wives want the inheritance

When people were allowed to have more than one wife, fathers were reluctant to give large dowries to their daughters. They were apprehensive that when their daughter and her husband died, the inheritance would go to the children of the other wife. Therefore, the Sages established a rule that when the children claim the inheritance, they can ask for their late mother's Ketubah first. Then they would divide the remaining estate equally with the other wives' children. This is called "Ketubah of the (male) children."

Now imagine that it did happen: someone was married to two wives, they both died, then he died, and now the children all want the inheritance. This is where the above rule would kick in.

However, if there is not enough money to pay both the Ketubah of the first and the second wife, then there will be no leftover inheritance to divide: everything will be paid out as a Ketubah payment. Then the law of the inheritance from the Torah will be abrogated completely! - at least in this case. The Sages did not want this outcome, so they limited their rule to only cases where there was enough money to pay both Ketubahs and some. If there is not enough, then the rule above is not used; instead, everyone divides equally, which is the Torah law. Even if one group of the children wants to add money to the inheritance so that there is enough for the Ketubah and gain by getting their mother's larger Ketubah, they are not listened to.

Art: The Three Fishers Wives by Mrs. Henry Harewood Robinson

Ketubot 90 – Serial marriages and divorces

If a woman comes to court with two Get and two Ketubah documents, we assume that things were just as she describes: her husband married her, divorced, then re-married, and wrote a new Ketubah. She collects two payments.

However, if she produces two Ketubah documents but only one Get, we assume they are from one marriage, but he simply wrote another Ketubah for her. She collects only one. Finally, if she has two Get documents from him but only one Ketubah, he must have married (and divorced) her again, but anybody who re-marries his wife relies on the original Ketubah, so she again collects only one payment.

If one was married to two wives and died, and did not leave enough to pay both, then the Ketubah of the first way has priority over the Ketubah of the second. If the wives died before collecting their Ketubah payments, then the heirs of the first wife have priority over the heirs of the second one.

Art: Husband and Wife by Lorenzo Lotto

Ketubot 89 – How to collect divorce settlement

Imagine that a woman comes to court and presents a Get with which her husband divorced her. Then she wants him to pay the amount of the Ketubah. However, she does not have the Ketubah document, claiming it was lost. Normally, she should not be able to collect: anybody who wants to collect payment should present a loan document (in this case, it is the Ketubah). If it is lost, his money is lost.

However, since the Ketubah is the enactment of the court, it has the same power as though the document was actually present, so she can collect the money. Her former husband's claim that he paid the Ketubah is not believed. They should have torn the Get, given him her Ketubah or the payment receipt if he paid.

Consider the next case: the woman comes with the Ketubah but not with a Get. She wants the payment, but the husband claims that based on the rule above, she already collected her payment with her Get, claiming that the Ketubah was lost, and now she has put away the Get and produced the Ketubah. As for his receipt, he says he lost it. In this case, the husband wins because she does not have a Get and indeed could be collecting the money twice.

Rabban Gamliel adds that in the “time of danger,” people were afraid to keep their Get or Ketubah because the idolaters were persecuting the Jews for the performance of commandments. From this time on, a woman can collect her payment even without the Get because she may have destroyed it right after divorce.

Art: A group portrait of a husband, wife, and their child by Francis Alleyne

Ketubot 88 – Further arguments between the widow and the orphans

We learned earlier that when the widow comes to court to collect her Ketubah, she must take an oath that her husband, while alive, did not already pay the Ketubah to her. Incidentally, such oaths apply to orphans as well.

For example, say that the children of one family, after their father died, claim that the father of the other family (who also died) borrowed money from their father. The borrower's children say," "Our father told us that he indeed borrowed, but repaid" – the borrower's children must take an oath. This applies when their father says ""I paid"" for then the existence of the loan document does not prove anything.

However, if their father said," "I never borrowed"" then it works against him." "I never borrowed" means that he, of course, never repaid. Since the loan is uncontested and documented, no oath helps, and the orphans need to pay the debt. Furthermore, this is only when the children are adults, but minors are more protected from the claims of others.

Art: The Children by Henri-Jules-Jean Geoffroy

Ketubot 87 – Repairing trust

Earlier, we learned that a husband may sometimes impose an oath on his wife that she did not embezzle any of his property. We also mentioned that the possibility of this oath may lead to mistrust between the husband and the wife.

To prevent this, the husband may write for her a document stating that he "Will have no right to impose an oath or vow on her," and he then waives this right, although he can still impose the oath on her successor. He may give up the right to impose an oath on others.

The purpose of this oath was often to verify that the wife has not yet collected her Ketubah and that she is coming with a valid claim on the total amount. However, there was a strong incentive for the widow to take this oath, even if she had already collected some or all of the payment. She rationalized that she was entitled to extra compensation because of the care she would have to give to the orphans. The courts stopped accepting this oath, and widows had no way of collecting the Ketubah. To rectify that, the Sages gave the orphans the right to ask her to pronounce a vow (such as "The use of my husband's property is prohibited to me if I embezzled"), and then she gets the Ketubah.

The standard case where an oath would be present is where the husband claims that he paid his wife the Ketubah, and she says she received only a partial payment. The oath is in order because the one who pays usually remembers his payment well, but the one who receives it is not as careful about the details. The oath makes him better go through his recollections.

Art: The Orphan By Walter Langley