Our chapter opened teaching that vows said while negotiating a commercial deal are not real vows. Everybody understands that this is just a motivating technique to move the other off their price point. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov holds vowing when inviting a person over for a meal is not a real vow. He holds that people understand this to be just a motivating technique to break down the resistance of the potential guest’s refusal. The Gemara on today’s daf TB Nedarim 24 wants to know whether the rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov.
“The Gemara suggests a proof: Come
and hear, as we learned in a mishna (63b): One who says to another:
Benefiting from you is konam for me if you do not take from me for
your son a kor of wheat and two barrels of wine as a gift, this
other individual can dissolve his vow without the involvement of a
halakhic authority. This is because he can say to the one who
vowed: Did you say your vow for any reason other than due to
my honor, in order to convince me to accept a gift for my son? This is
my honor, that I refrain from accepting the gift.
“The Gemara infers: The reason
that he may dissolve the vow without a halakhic authority is because the
potential recipient said: This is my honor. But if he did not say
so, then it is a vow. The Gemara clarifies: Whose opinion
does this follow? If it is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov,
then it is included in the category of vows of exhortation and is
not considered a vow, since the intention was solely to encourage the other
individual to accept the gift. Rather, conclude from this mishna that
the Rabbis disagree with him and hold that vows of exhortation are also
vows.
“(This proof is
rejected because the Gemara explains a way that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov and
the rabbis are on the same page.-gg) The Gemara responds: Actually, it is
in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, but Rabbi
Eliezer ben Ya’akov concedes in this case that it is a vow and not
just a means of encouragement because the one who took the vow said
to him: I am not a dog, that I benefit from you and you do not benefit from me.
Therefore, one truly wants the vow to be valid so that the other will accept
the gift, and it was not intended merely as a means of encouragement.” (Sefaria.org
translation)
According to Wikipedia “The archaeological record and genetic analysis show the
remains of the Bonn-Oberkassel
dog buried beside humans 14,200 years ago to be the first
undisputed (domesticated) dog, with disputed remains occurring 36,000 years ago.
The domestication of the dog predates agriculture,[1] and it was not until 11,000 years ago in the Holocene era that people living in the Near
East entered into relationships with wild populations of aurochs, boar, sheep, and goats” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_dog)
Jewish tradition held dogs mostly in
a negative light. They were considered unclean, vicious, and dangerous.
Consequently, tradition generally frowned upon having dogs as pets. In this
light we can understand what the one who said “one who took the vow said to
him: I am not a dog, that I benefit from you and you do not benefit from me” meant. Since dogs were not usually raised in people’s
households, most of the dogs roamed the streets and removed food for themselves
from the garbage. Since dogs did not provide any benefit for human beings and
were only fed out of compassion (think about the people in Jerusalem who feed
all those feral cats nowadays), dogs were seen only as takers and not givers. A
normal person who is in relationship with others wants a reciprocal
relationship and not be compared to a dog who only takes for himself.
Thankfully our understanding of dogs
as pets have changed. We appreciate the unconditional love we received from our
pet dogs. We know all the benefits that our pet dogs provide us. They probably
give us more than they take from us. That’s why all dogs go to heaven.
No comments:
Post a Comment