Hiddush’s response to the draft dodging yeshiva world TB Nedarim 89-90

 While discussing whether a vow that has yet to take effect needs to be annulled, the Gemara on daf TB Nazir 89-90 relates a story that should have modern implications in the Israeli Hareidi community.

“It is related that there was a certain man who took a vow that all benefit from the world should be forbidden to him if he marries a woman when he has not yet learned halakha. He would run up a ladder and rope but was not able to learn the material, i.e., despite all his efforts he failed in his studies. Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna came and misled him, allowing him to understand that even if he took a vow, the vow would not take effect, and so he married a woman.

“And Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna then smeared him with clay to protect him from the elements, as it was now prohibited for him to benefit from the world by wearing clothes. And he then brought him before Rav Ḥisda, to dissolve his vow. Rava said: Who is wise enough to act in this manner, if not Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna, who is a great man? As he holds that just as the Rabbis and Rabbi Natan disagree with regard to nullification, whether it is possible to nullify a vow that has yet to take effect, so too, they disagree with regard to a request made to a halakhic authority to dissolve a vow, whether it is possible to request dissolution of such a vow. Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna’s plan was to have the vow go into effect, so that the man could request that it be dissolved.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Back in pre-World War II Europe, not every boy went to a Yeshiva Gevoha which could be compared to an Ivy League college. These yeshivot only accepted the best and the brightest students just like an Ivy League college. Most boys at the end of their education either became an apprentice to learn a trade or went into their family’s business. That is not the case in Israel today. The Israeli Hareidi community sends their boys to these yeshivot whether they have the aptitude or the interest to study. Many yeshiva students are thought to remain in religious study programs longer than they normally would in order to dodge the draft by claiming academic deferments until they reach the age of exemption. 

The Gemara’s story shows that higher yeshiva study isn’t for everybody. If the student is not succeeding in his studies, he should move on in his life and contribute to the welfare of the world. That is the organization Hiddush for religious freedom and equality’s position on this issue.

 

HIDDUSH'S POSITION

1.     Hiddush supports the principle of equality of civic burden, and at the same time the recognition of the importance of Torah study in a Jewish and democratic state. Therefore we proposed that a generous quota of service exemptions be set for outstanding Torah scholars, much like the State's approach to outstanding musicians, athletes, and scientists. These individuals [about 1,400 per year, out of 8,500 per year] should be selected based on objective criteria and receive a respectable subsistence stipend.

 

2.     As for the rest, the IDF will recruit those suitable for its needs, and the remaining will be required to do civil/national service.

 

3.     Hiddush does not believe that imprisoning draft dodgers among yeshiva students is practical, given today's reality. Sanctions should mainly be on the economic and civil level.

It may be impossible to recruit yeshiva students under the threat of criminal sanctions, but there is no reason for the state to continue supporting them from the public coffers. The sanctions should include, for example, the denial of scholarships and other benefits currently received by these yeshiva students; as well as other sanctions, similar to those against husbands who refuse to grant their wives their desired divorces (to give them a traditional 'gett'). Further, support from taxpayers' monies for yeshivas should be withdrawn from those that choose to harbor draft dodgers.

 

A case of uncertain naziriteship TB Nazir 8

Just like all other vows with conditions, a person's mindset determines whether the vow of nezirut takes effect or not. On today's daf TB Nazir 8 Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda argue over this point “as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who says: I am hereby a nazirite on the condition that this pile of grain will be found to contain at least one hundred kor, and he went to measure the pile and found that it was stolen or lost, making it impossible to determine whether it contained one hundred kor, Rabbi Shimon prohibits him to drink wine or cut his hair, as he holds that in a case of uncertain naziriteship one is required to act stringently. Similarly, in the case in the mishna, since it is not known whether one intended to accept naziriteship according to the number of mustard seeds in the basket or according to the number of gourds there, he must act stringently..

“Conversely, Rabbi Yehuda permits him to drink wine or cut his hair, as he holds that in a case of uncertain naziriteship one is permitted to act leniently. The naziriteship does not take effect, since the pile might have contained less than one hundred kor.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rabbi Shimon holds that the person's mindset was always to become a nazir. So even when there is a doubt whether his pile of grain contained 100 kors or not we decide stringently and say this person who made the condition becomes a nazir. Rabbi Yehuda holds that the person never had a mind to become a nazir unless his pile of grain contained 100 kors. When there's a doubt whether the condition has been met, we decide leniently and say that this person doesn't become a nazir.

Rambam poskins like Rabbi Yehuda that "in a case of uncertain naziriteship one is permitted to act leniently." (Mishneh Torah, the Book of Vows, the Laws of Nazir, chapter 2 halakha 9) Usually in a doubtful case of a Torah law, we decide Jewish law stringently; however, I think that Jewish law was decided leniently even though the concept of a nazir is in Torah origin because the rabbis did not approve of people becoming nezirim.

 

Your retraction doesn’t work with these four exceptions TB Nedarim 87

On daf Nedarim 87 we learn how quickly a person can change his mind after vowing and the retraction works. If he changes his mind and retracts within the time required for speaking (tokh kedai debur-תּוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִבּוּר) a short phrase is like that of continuous speech. If a person changes his mind before someone could say “Shalom rabbee umoree (שלום רבי ומורי), Shalom my rabbi and teacher,” then his retraction takes effect. However, if it is longer than that short phrase (akhar kedai debur- אַחַר כְּדֵי דִיבּוּר), then his retraction is null and void.

“And the halakha is: The legal status of a pause or retraction within the time required for speaking (tokh kedai debur-תּוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִבּוּר) a short phrase is like that of continuous speech, and so a person can retract what he first said if he issues the retraction within this period of time after he finished speaking.” (Sefaria.org translation)

There are four exceptions to this principle of tokh kedai debur-תּוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִבּוּר. “This principle holds true in almost every area of halakha, except for the case of one who blasphemes God; or in the case of an idol worshipper, who verbally accepts an idol as his god; or one who betroths a woman; or one who divorces his wife. In these four cases, a person cannot undo his action, even if he immediately retracts what he said within the time required for saying a short phrase.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Ran explains the psychology behind this principle of tokh kedai debur-תּוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִבּוּר. Tokh kedai debur-תּוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִבּוּר works because we are in constant editing mode when speaking. If something doesn’t come out exactly right, we correct it immediately. For example, when I say something incorrectly I merely say “scratch that” and correct my mistake.

There are some things that a person never says spontaneously, but thinks the matter through. That’s why there are these four exceptions, the blasphemer, the idol worshiper, the person who betroths a woman, and a person who divorces his wife. In these four cases, a person doesn’t do any of these acts on the spur of the moment. Who proposes to a woman without forethought?! Because there is forethought the principal tokh kedai debur-תּוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִבּוּר doesn’t work.

What is the genesis of this principle? Rebbeinu Tam teaches that the principal of tokh kedai debur-תּוֹךְ כְּדֵי דִבּוּר was instituted by the rabbis. When a student was in the midst of negotiating a sale and his rebbe walks by, he can’t ignore is him. He has to acknowledge him and say hello, “Shalom rabbee umoree (שלום רבי ומורי -Shalom my rabbi and teacher.” If a person changes his mind before someone could say “Shalom rabbee umoree (שלום רבי ומורי -Shalom my rabbi and teacher”), he can immediately retract what he was bargaining about.

How you vow makes all the difference how long you become a nazir TB Nazir 7

Today’s daf TB Nazir 7 makes a distinction between three different kinds of nazarite vows and how each impacts our basic understanding that the minimum amount of time a person becomes a nazir is 30 days.

The first type of vow expresses the person’s attitude concerning becoming a nazir as opposed to giving a quantifiable number of days of nezirut. One example of the Mishnah provides is “even if one said: I am hereby a nazirite from now until the end of the world…he is a nazirite for thirty days.” (Sefaria.org translation) This is not a quantifiable number of days since it is an attitude; consequently, the person is only on the hook to be a nazir for 30 days.

The second type of vow includes a quantifiable number of days. “We learned in the mishna (8a): If one says: I am hereby a nazirite from here until such and such a place, one estimates how many days it takes to walk from here until such and such a place. If it is a distance of less than thirty days, he is a nazirite for thirty days, since this is the minimum term of naziriteship. And if not, i.e., if it takes more than thirty days to walk that distance, he is a nazirite in accordance with the number of days it takes to walk to that place. But here too, in that mishna, say that the individual intends to accept only a thirty-day term of naziriteship, and he means to say: This matter of naziriteship is as lengthy for me as the time it would take me to walk from here until such and such a place. Rava said: That mishna is referring to one who had already set out on the way, so that it is apparent that his intention is to be a nazirite until he reaches his destination.” (Sefaria.org translation) In this case, we know exactly how many days it takes to walk from point X to point Y and that is exactly how many days the person is vowing to be a nazir. If the trip is shorter than 30 days, he is still obligated to observe the minimum amount of 30 days of nezirut.

The Rosh explains why a person makes such a vow. We have a concept that observing a mitzvah protects a person on a trip. Today we make a person traveling our mitzvah agent by giving him some money, tzedakkah, to donate when he arrives at his destination. The Rosh explains that traveling long distances is dangerous and the person makes a vow to be a nazir for the duration of the trip as “traveling insurance.”

The third type of vow includes a quantity, but an unquantifiable number. “If one says: I am hereby a nazirite like the dust of the earth, or: Like the hair of my head, or: Like the sand of the sea, he is a nazirite forever, as it is understood that he accepted upon himself terms of naziriteship in accordance with the number of his hairs, or grains of dust, or sand, and he shaves once every thirty days…” (Sefaria.org translation) Although there is a finite number of the dust of the earth, hairs on a person’s head, or the sand of the sea, a human being would never be able to quantify them. He becomes a forever nazir (נָזִיר לְעוֹלָם). He has one term of nezirut after another term of nezirut; consequently, he cuts his hair every 30 days. A permanent nazir (נְזִיר עוֹלָם) as we learned yesterday may only cut his hair once every 12 months.

 

Two novel understanding of the concept “part of the day is like that of an entire day-מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ” TB Nazir 6

Today’s daf TB Nazir 6’s sugiya actually begins on the preceding i. How long should an unspecified nezirut (stam nezirut-סְתַם נְזִירוּת) last? Rav Mattana says that the minimum amount of time for stam nezirut-סְתַם נְזִירוּת is 30 days. The Gemara asks how he learns this time period. “Rav Mattana said: The verse states with regard to a nazirite: “He shall be [yihye] holy ("קָדוֹשׁ יִהְיֶה")” (Numbers 6:5), and the numerical value [gimatriyya] of the letters of the word yihye is thirty.” (Sefaria.org translation) The numerical value of the letter yod (י) is 10 and the numerical value of the letter hey (ה) is five. So the numerical value of the word יִהְיֶה is 10+5+10+5 = 30.

Bar Padda disagrees and says the minimum amount time for stam nezirut is 29 days. “Bar Padda said: The number of days of an unspecified naziriteship corresponds to the number of appearances of the words “nazirite,” “his naziriteship,” and similar terms that are stated in the Torah in the chapter of naziriteship (Numbers, chapter 6): Thirty less one times. So too, an unspecified term of naziriteship is twenty-nine days.” (Sefaria.org translation) We shall also see that he learns 29 days from the possibility that a lunar month can be 29 days.

The Gemara tests which amora is correct by analyzing mishnayot we shall study when we reach the third chapter of our massekhet. Although the Gemara shows that each amora can explain away the difficulties raised. Nevertheless, the halakha is the minimum amount time for a stam nezirut is 30 days. . (Mishneh Torah, Book of Vows, laws of nazirut, chapter 3 halakha 6 and 10)

I like to share two novel understandings of the term “part of the day is like that of an entire day-מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ” from today’s daf. According to Rav Mattana, the nazir doesn’t have to wait 30 complete days. He may end his nezirut on the 30^th day and offer up those three special nazirite sacrifices. The novel understanding of the term comes into play when the nazir accepts upon himself two unspecified terms of stam nezirut one right after the other. “the tanna therefore teaches us that part of the day is like that of an entire day, even to allow counting the beginning of the day as the last day of one term of naziriteship and the end of the day as the first day of another term of naziriteship.” (Sefaria.org explanation) In other words, the 30^th day can count both as the last day of the person’s nezirut and the first day of the next round of nezirut.

Nevertheless, Rav Mattana holds that the counting of 30 days doesn’t end and the nazir must still abstain from partaking of any grape product, cutting his hair, and coming into contact with a dead body until the he brings his sacrifices. In other words “part of the day is like that of an entire day-מִקְצָת הַיּוֹם כְּכוּלּוֹ” is only effective after the sacrifices are offered.

 

 

Get a haircut you hippie TB Nedarim 5

We learned that one of the differences between a nazir Shimshon (nazir Samson) and a permanent nazir (nazir olam-נְזִיר עוֹלָם) is a haircut. A nazir Shimon may never get a haircut while a nazir olam may get a haircut when his hair becomes too heavy for him.

The Gemara presents three different points of view when a nazir olam may get a haircut.

Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi learns that a permanent nazir may get a haircut once every year. “Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Absalom was a permanent nazirite, as it is stated: “And it came to pass at the end of forty years, that Absalom said to the king: I pray to you, let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebron” (II Samuel 15:7). And he cut his hair once every twelve months, as it is stated: “And when he polled his head, now it was at every year’s [yamim] end that he polled it; because the hair was heavy on him” (II Samuel 14:26).  

“And Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives the meaning of the term yamim stated with regard to Absalom based upon a verbal analogy from the word yamim that appears in the context of houses of walled cities, where it states: “For a full year [yamim] he shall have the right of redemption” (Leviticus 25:29). Just as there, in the case of walled cities, the term yamim means twelve months, as the verse states immediately afterward: “Within the space of a full year” (Leviticus 25:30), so too here, in the case of Absalom, the term yamim means twelve months.” (daf 4b-5a, Sefaria.org translation)

The second opinion a permanent nazir may get a haircut is once every 30 days. “Rabbi Nehorai says: Absalom cut his hair once every thirty days… The Gemara explains the basis for this opinion: What is the reason that with regard to priests, the halakha is that they must cut their hair every thirty days? It is because after that interval there is noticeable weight to the hair. Here, too, in the case of Absalom, there is noticeable weight after this period of time has passed, and it is clear that Absalom cut his hair due to its weight, as it is stated: “Because the hair was heavy on him, therefore he polled it” (II Samuel 14:26).” (Sefaria.org translation)

The third opinion is the hardest to accept because one of the signs of a nazir is long hair. “Rabbi Yosei says: He cut his hair from one Shabbat eve to another Shabbat eve, as we find that the sons of kings cut their hair from one Shabbat eve to another Shabbat eve… If so, what difference is there between Absalom, who was a nazirite, and the rest of his brothers, King David’s sons, who also cut their hair once a week?

“The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them with regard to a Festival that occurs in the middle of the week, as his brothers would cut their hair in honor of the Festival, whereas he would not cut his hair. Alternatively, the difference between them concerns cutting hair on the morning of Shabbat eve. His brothers would cut their hair at that hour, whereas he would not cut his hair until the evening, shortly before Shabbat.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Rambam poskins that a nazir may cut his hair once every 12 months. (Mishneh Torah, Book of Vows, laws of nazirut, chapter 3 halakha 12)

Three types of nezarim-נזרים (plural for nazir-נְזִיר)

Just by reading the 21 verses in parashat Naso, Numbers 6:1-21, we would mistakenly believe that there’s only one kind of nazir. Today’s daf TB Nazir 4 (as well as tomorrow’s daf) introduces to three different types of nazarites.

Let’s call the first type of nazir a standard nazir. This is a person who takes a vow to abstain from any grape product including wine, from getting a haircut, and refraining from becoming ritually unready, tamei-טָמֵא). This nezirut has a term limit. We shall learn that the minimum amount of time that person can vow to be a nazir is 30 days; nevertheless, it may continue for months or even years.

The second type of nazir is nazir Shimshon (nazir Samson). To refresh your memory about Samson’s adventures, read about his life in Judges 13-16.

The third type of nazir is a permanent nazir (nazir olam-נְזִיר עוֹלָם). A permanent nazir is one who becomes a nazir for the rest of his mortal life.

The Gemara delineates the difference between a nazir Shimshon and a nazir olam. “What is the difference between a permanent nazirite and a nazirite like Samson? In the case of a permanent nazirite, if his hair grows too heavy for him, he lightens it with a razor and he then brings three animals for offerings. And if he becomes ritually impure, he brings the offering for impurity. In the case of a nazirite like Samson, if his hair grows heavy he may not lighten it with a razor, but he does not bring the offering for impurity.

“The Gemara comments: From the words: But if he becomes impure he does not bring an offering for impurity, one can infer that it is the offering that he does not bring. However, all of the prohibitions of nazariteship apply to him, and it is prohibited for him to become impure from a corpse.” (Sefaria.org translation) The nazir olam is behaves like a standard nazir after the infraction and then just continues with his nezirut.

It’s interesting to note that not everybody agrees that there is a category called nazir Shimshon. Rabbi Yehuda holds that one can become a nazir just like Samson and Rabbi Shimon disagrees. If a person takes a vow to be like Samson, he hasn’t said anything. “Rabbi Yehuda says: A nazirite like Samson is permitted to become impure from a corpse ab initio, as we find with Samson that he became impure. Rabbi Shimon says: One who says he will be a nazirite like Samson has not said anything, since we do not find with Samson that an utterance of a vow of nazariteship left his mouth. Samson never took a vow to be a nazirite. He received his status from the angel’s instructions to his mother (see Judges 13:5). Consequently, Rabbi Shimon holds that one who vows to be a nazirite like Samson is not considered to have taken a nazirite vow” (Sefaria.org translation)

I like to conclude with a story we learned earlier in massekhet Nedarim daf 9b. The story teaches that one should not take a nazirite vow lightly. The person should only have the purest intention and motivation.

“Shimon HaTzaddik said: In all my days as a priest, I never ate the guilt-offering of a ritually impure nazirite, apart from the offering of one man who came to me from the South, who had beautiful eyes and a fine countenance, and his locks were arranged in curls. I said to him: My son, what did you see to become a nazirite, which would force you to destroy this beautiful hair, as a nazirite must cut off all his hair at the conclusion of his term?

“He said to me: I was a shepherd for my father in my town, and I went to draw water from the spring, and I looked at my reflection in the water. And my evil inclination quickly rose against me and sought to drive me from the world. I said to my evil inclination: Empty one! For what reason are you proud in a world that is not yours, as your end is to be maggots and worms when you die. I swear by the Temple service that I will become a nazirite and shave you for the sake of Heaven.

“Shimon HaTzaddik relates: When I heard his response, I arose and kissed him on his head, and said to him: May there be more nazarites like you in Israel, whose intentions are noble, and who would not regret their vow of nazariteship even if they became impure. With regard to you the verse states: “When either a man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord” (Numbers 6:2). The verse speaks of a vow that is not undertaken out of anger or spite, but purely for the sake of God. The phrase “to the Lord” in this context means: For the sake of Heaven. It cannot be used to teach that if one declares his intention to become a nazirite like Samson, his statement constitutes a nazirite vow.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Is Shmuel really contradicting himself? TB Nedarim 85-6

We learned in massekhet Ketubot that the ketubah is a contract between husband and wife. The husband is obligated to provide food and shelter amongst other things for his wife and the wife is obligated to work and bring in a specified sum money which she will give to her husband. He holds a lien against the works of her hands. Whether or not  the wife is able to sanctify latent and potential produce of her hands (מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לְעוֹלָם) will be the discussion of the two dappim TB Nedarim 85-6.

Mishnah “If she said: I will not produce anything for you (i.e. her husband-gg), including the work that she is obligated to do for him according to the terms of her marriage contract, as that is konam for me, her husband need not nullify the vow at all. It is automatically void, since she is obligated to perform those tasks.

“Rabbi Akiva says: He should nevertheless nullify the vow, as perhaps she will exceed the required amount of work and do more for him than is fitting for him to receive. If she does more than the fixed amount of work that a woman is obligated to perform for her husband, the vow will be valid with respect to the excess to which he is not entitled, and he might inadvertently come to benefit from something that is forbidden to him.

“Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri also says that he should nullify the vow, but for a different reason: Perhaps he will one day divorce her, at which point the vow will take effect and she will then be forbidden to him forever, i.e., he will be unable to remarry her, lest he come to benefit from her labor.” (Sefaria.org translation)

When it comes to a person consecrating an entity that has not yet come into the world (מַקְדִּישׁ דָּבָר שֶׁלֹּא בָּא לְעוֹלָם), Shmuel seems to be contradicting himself. Concerning Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri’s above position: “Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri. The Gemara asks: Is this to say that Shmuel maintains that a person can consecrate an entity that has not yet come into the world? According to Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri, her vow is valid with respect to things she will do after her divorce, even though at present she is not divorced and she has not yet produced anything.” (Sefaria.org translation)

But we know that Shmuel holds hold that person can’t consecrate an entity that is not yet come into the world from the Gemara TB Ketubot 58b. “If one consecrates his wife’s earnings, she may work and sustain herself from her earnings, as the consecration is ineffective. And with regard to the surplus earnings, i.e., if she produced more than she needs for her sustenance, Rabbi Meir says the surplus becomes consecrated property, whereas Rabbi Yoḥanan HaSandlar says that it is non-sacred. And Shmuel said that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan HaSandlar. Apparently, Shmuel’s opinion is that a person cannot consecrate an entity that has not yet come into the world, and therefore a man cannot consecrate earnings that his wife will produce only in the future.” (Sefaris.org translation)

After a lot of attempts to reconcile the two Gemara’s  provides an acceptable solution “Rather, Rav Ashi said that this is the reason Shmuel ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Nuri: Although a person cannot consecrate an entity that has not yet come into the world, konamot are different. They are stringent and take effect in all cases, as their prohibited status is considered akin to inherent sanctity. When one person prohibits another from deriving benefit from a particular item by means of a konam, the forbidden item is treated as if it has inherent sanctity. It cannot be redeemed and can never become permitted. Because of its severity, a woman can forbid her handiwork to her husband by means of a konam, even though she is obligated to hand over the fruits of her labor to him.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Nevertheless, the sanctification of the object (hekdash- הֶקְדֵשׁ) doesn’t begin until after the marriage is dissolved even though hekdash stops the husband’s lien. I find it very interesting that the rabbis strengthened the lien until after the divorce even though according to Torah law it no longer exists. Rabbis have the power to meet the challenges of the world around them. Unfortunately too many Orthodox rabbis refuse to wield the power they have to solve the problems that modern Jews have. Although I don’t always agree with the decisions of the Rabbinical Assembly’s law committee, I know that they are sincere in their efforts to solve these problems. I am proud that I am a Conservative rabbi because of their efforts.

 

  

Two interesting tosafot TB Nazir 3

The first Mishnah of our massekhet lists seven yadot a person could say to become a nazir. Yadot literally means “handles.” Here the word refers to an incomplete vow that is nonetheless a sufficient declaration, example holding a vessel by the handle is enough to lift the entire vessel. If you remember the Gemara in Nedarim, it describes an acceptable incomplete sentence (יָד מוֹכִיחַ) as a vow because everybody can finish it correctly. If the incomplete sentence is so incomplete and people have no idea what the person is talking about, there is no vow. In between these two polar points, there is an ambiguous incomplete sentence (יָד שֶאֵינוֹ מוֹכִיחַ) and there is a disagreement whether this incomplete sentence is sufficient to create a vow or not.

The first yad (singular for yadot) is so ambiguous that Shmuel has to give it context for the vow to come into force. “הָאוֹמֵר "אֱהֵא"־ הֲרֵי זֶה נָזִיר-The mishna taught: One who says: I will be, is a nazirite. The Gemara asks: Perhaps he is saying: I will be fasting, i.e., his intention is to take a vow that will obligate himself to fast rather than to be a nazirite. The Gemara answers that Shmuel said: The mishna is describing a case where a nazirite was passing before him, so that it is clear that he is taking a nazirite vow.” (TB Nazir 2b, Sefaria.org translation)

The second yad is also so ambiguous that Shmuel has to give it context as well. “אֱהֵא נָאֶה" ־ נָזִיר-The mishna taught that if one says: I will be beautiful [na’e], he is a nazirite. The Gemara asks: But perhaps when he said: I will be beautiful, he meant: I will be beautiful before Him in mitzvot? As it is taught in a baraita: “This is my God and I will glorify Him [anvehu]” (Exodus 15:2). Anvehu has the same root as the word na’e; therefore, the verse means: I will be beautiful before Him in mitzvot. How is this done? I will make before Him a beautiful sukka, a beautiful lulav, beautiful ritual fringes. I will write before Him a beautiful Torah scroll, and I will wrap it in beautiful silk cloths [shira’in]. The Gemara answers that Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to a case where one is holding his hair and says: I will be beautiful. This clearly indicates that he is referring to naziriteship.” (TB Nazir 2b, Sefaria.org translation)

The Gemara raises a problem. Not everybody agrees that becoming a nazir is praiseworthy. In fact we shall learn that Rabbi Elazar HaKappar holds that one sins by vowing to become a nazir. On our daf TB Nazir 3, the Gemara qualifies Rabbi Elazar HaKappar’s position so that he agrees with Shmuel’s context.

“The Gemara answers: Yes, as even according to Rabbi Elazar HaKappar, who said that a nazirite is a sinner, that applies only with regard to a ritually impure nazirite. This is because it is necessary for him to void the days of his vow that have been observed and to begin his term anew, as the Merciful One states in the Torah: “But the first days will be void, because his consecration was defiled” (Numbers 6:12). It is there that Rabbi Elazar HaKappar called the nazirite a sinner, because perhaps he will come to transgress his naziriteship now that he is a nazirite for a longer period than he originally intended. However, with regard to a ritually pure nazirite (נָזִיר טָהוֹר), Rabbi Elazar HaKappar does not call him a sinner.” (Sefaria.org translation)

There are two interesting tosafot on daf TB Nazir 2b that discusses these two yadot. The first tosafot ד"ה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: שֶׁתָּפוּס בִּשְׂעָרוֹ explains why the Mishna needs both yadot, "אֱהֵא" and “אֱהֵא נָאֶה” even though they look very similar. The contextual clues are very different. In the case of "אֱהֵא", the person points to a nazir who is walking by him and says to the effect I want to be like him. In the case of “אֱהֵא נָאֶה”, the person is holding his hair signifying that he wants to become a nazir who was forbidden to cut his hair. Since the contextual clues are so different, the Mishna feels obligated to include both those yadot.

The second tosafot ואמאי נְזִירָא מִילְּתָא דַעֲבֵירָה raises a very good question. Since everywhere else in the entire Talmud Rabbi Elazar HaKappar holds that even a pure nazarite (נָזִיר טָהוֹר) is a sinner, how can we explain our Gemara’s explanation of Rabbi Elazar HaKappar that a pure nazir is not a sinner? The answer is quite sophisticated. Thinking of a nazir in binary terms, as somebody praiseworthy or as a sinner, is incorrect. There are aspects of a nazir that are positive and there are aspects of a nazir there are sinful. In fact at the conclusion of his nazirut, one of the sacrifices he must offer is a sin offering. If we see being a nazir as a mixture of both good and bad with the good outweighing the bad, then even in our Gemara Rabbi Elazar HaKappar can see the positives in a pure nazir like Shmuel.

 

 

Order out of chaos #parashatbo#devartorah#parashathashavua

Everything I observe makes me believe this is true: Order is not natural. When I consider my office, I’m astounded at how quickly it descends into chaos and how long it takes me to restore order. Order requires intervention; it does not happen naturally.

I shouldn’t be surprised. God’s role in bringing order out of chaos is a prominent biblical theme. He did it when He was creating the nation of Israel (Ex. 7–14). When God said it was time to bring our ancestors out of Egypt, Pharaoh objected. His nation’s economy depended on the Hebrew workers, so Pharaoh didn’t want to lose them. To change Pharaoh’s mind, God sent 10 plagues to convince him. In this week’s parasha Bo, We read about the last 3 plagues, culminating in the death of the first born. Pharaoh’s magicians were able to duplicate the first two plagues. But they could not reverse the plagues—any of them. They could cause chaos, but they could not restore order. Only God can do that.

With effort, we can bring order to our living spaces, but many of us need help to bring order out of the emotional and spiritual chaos of our lives. God can help us do that. He restores order to chaotic situations when we live as God intended as taught by his prophet Micah:  “He has told you O man, what is good and what the Lord requires of you; Only to do justice and to love goodness and to walk modestly with your God.” (6:8)

 

The benefit of discretion-tovat hana-ah- טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה TB Nedarim 84a

 The Mishnah on daf TB Nedarim 83a teaches “If a woman vowed: The property of other people is konam for me, and for that reason I will not benefit from it, her husband cannot nullify her vow, but nevertheless, if she is poor, she may benefit from the agricultural gifts that must be left for the poor: Gleanings, i.e., isolated stalks that fell during the harvest; forgotten sheaves; and produce of the corners [pe’a] of the field that the owner is obligated to leave for the poor. Enjoyment of these gifts is not considered as benefit derived from people, as these gifts are not given voluntarily out of the kindness of the donors, but in the performance of a mitzva.” (Sefaria.org translation) on TB Nedarim 84 there is a tannaitic disagreement whether she may benefit from ma’aser oni (מַעְשַׂר עָנִי).

To refresh your memory, a farmer in Israel gives terumah to the kohen which equals 2% of his crop. Then he gives ma’aser rishon (the first tithe) to the Levite which equals the next 10% of his crop. In years one, two, four, and five in the seven-year cycle, the farmer takes ma’aser sheni, the next 10% of his crop and enjoys it in Jerusalem. In years three and six, the same 10% of his crop is given to the poor as ma’aser oni.

The tannaitic disagreement whether she may benefit from ma’aser oni (מַעְשַׂר עָנִי) revolves around the principle “the benefit of discretion-tovat hana-ah-טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה).” According to her vow she cannot benefit directly from anybody. Rav Yosef explains that the debate about ma’aser oni is whether a person has to designate the poor person he is given to or whether he can just leave it for any poor person. The sages hold he has the benefit of discretion-tovat hana-ah-טוֹבַת הֲנָאָה, then this woman who took the above vow would not be able to benefit from his ma’aser oni. Rabbi Eliezer holds the farmer leaves the ma’aser oni ownerless like the gleanings, the forgotten sheaves, and the corners of the fields, she may benefit from it because it is indirect distribution.

Rav’s solution to harmonize the disagreement by saying the sources are describing are two different distribution centers of ma’aser oni. The first distribution center is your house where you give this tithe directly to the poor. Obviously, since this is direct distribution, the woman may not benefit from this distribution center. The second distribution center is the granary. The grain is just there for any poor person to take. Obviously, this is indirect distribution just like gleanings, the forgotten sheaves, and the corners of the fields, she may benefit from it.

Two reasons why massekhet Nazir is found in Seder Nashim (Order of Women) TB Nazir 2

We begin massekhet Nazir today with daf TB Nazir 2. A Nazir (נָזִיר) detaches himself from the world by vowing to abstain from cutting his hair, from coming into any contact with the dead, and from grapes and any grape product including wine. We shall learn that the minimum amount of time of Nazirut is 30 days, but a person can take a vow to become a Nazir for any length of time including a lifetime vow. The most famous Nazir is Sampson.

The first question we should answer is why is the tractate concerning the Nazirite (נָזִיר) in the Seder Nashim (Order of Women)? In fact Tosafot ד"ה מַאי טַעְמָא תָּנֵי נָזִיר suggests that it better belongs in Seder Kodshin which deals with sacrifices because much of our tractate discusses the sacrifices a Nazir has to bring at the conclusion of his Nazirut and when his Nazirut is interrupted by violating one of the three prohibitions. Most of the Seder Nashim includes the tractates concerning aspects marriage like Yevamot, Ketubot, Kiddushin, and Gittin (divorce). The maasekhet Nazir is appended after massekhet Nedarim because it is a subcategory of vows with many different laws. Besides a woman may take the vow and become a Nazirite. Today’s daf provides another reason why we find massekhet Nazir in Seder Nashim.

“The Gemara begins by clarifying why this tractate appears in the order of Nashim within the six orders of the Mishna. Now, the tanna is engaged in the study of the order of Nashim, which discusses laws concerning marriage and the resulting obligations as well as with forbidden sexual relations. What then is the reason that he teaches the laws of the nazirite here?

“The Gemara answers: The tanna is engaged in the study of the verse pertaining to divorce: “Then it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly matter about her” (Deuteronomy 24:1). And this is what he is saying: What caused the woman to commit the transgression of adultery, alluded to in the verse by the phrase “unseemly matter”? It was wine. And the tanna is saying: Anyone who sees a sota (a woman who was suspected of adultery by her husband –gg) in her disgrace should abstain from wine. Consequently, tractate Nazir is placed in the order of Nashim, immediately preceding tractate Sota, which is about a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful, and tractate Gittin, which discusses divorce.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Like most things our tradition treats wine as something both good and bad. Drinking wine in moderation is praised. “Wine cheers God and man.” (Judges 9:13; see Psalm 10:15) “Old wine is good for the stomach.” (TB Berakhot 51a) “Wine is at the head of all medicine.” (TB Baba Batra 58b) On the other hand, abusing wine leads to sin and immorality. “When wine enters, counsel leaves.” (Hiyya Rabba, TB Eruvin 65a) “When wine goes in, the secret will out.” (Hiyya Rabba, TB Sanhedrin 38a) “Wine is the beginning of all sin.” (Meiri, Bet Habikhira on Pirkei Avot) “Where there’s wine, there’s immorality.” (Numbers Rabbah 10:3)

You might think that the Nazir’s reaction of abstaining from wine seeing a woman being suspected of adultery because of wine is extreme, but I can give you a modern example of a person who refrains from alcohol because of its effects. Former President Trump’s brother Fred Junior was an alcoholic who died at age 42 in 1981. Seeing how alcohol destroyed and killed his brother, Trump never drinks any alcoholic beverage.

 

How the food is distributed is the key to understanding the conundrum TB Nedarim 83

Today’s daf TB Nedarim 83 presents a conundrum. A woman takes a vow not to benefit from other people, but she’s allowed to take the gifts left for the poor, leket, and shikha, and peah (לֶקֶט, שִׁכְחָה, וּבְפֵאָה). How’s that possible since the gives for the poor come from other people?

“If a woman vowed: The property of other people is konam for me, and for that reason I will not benefit from it, her husband cannot nullify her vow, but nevertheless, if she is poor, she may benefit from the agricultural gifts that must be left for the poor: Gleanings, i.e., isolated stalks that fell during the harvest (leket); forgotten sheaves (shikha); and produce of the corners [pe’a] of the field that the owner is obligated to leave for the poor.” (Sefaria.org translation)

The Ron solves this problem. He explains that the vow is about the distribution of the food and not the food itself. This woman vows not to be involved with the direct provider of the food. When it comes to leket, and shikha, and peah (לֶקֶט, שִׁכְחָה, וּבְפֵאָה), there is no direct distribution. This food is “abandoned;” consequently, she can take for herself the gleanings, the forgotten sheaves, and the produce of the corners without violating her vow.

The rest of the daf and tomorrow’s daf will discuss whether the woman’s husband is under this vow and may not provide for her or excluded in her vow and may provide for her. Stay tuned.