Spit in his Eye

The Yerushalmi in Sotah relates the following: Rav Meir was accustomed to deliver a Torah lecture every Friday night. A certain woman was always in attendance. One time, Rabbi Meir said a lengthy drasha and by the time she arrived home, the Shabbos candles had already burnt out. Her husband was angry with her and told her, “I do not want to see you again until you spit into the eye of the person who was giving the lecture that you attended.”

The Medrash records that the woman sat outside of her house for several weeks. All the women saw her and asked her what was going on. She explained the story. The women went to Rabbi Meir and related the situation to him in hope that he would have a solution. (The Yerushalmi states that Rabbi Meir realized through Divine spirit what the situation was even before the women came to him.)

Rabbi Meir pretended to be suffering from pain in the eyes, and announced: “If there is any woman skilled in whispering charms for the eyes (a type of "medicine" which was believed to be effective in those days) , let her come and whisper.” When this particular woman came to him, he asked her: “Are you skilled in whispering charms for the eyes?” She said that she didn’t. Rabbi Meir told her, “Do not worry. I will tell you what to do. Just spit into this eye seven times and all will be well.” After she did as she was instructed, Rabbi Meir told her to go to her husband and say that you only requested of me to spit in his eye once; I did so seven times.

His students asked him: “Master! Should Torah be degraded in such a manner?” Rabbi Meir replied: “Should my honor be treated in a higher regard than the honor of the Omnipresent? If, in order to make peace between a husband and a wife, the Torah commanded: Let My Name, which was written in sanctity, be erased in the destructive waters, how much more so I, where I can forego my honor in order to bring about peace between a man and his wife.

Read more!

Four People are Considered as Dead

The braisa (Nedarim 64b) states: Four people are as if they are dead. These are a poor person, a leper, a blind person, and someone who does not have children. A poor person is as if he is dead, as derived from the passuk above, ““Because all of those (who have sought to kill you) have died.” A leper is considered like he is dead, as the passuk states, “let her not be as if she is dead.” A blind person is considered dead, as the passuk states, “In the darkness he placed me like the dead of the world.” Someone who does not have sons is considered dead, as the passuk states, ““give me children, and if not I am dead.”

Reb Chaim Shmulevitz explains that the common denominator among these four is that they do not feel someone else’s pain and that they cannot provide benefit for others.

A poor person is considered as dead not because he is lacking himself, but rather, it is because he cannot give to others.

A blind person cannot see others and therefore, he is unable to perceive their pain or suffering. He cannot join in his tribulation.

A metzora is banished from the camp and therefore, he is unable to offer assistance to others.

One who does not have children to nurture is lacking the ability to provide benefit to those that are dear and close to him. It is a natural instinct for a person to desire to give whatever he has to his children.

Only a life where one can share with others is worth living.

Read more!

Delaying by a Neder

The Mishna (Nedarim 63a) had stated: If one made a neder against tasting wine for the year, and the year was proclaimed to be a leap year, he is forbidden for the year and its extension.

The Ra”n explains: The Mishna is teaching us that even if one made the neder from the beginning of the year, since he said “this year,” we do not say that he meant “one year,” but rather, he is prohibited for an extra month, which is thirteen months. However, if he said “one year” without any specification, the extra month is not included, even though the year was a leap year. For behold, if he did not abide by his prohibition this year, he makes it up the next year, which is a regular year. And although, it is forbidden for him to do that, because there is a prohibition against delaying, since if he would delay, he could make it up in another year, his neder is not connected to this year, which is a leap year. Therefore, even if he fulfills it this year, the extra month is not included.

The Rashba holds that even if he says, “one year from today,” the extra month is not included.

It is evident from the Ra”n that he holds of the following novelty: One can violate the transgression against delaying, even by a prohibatory neder.

The Rambam and Ramban, both maintain that this prohibition is only applicable by a neder for hekdesh, when one is obligating himself to do something.

The Machaneh Efraim adds that this transgression can apply by all nedarim to fulfill a mitzvah.

Reb Shimon Shkop states that the Ra”n’s words are perplexing. The prohibition against delaying is applicable when the person has an obligation to do soemthing. A neder is a prohibition on an object. If the object is forbidden, it is forbidden, but if it is not, how can there be a prohibition against delaying?

Reb Dovod Pervarsky explains: A neder also begins with an obligation resting on the person. He is obligated to fulfill his neder. If the forbidden object is in existence, the neder takes effect upon that object. However, if it is not in existence at that time, the person has a responsibility to render it forbidden when it comes into this world. If he fails to do so immediately, he is violating the transgression against delaying.

Read more!

An Abbreviated Cycle

The Gemora (Nedarim 61a) presents a dispute regarding the counting of Yovel. The Chachamim hold that Yovel is the fiftieth year in the cycle and the following year is the first year of the next cycle. Rabbi Yehuda maintains that the fiftieth year is reckoned for both cycles. It is the fiftieth year of the previous cycle and the first year of the forthcoming cycle.

The Turei Even poses an interesting question according to the viewpoint of Rabbi Yehuda. In the first Shemitah cycle after a Yovel, there will only be five field working years between Yovel and Shemitah since during Yovel one is not permitted to work his field.

In a normal Shemitah cycle, each of the six years has a designated tithing that one is required to separate from his field. One is obligated to take maaser sheini (he would bring one tenth of his produce to Yerushalayim to be eaten there) on the first, second, fourth and fifth years. He would separate maaser oni (given to the poor) on the third and sixth years. The Turei Even wonders what the arrangement would be according to Rabbi Yehuda in the first cycle following a Yovel, where there is only five years.

The Netziv and the Sfas Emes state that in the third year, one would separate maaser oni and regarding the remaining years, he would take maaser sheini. This is because the Torah states that maaser oni should be separated every three years; however the Torah does not prescribe set years for maaser sheini. A year that does not have a requirement for maaser oni, automatically has an obligation for maaser sheini.

Read more!

Term Expired and Fasting for "One Day"

Annulment after the Term of the Neder Expired

The Mishna (Nedarim 60a) states: If a person says: “Konam” (he forbids himself with a vow) that he will not taste any wine today, he is only forbidden from doing so until it gets dark.

Rabbi Yirmiyah says: When it gets dark, he must ask a scholar (to permit his vow). The Gemora asks: What is the reason for this? Rav Yosef answers: It is a decree, lest he confuse this case with a vow that he will abstain “for one day” (which the Mishna stated means that he is forbidden for twenty-four hours, not just until dark).

The Acharonim ask: Why can’t he have the neder annulled before the night? Why must he wait for the night?

The Chasam Sofer answers: If he would have the neder annulled before the night, it would retroactively annul his neder. It would emerge that he had abstained for nothing. However, if he waits until the night to annul the neder, he has fulfilled his neder, since the term of his neder was for that day. It was only a stringency based upon a decree that he should have it annulled at night.

It is evident from the Chasam Sofer that he maintains that a neder cannot be annulled after its term has been completed. The Tosfos Ri”d holds that a neder can be annulled by a sage even after its term has expired.

Fasting Nowadays

The Ra”n asks on our custom of accepting to fast for one day, and immediately by nightfall, he is permitted to eat without petitioning a sage first. According to our Gemora, shouldn’t he be required to have the neder annulled because of Rav Yosef’s decree of “one day”?

The Ra”n answers: Everyone knows that the Chachamim instituted that the time for a fast is from morning until night. It is not similar to other nedarim, which do not have a set time. There, therefore, is no reason for a decree, for everyone understands that the halachos of nedarim and the halachos of fasting are distinct from each other.

The Rashba answers: The Gemora’s decree is only applicable in a case where he made a neder, saying, “Today, I will not drink wine,” which is similar to the case where he said, “I will not drink wine for one day.” There, we rule that he must have the neder annulled at nightfall, since it is similar to the case where he made the neder for “one day,” where he was permitted in the beginning of the day. However, regarding a fast, where one is forbidden to eat from the beginning of the day until its conclusion, there is no reason for any decree. One would easily think that the reason why we are lenient and allow him to eat at nightfall is because we were stringent upon him at the beginning of the day. When he makes the neder in middle of the day, and he was permitted up until then, we decree that he is required to petition a sage for annulment of his neder at nightfall.

The Rashba offers another answer: There is no place for Rav Yosef’s decree by a neder to fast, for even if one would make a neder to fast for “one day,” he will not be required to fast for twenty-four hours like by a different neder. Therefore, on a regular fast, he may begin to eat immediately upon nightfall.

The Yados Nedarim answers: This decree was never issued by a neder for a mitzvah. One who vows to fast is regarded as a mitzvah, as the Gemora refers to him as a kodosh.

Read more!

Pigs in the Future

(Nedarim 59a) The Rishonim disagree regarding a food item that the Gemora is uncertain if it is forbidden or not and it remains unresolved. The inquiry will remain in that state until Eliyahu Hanavi clarifies it for us. The Ohr Zarua maintains that this is regarded as “something which can become permitted,” since there is a possibility that Eliyahu will say that it is permitted. The Rashba (Beitzah 4a) disagrees and he explains: If Eliyahu will decide that the food is forbidden, it will emerge that this item will never be permitted. If he will rule that it is permitted, it actually was never forbidden. Either way, he argues, it cannot be labeled as “something which can become permitted.” The Bach cites a Mordechai that it is not considered “something which can become permitted,” for by the time Eliyahu will permit it, the food will be already ruined.

The Chasam Sofer cites the following question from the Rav in Frankfurt: Chazal write that a pig is called a “chazir,” for in the future, Hashem will reverse the prohibition of the pig and it will be permitted. If so, according to those Rishonim, pig should be regarded as “something which can become permitted”?

The Chasam Sofer answers based upon that which was written in the Toldos Yitzchak: The Torah forbids animals that do not have split hooves, or those that do not chew their cud because those animals are naturally conceited; they trample with their feet and they have a poison inside of them, which is extremely dangerous for a Jew to eat. The animals that do not digest their food easily and they are compelled to chew their cud; those animals are permitted to eat.

If so, explains the Chasam Sofer, there will be no change in halacha regarding the pig. It was forbidden and will remain forbidden. Rather, Hashem will change the nature of the pig and it will begin to chew its cud. That is why it will be permitted then. Accordingly, the only pigs that will be permitted then, are those that will be born after this change occurs; however, the pigs that were in existence prior to that will remain forbidden. This is why a pig is not classified as “something which can become permitted.”

Read more!

Women and Shemitah

The Chinuch states that there is a positive commandment which forbids plowing on Shemitah. It is written [Shmos 34:21]: From plowing and harvesting you shall desist.

The Minchas Chinuch (112) asks that if so, women should be exempt from this mitzvah, and they should be permitted to plow on shemitah because it is a positive commandment that has a time element to it and the principle is that women are exempt from any positive mitzvah which is governed by time?

He answers that women are obligated in this mitzvah because that rule is applicable only regarding a positive mitzvah that is incumbent on the body of the person and not a mitzvah like shemitah, which is a mitzvah that is dependent on the land (mitzvos hateluyos ba’aretz). This can be better understood based upon our Gemora which says that the shemitah prohibition is on account of the ground.

Proof to this distinction is cited from the Ritva in Kiddushin (29a). The Gemora rules, based on a Scriptural verse that women are not obligated to perform a circumcision on their sons. Tosfos asks: Why is a verse necessary; circumcision is a positive mitzvah which is governed by time since the mitzvah can only be performed by day, and women are exempt? The Ritva answers: Any mitzvah which is not related to the person themselves; this principle does not apply. The mitzvah of milah is to perform the circumcision on the son and therefore women would be obligated if not for the special verse teaching us otherwise.

Read more!

Something that will become Permitted

Rabbi Shimon said Nedarim 58a): That Mishna is only referring to the halacha of bi’ur i.e. removing (the produce of Shemitah may be kept as long as that produce is still available in the fields for the animals; afterwards, it may no longer remain in the house).

The Ra”n explains: Since it was possible to eat it before that time, it is regarded as something that can become permitted.

The Sha’ar Hamelech and the Noda B’Yehudah ask: According to this logic, why is it only not nullified if it becomes intermingled with its type? The halacha should be that it should not become nullified even if it becomes mixed up in something that is not its type? For the Ra”n above (52a) explained at great length in the name of the Ri”f that something which is permitted presently to be consumed will not be nullified, even with a mixture of things that aren’t its type?

The Sha’ar Hamelech answers: The Ra”n only said that rule in respect of things that will be permitted forever, such as meat, which will always be permitted to be eaten with other meat or foods that are not from milk. However, here, the Shemitah produce will become forbidden forever, i.e. after the “time of removal.” It is therefore compared to something that will become permitted, where it will not become nullified only in a mixture of things that aren’t its type.

Read more!

Superstition

Ula says (Nedarim 56a): A dargash bed is a bed of good fortune.

The Rishonim ask: Shouldn’t such a bed be forbidden on account of the prohibition of nichush; One should not act upon the basis of omens or lucky times (Vayikra 19:26)?

The Radvaz answers that it is being used as a sign to strengthen one’s luck, but not to be superstitious about it. R’ Eliezer MiMitz disagrees with him and maintains that even that would be forbidden.

The Shitah Mikubetzes explains that this is a bed designated for the guardian angel of the house. It was done for the purpose of honoring the Holy One, blessed is He. This is similar in the manner that we prepare a chair for Eliyahu Hanavi by a bris milah.

The Ra”n in Sanhedrin explains that it is a bed which is constantly made and kept empty in order to demonstrate that the household has more than they need. Through this, one is recognizing that Hashem has blessed him with wealth and thanking Him for it.

The Rambam writes that dargash is a small bed that is placed before a larger bed; it is used as a stepping-stool in order to climb onto the higher bed.

The Rosh explains that the angel in charge of poverty resides in a dirty house and the angel in charge of riches and success resides in a clean house. The dargash is a bed which always remained clean in order to beckon the angel of wealth to reside in the house.

Read more!

Those that Study and those that Support Torah

Rav Yosef said to him (Nedarim 55a), “Do not sit down until have explained the following verse [Bamidbar 21: 18 – 19]: And from the wilderness to Mattanah; and from Mattanah to Nachaliel; and from Nachaliel to Bamos?” Rava replied, “When one makes himself as the wilderness, which is open to everyone (willing to teach them Torah), the Torah is given to him as a gift, as it says: And from the wilderness to Mattanah (a gift). And once it is given to him as a gift, Hashem makes it his inheritance, as it says: and from Mattanah to Nachaliel (inheritance from Hashem). And after Hashem gives it to him as an inheritance, he ascends to greatness, as it says: and from Nachaliel to Bamos (to heights). And if he becomes haughty, Hashem will lower him down, as it says: And from Bamos to the valley. And furthermore, Hashem sinks him into the ground, as it says: overlooking the surface of the wilderness. However, if he repents, Hashem will raise him up once again, as it says: every valley shall be raised.

The verse prior to these verses states: A well dug by princes, carved out by nobles of the people, through the lawgiver with their staffs, and from the desert to Mattanah. The Vilna Gaon says that this verse must be explained according to our Gemora as well.

He explains: The well is referring to the wellsprings of Torah. The princes are those that delving into the depths of Torah. The nobles are those people who are engaged in business activities and support those who are studying Torah. The verse concludes that both those that study Torah and those that support others who are studying have a portion in Torah.

The Chozeh mi’Lublin adds: Since the verse concludes with the words: and from the Desert to Mattanah, and we derived from there one is obligated to make himself similar to the wilderness; opened to teach Torah to all, this must be true for the supporters as well. One who is supporting Torah must view his support as if the Torah scholar is receiving it from the wilderness, and not directly from him. He should not expect a return on his investment in this world; the reward for supporting Torah is given out in the World to Come; the same time that those who study Torah receive their reward.

Read more!

Meat and Fowl

Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said (Nedarim 54b): If one makes a neder prohibiting himself from meat, he is permitted in fowl. It is evident that he maintains that fowl is not included in meat.

The Chasam Sofer asks: How can he hold that fowl is not included in “meat,” when it is seemingly clear from the Torah that it is? The Jews in the Desert complained that they desired meat and the Ribbono shel Olom sent fowl to them. Evidently, fowl is a type of meat!

He answers that the Gemora explains that fowl is not included in “meat” because it is not healthy to eat fowl on a day of blood letting. Since in the Desert, the northern wind did not blow, and that is the reason why there was no circumcision then (the wind is needed to heal the child). Accordingly, there was no blood letting in the desert, as well. It emerges that there would be no distinction between fowl and meat in the Desert and fowl would be included in “meat.”

Read more!

Following the Majority

The Beraisa states (Nedarim 52a): If someone makes a vow not to have oil in Eretz Yisroel, he is permitted to have sesame oil and not olive oil. In Babylon, he may not have sesame oil but he can have olive oil. In a place where both are used, he is forbidden to have both.

The Gemora asks: This is obvious! The Gemora answers: The case is where most people use one kind of oil. One might think that the vow is considered like the usage of most people. This is why the Beraisa tells us that he is forbidden to both oils, because a doubt regarding a prohibition is judged stringently.

The Ra”n explains what we would have thought: Even though there is a minority that makes use of the other kind, there is a possibility that his intention might have been even from those.

The Lechem Mishna asks: Why don’t we follow the majority? Why, in all matters of prohibition, we issue a ruling based upon the majority?

He explains: If it would be a certainty that the vower was referring to the oil used by most people, we would definitely rule that that the vow takes effect only upon that type of oil. However, here he used a language which may include both types of oil, therefore, there is an assumption that he is excluding himself from the majority. We therefore rule stringently and forbid him on both types of oil, since his language can include both.

The Netziv answers that we only follow the majority in cases where the minority is in conflict with the majority. However, here, the minority is not in contradiction with the majority, since he may have intended for both. We therefore rule stringently and forbid him on both types of oil.

Read more!

Winter Vinegar; Date Honey; Milk and Whey

The Mishna states (52a): If a person makes a vow that he will not partake of dates, he can still eat date honey. If he makes a vow not to partake of winter grapes, he may partake of the vinegar made from those grapes. Rabbi Yehudah ben Beseirah says: Whenever a product is called a name that reflects upon its source and a person vows not to partake from that source, he is forbidden to have the product as well. The Chachamim permit this.

The Ra”n asks: Who is this first Tanna? It is neither Rabbi Yosi nor the Chachamim! For we learned above, in the dispute regarding milk and whey, that whenever they called it “whey of milk,” it was forbidden according to everyone! If so, the date honey and the vinegar should be forbidden!

The Rashba answers: The cases are not similar. For in the case of the whey of milk, its form has not been changed. Even initially, when it was mixed with the milk, it was in that very same form. But here it has changed physically.

Furthermore, in the case of whey, the reason it is called “whey of milk,” is because it still has the law of milk. It is not to distinguish it from some other kind of whey, for there is no other kind. But here, when it is called “date honey” or “winter-grape vinegar,” it is not that they still have those laws; rather, it is to distinguish them between other types of honey and vinegar.

Read more!

Something that can become Permitted - Davar she'yeish lo Matirin

(Nedarim 52a) If one makes a neder prohibiting himself from wine, he is permitted in cooked food which has in it the taste of wine. However, if he said, “Konam this wine that I will not taste,” and it fell into a cooked dish, if it contains enough to impart flavor to the entire mixture, it is forbidden.

This would imply that if there is not enough to give flavor, it would be permitted. The Ra”n quotes his teachers who ask the following: Something which is forbidden on account of a neder is “something that can become permitted” (davar she’yeish lo matirin), and we have established that anything that can become permitted is not nullified even in a thousand!?

They answer that when we say that it is not nullified even in a thousand, that refers to something that has been mixed with its own kind. But here, when it says, “and it became mixed,” it is referring to something else that is not the same kind, like the case of eggs that were cooked with it. Anything that is mixed with something else that is not its kind is permitted, provided that it does not give flavor, even if it is “something that can become permitted.” The Ra”n cites proof to this from a Mishna in Chalah and a Yerushalmi in our perek.

They, therefore, objected to the statement of the Ri”f in Meseches Chulin concerning bread that was baked in an oven with roasted meat. The Gemora states that it is forbidden to eat it with a dairy sauce even though it has been established that we are not halachically concerned with vapors. The reason it is forbidden is because the bread is “something that can be permitted,” since one may eat it together with meat. For that reason, it is not nullified, even in a thousand. It is evident from the Ri”f that he maintains that “something that can be permitted” is not nullified even in something that is not its kind.

The Ra”n, however, agrees to the Ri”f. When the Mishna here says that “something can become permitted” becomes nullified in something that is not its own kind, that is referring to something that is forbidden now, but will become permitted in the future, like nedarim. For the Ra”n has the following question: Since according to the Chachamim, all forbidden things become nullified in their own kind just as in a different kind, why did the Chachamim make a distinction in the case of “something that can become permitted,” between its own kind and a different kind?

The reason is as follows: The Chachamim and Rabbi Yehudah disagree whether or not something can be nullified in its own kind. Rabbi Yehudah maintains that a forbidden item is not nullified in its own kind, because anything that is similar to another thing does not weaken and nullify it; rather, it preserves it and strengthens it.

The Chachamim disagree and hold that a forbidden item and something which is permitted are not similar to each other, even if they are the same kind. This is because one is forbidden and one is permitted. For it is not fitting to follow the similarity of their substance, but rather the difference in their being forbidden and permitted.

It is for this reason that the Chachamim learned concerning “something that can be permitted” for the sake of being strict towards the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah. For since the forbidden item is not completely different from the permitted one, because the forbidden one will eventually become permitted, we say that it is not nullified in its own kind. It will only become nullified when mixed with a different kind, for the difference that exists between one kind and another will make up for the equality that is added here because it is “something that can be permitted.” It is the difference between kinds that is the cause of nullification, and equality interferes with nullification.

Read more!

Small Fish, Large Fish

Rav Papa said to Abaye (Nedarim 51b): How do we know that when he says, “Fish (dag) that I will not taste,” dag implies large ones only? It is because it is written [Yonah 2:1]: Now Hashem had prepared a large fish (dag) to swallow up Yonah? But isn’t it also written: Then Yonah prayed to Hashem, his God from the inside of the fish (dagah)?

The Gemora answers: This is no difficulty: Perhaps the large fish spit him out and he was swallowed again by a smaller one.

But, the Gemora asks: What of the verse regarding the plague of blood, where it is written [Shmos 7:21]: And the fish (dagah) that was in the river died? Did only the small fish die, not the large?

The Gemora concludes: Dagah written in the Torah implies both large and small, but regarding vows, the language used by the public is followed.

It would seem that according to Abaye, the word dagah in the Torah refers only to small fish. Accordingly, we would be compelled to say that only the small fish dies in the plague of blood. Why would this be?

The Rogatchover Gaon explains: The river was dug by the hands of the Egyptians. The Yerushalmi rules regarding fish that swim into one’s private water; he acquires only the small ones and not the large ones. Accordingly, it can be explained that only the fish belonging to the Egyptians died, but the large fish, which they did not own, there was no reason for them to die.

The Rama in Shulchan Aruch (C”M 331:1) rules that a worker may return to his home on Friday afternoon, early enough that he will have the time to fill a jug of water and roast a small fish.

The Shach asks as to what is the source for the Rama’s ruling that it is sufficient if he has ample time to cook a small fish? Perhaps, he should leave his work with enough time to cook a large fish?

The Nitzotzei Ohr answers that the language of the Yerushalmi, which is the source for this halacha, is dagah, and the Rama understands that to be referring to a small fish.

Read more!

The prohibition remaining even after the item leaves his possession

Avimi inquired (Nedarim Daf 47): If one said to his friend, “Konam, your entering this house,” and then he dies or sold it to someone else, what is the halacha? Does a person have the ability to prohibit something presently in his ownership, and the prohibition will remain even after it leaves his ownership or not?

The Nimukei Yosef cites a Ritva, who quotes the following Yerushalmi: A person will only have the ability to prohibit something presently in his ownership, and the prohibition will remain even after it leaves his ownership. However, he cannot initially prohibit the item only for the time after it leaves his possession.

The Haflaas Nedarim explains: The only reason that someone would have the ability to prohibit something presently in his ownership, and the prohibition will remain even after it leaves his ownership is because it is similar to hekdesh. Since the item in question is presently in his possession, the neder takes effect and the prohibition remains on this object forever just like hekdesh. However, one does not have the ability to consecrate an item that is presently not in his possession, and therefore, a neder to prohibit something only for the time after it leaves his possession will not take effect.

The Korban Nesanel asks: Why couldn’t this inquiry be resolved from the Gemora above (42a-b) which concluded that if one says to his fellow, “These possessions should be forbidden to you”; if he vowed prior to shemitah, he may not enter his field and he may not eat from the fruits which are growing on the branches outside of his field even when shemitah arrives? This is because a person has the ability to prohibit something presently in his ownership, and the prohibition will remain even after it leaves his ownership! Shouldn’t the halacha be the same in our case where he sold the property to someone else?

He answers that shemitah is different. Since the vower has the right to acquire the fruits that are growing just like anyone else, it is regarded as if it is still in his possession, and that is why the fruits remain forbidden. (This is a tremendous chiddush that something can be considered yours because you have the right to acquire it.) However, the Gemora’s inquiry here is regarding a case where he sold the property. In this case, the item is not in his possession at all, and perhaps, the prohibition will not remain after it leaves his possession.

The Shitah Mikubetzes answers that Avimi did not know the conclusion of the Gemora above and that is why he made this inquiry.

Read more!

Hefker in Front of Three - Nedarim Daf 45

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Biblically, it is considered hefker even if his declaration was only in front of one person. Why was it decreed upon that it should be in front of three? It is in order for there to be one person who will take possession and two people to testify to this.

The Rishonim ask from the Mishna that we learned above (43a), which stated: If a person vowed not to have benefit from someone and these two people were walking together on the road, and the person who cannot benefit from his friend had no food, the halacha is that if there is nobody else around, he can put the food on the rock or fence and say, “These are ownerless for anyone who wants to take them.” The other person can then eat. If they are the only two present, it should not be regarded as hefker?

The Ritva answers that the Rabbis were lenient in a case where there was an extreme necessity to provide the person with food. They ruled in this case that the Biblical law stands and the hefker is valid.

The Bach answers that even when there are not three people present, the hefker is valid. The Sages instituted that he can retract from his hefker declaration if three people weren’t present. However, as long as he did not retract, the hefker is completely valid.

The Shach cites Tosfos that the Rabbinical decree requiring three people to be present was only said in regard to the hefker of land; however, regarding movables, such as food, it does not apply.

Read more!

Practical Guidelines for Visiting the Sick

The Gemora (Nedarim 40a) cites an incident: Rav Chelbo fell ill. Thereupon, Rav Kahana went out and proclaimed: Rav Chelbo is sick. But no one visited him. He rebuked them, saying, “Did it not once happen that one of Rabbi Akiva’s students fell ill and the Sages did not visit him? Rabbi Akiva himself went to visit him, and because they swept the ground and settled the dust before him (as per Rabbi Akiva’s instructions), he recovered. ‘My master,’ said the student, ‘you have revived me!’ Rabbi Akiva went out and lectured: He who does not visit the sick is regarded as if he spills blood (since it may lead to his death).”

The Rosh gleans from this Gemora and the Aruch Hashulchan (Y”D 335:2) rules accordingly that the primary mitzvah of visiting the sick is to check on the sick person’s needs and to do whatever is deemed necessary. The Aruch Hashulchan (ibid. 8) concludes that one who visits the sick and does not pray for mercy on his behalf has not fulfilled the mitzvah.

Our affiliate, Hakhel wrote about some of the important requirements of properly performing the mitzva of visiting the sick person. They are:

1. Davening for the choleh while visiting. Since the Shechina rests above the head of a sick person, tefilah is more efficacious in front of the sick person (Rema, Yoreh Deah 335:4). The tefilah should include the following nusach "Hamokom Yerachem Alecha B'soch Cholei Yisroel", so that the choleh benefits from the z'chus harabim (Yoreh Deah 335:6). Tefila in the presence of the choleh can be said in any language, because the Shechina is present and, of course, understands all language of prayer (Yoreh Deah 335:5).

2. Seeking help for the choleh, both physically and emotionally—Does he have everything he needs—all the medications, the deodorant, toothpaste? Does he need Torah Tapes (718-438-3904)? Does his nurse know what an important person he is? Does he need to see a Rov or more friends? (Yoreh Deah 335:8)

c. 3. Providing Positive Reinforcement. Is the choleh kept in the right frame of mind all day? Provide positive reinforcements, words of encouragement, bring in light (open the shades) and cleanliness (clean up the bedroom floor if need be). (Nedorim 40A; Ahavas Chesed 3:3)

4. According to the Chochmas Odom (151:3) the ikar (main point) of Bikur Cholim is davening for the sick person while visiting him. In fact, the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (193:3) poskens that one has not fulfilled the mitzvah of Bikur Cholim if he visits, but does not daven to Hashem while there. This is because the Shechina is present above the head of the sick person, and your tefillos are, k’viyachol, in front of the Shechina itself (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 335, Shach seif katan 3). In your tefillah, you should ask for Hashem’s mercy for that particular choleh “b’soch cholei Yisroel” (amongst the other sick of Israel), because, in the merit of the many, your tefillos will be better received (ibid., Shach seif katan 4).

5. Bikur Cholim should not be performed when it is convenient for the visitor, but when it is best for the choleh. As the halacha states, one should not visit in the first three hours of the day… the last three hours of the day…, etc. (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah 335:4).

6. In addition to tefillah, there is a mitzvah to give the choleh “nachas ruach” (Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 193:3). This does not mean that one should speak on and on, or even with witticisms. Statements should as “You’ll now have to take that medicine for the rest of your life,” or “Next time, you’ll be more careful,” or even “How will this affect your life going forward?” may be equated with smacking a poor person across the face and knocking out a few teeth as you hand him a hundred dollars with a smile.

7. The Chazon Ish (Collected Letters, Volume I:138) writes that everyone has the mitzvah to perform “Bikur Cholilm” upon himself, as well. This means that he must take care of his body and use the most effective means possible for his personal health.

8. One should try to tidy up and make the atmosphere more cheery for the choleh, if possible. The Gemara (Nedarim 40A) relates that Rabbi Akiva himself swept and cleaned the floor for his sick student. As a result, the student told him, “You have caused me to live.” Rabbi Akiva then taught, “He who does not perform the mitzvah of Bikur Cholim, it is as if he spilled blood.” The reverse is also, of course, true. In fact, the Gemara clearly teaches that one who acts wisely with the ill will himself be saved from “a bad day” by Hashem (see Tehillim 41 and Gemara, Nedarim 40A).

9. Finally, one should consider a choleh’s status after he leaves the hospital, and even after he returns to shul or to work. The fact that he has somewhat healed does not necessarily mean that he is not suffering pain or is otherwise in distress. One should continue to daven for, and inquire as to, a person’s welfare, until he is confident that the choleh has received his refuah shlaimah.

Hakhel

Read more!

Compensation for Teaching Torah

Rabbi Yochanan said (Nedarim 37a): While it’s true that one cannot take money for teaching Scripture, he may take money for teaching them the proper cantillation of the verses.

One is obligated to teach others the laws and statutes of the Torah without demanding payment. The Chasam Sofer rules: Nowadays that the entire Gemora and the poskim are written down, one is not obligated to teach them inside for free; rather, he is required to teach orally the halachos and the rationale behind them. If, however, one teaches the students the Gemora inside, he may demand payment. The reason that the Gemora makes a distinction between Scripture and Midrash is because the Scripture was already written down. (Although Rebbe arranged the Mishna, it was not written down until much later.) Therefore, if one teaches student the correct method to read the Gemora, he may demand payment.

The Ran cites a Yerushalmi which rules that although a person may not receive compensation for teaching Torah, he may demand payment for the loss of income that he suffers by the fact that he does not pursue other means of support. This is true as long as he devotes himself completely to teaching.

Other Rishonim rule that if a teacher has no other means of support, he may receive compensation for teaching Torah.

Read more!

Proof Against the Rambam - Nedarim Daf 35

Rav Acha the son of Rav Avya said to Rav Ashi: If one said, “My loaf is forbidden to you,” and then he gave it to that fellow as a gift, who has committed me’ilah? The giver cannot be the one who committed me’ilah, for the loaf was never forbidden upon him. The recipient cannot be the one who committed me’ilah, for he can say, “I am only interested in acquiring permissible loaves; loaves that are forbidden to me, I do not want.”

The Ran writes that this is a refutation to the Rambam’s opinion, who holds that one who forbids another person benefit from himself and then feeds him will incur lashes because he has violated the transgression of “he shall not desecrate his word.”

The meaning of the Ra”n seems to be that if the Rambam is correct that if the vower provides the forbidden item to the other fellow, he has desecrated his word; then, the giver may be guilty of me’ilah as well! Why does our Gemora assume as an obvious point that the giver has not committed me’ilah?

The Machaneh Efraim (35) and the Lechem Mishna answer that although it might be prohibited for the vower to give the other fellow the forbidden item, but that does not mean that he has committed me’ilah. He has desecrated his word, but he is not guilty of me’ilah, for it was not regarded as hekdesh for him.

Reb Shlomo Zalman Auerbach explains that the Ran’s proof was from the language of the Gemora. The Gemora stated unequivocally that there can be no prohibition on the giver, for the loaf is not forbidden to him. It would seem from the Gemora that there is no prohibition on the giver at all! This is not correct according to the Rambam.

Read more!

Placing Money on the Horns of a Deer

The Gemora (Nedarim 33) cites a Mishna: If a person went overseas and someone supported his wife in the interim, Chanan ruled that he has lost his money.

The sons of the kohanim gedolim argued that the supporter may swear how much he gave his wife and collect the monies from him. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinu agreed. Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakai said: Chanan is correct; the supporter has placed his monies on the horn of a deer.

What is the meaning of the expression, “He has placed his money on the horn of a deer”?

The Tosfos Yom Tov explains: Just as a deer runs very fast, and one chasing it will probably not catch it; so too, one who “lends” money in this manner will be unlikely to recover the money.

Tosfos Chadashim offers a different explanation: It is common for a deer to bob its head back and forth when it is running. One who places his money on the horn of a deer is likely to lose the money for the money will fall off the horns of the deer.

Read more!

Paying Up a Debt of his Fellow

The Gemora (Nedarim 33) rules regarding one who is forbidden by a vow to derive benefit from his fellow; the fellow is prohibited to repay his debt (in a regular case).

Reb Elchonon Wasserman discusses the rationale behind this ruling. Is it prohibited because the one who pronounced the vow is directly benefiting from the money that is being used to repay his debt? Or, perhaps it is because the fellow is causing the lender to forgive the borrower for his debt (once he has the money from elsewhere), and it emerges that he is indirectly receiving pleasure from the fellow?

This question is actually dependent upon a different question: Can someone pay up the debt of his fellow and cause that the debt has been paid? Or, perhaps only the borrower can repay a debt; his friend may give money to the lender with the stipulation being that the lender will forgive the borrower from the debt which he owes?

Read more!

Distinction between Charity and Returning a Lost Object

The Gemora (Nedarim 33) states regarding one who is forbidden by a vow to derive benefit from his fellow; the fellow is permitted to return his lost property to him. This is permitted because his primary intention is to fulfill the mitzvah, and he is not intending to provide pleasure to his friend.

This, explains the Shitah Mikubetzes, is in contrast to the mitzvah of giving charity, which would be forbidden. What is the difference between the two mitzvos? He explains: When charity is given to him, he is benefiting directly from the money; therefore, it is forbidden. When his lost object is returned, he is not deriving pleasure from the item; he is getting benefit from the fact that his fellow troubled himself to return the object to him. Regarding his fellow’s exertion, it may be said that his intention is to fulfill the mitzvah, and not to provide pleasure.

Others make the following distinction: Charity may be given to any poor person; it does not have to be given to this specific poor person. That is why it is prohibited to give this particular poor person charity. However, in order to fulfill the mitzvah of returning a lost object, it must be returned to the one who lost the item, and therefore, it would be permitted.

Read more!

Food for Thought - Nedarim Daf 32

*** The Beraisa quotes Rebbi as making the following statement: Milah is a great mitzvah, as there is no one who was involved in mitzvos like Avraham Avinu, and yet he was only called complete through milah, as the passuk says “walk before me and be complete,” and it says “and I will put my covenant between us.”

The Ksav Sofer asks: Perhaps milah is a minor mitzvah, but it was the mitzvah that rendered Avraham Avinu complete, for even a minor deficiency can prevent completeness?

*** Rabbi Ami bar Aba also says: The “Satan” numerically equals three hundred and sixty four (implying that one day a year he is powerless, which is Yom Kippur).

The Chidah asks: What is the advantage to us that the Satan is powerless on Yom Kippur? Why, there are so many other days in the year where he is detrimental to us?

He answers: On Yom Kippur, the Satan contradicts what he is saying the rest of the year. On Yom Kippur he says that there is no nation with such kedusha as Klal Yisroel. This renders him a liar (for that which he says the rest of the year) and gives us the strength to fend off his attacks on us for the rest of the year.

*** Rabbi Zecharyah said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: Hashem wanted to have kehunah descend from Shem, as the passuk says “and he was a kohen for Hashem on high.” However, once Shem said a blessing to Avraham before saying a blessing to Hashem, Hashem decided to have kehunah descend from Avraham. This is as the passuk states, “and he blessed him and he said: blessed is Avram to the Hashem on high, Owner of heaven and earth, and praised is Hashem.” Avram asked Shem: Is it appropriate to mention first a blessing of the servant before that of his master? Kehunah was immediately given to Avraham, as the passuk states, “the word of Hashem was to my master, until I make your enemies into a footstool for your feet,” and it states “and he is a kohen for Hashem on high.” This implies that he (Shem) was a kohen, but his children would not be kohanim.

It is written in Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer that Avraham married Keturah, who was Hagar, after she converted.

Reb Yosef Engel asks: If Avraham was a kohen, how was he permitted to marry a divorcee?

He answers: This Medrash is of the opinion that Avraham did not have a daughter. Consequently, he had not fulfilled the mitzvah of procreation yet. There was no other woman fitting for Avraham to marry, and therefore, the positive commandment of procreation was able to override the prohibition against a kohen marrying a divorcee.

Read more!

What was Moshe's sin? Enthusiasm for Mitzvos

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah says (Nedarim 31b) : Great is circumcision, concerning which even Moshe the righteous was not spared for an hour.

The Ran comments: As soon as Moshe was lax, the angel wanted to kill him.

The Maharsha asks: Just because Moshe negated the mitzvah of circumcising his son on the eight day, is that a justification for him to be liable for death?

He answers: It is either because Hashem judges the righteous strictly or it is because a “ben Noach” is liable for death when he commits any type of transgression, and since it was prior to the Giving of the Torah, Moshe was being judged as a “ben Noach.”

Reb Meir Bergman asks: According to this explanation, how could the Mishna bring a proof from here that circumcision is great; perhaps it is different because of the special circumstances?

The Gemora states further: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah said: Great is circumcision, for all the meritorious deeds performed by Moshe our teacher did not protect him when he tarried in fulfilling the commandment of circumcision (regarding his son Eliezer), as it is written [Shmos 4:24]: And Hashem met him, and sought to kill him. Rabbi Yosi said: Heaven forbid that Moshe delayed circumcising his son, but rather, this is what Moshe said, “If I circumcise my son and immediately leave Midian to return to Pharaoh, I will endanger his life. I cannot circumcise him and wait three days, for the Holy One, blessed be He, has commanded me to go and return to Egypt! Why then was Moshe punished? It was because he occupied himself with arranging a place of lodging first prior to circumcising his son.

The Mefaresh explains: Since he was close to Egypt, he should have performed the circumcision when he stopped for lodging, for the small journey that remained would not have posed a danger to the child. He concludes that the child was only eight days old on that day.

Accordingly, the question is strengthened: Why would Moshe deserve such a strict punishment if he anyway performed the circumcision on the eight day? He was only guilty of not fulfilling the concept of zerizin makdimin l’mitzvos – a mitzvah should be fulfilled at the first moment possible. Why should he deserve to die?

Perhaps we may suggest the following answer (Rabbi Bergman answers in a very similar manner): The primary purpose of Moshe Rabbeinu’s life was to take the Jews out of Egypt and to give them the Torah. It is written regarding the birth of Moshe [Shmos 2:2]: The woman conceived and bore a son, and [when] she saw him that he was good, she hid him for three months. The Gemora in Sotah (12a) states that when he was born, the entire house was filled with light. This can be in reference to the light of Torah.

The Gemora in Megillah (16b) expounds on the verse that states [Esther 8:16]: Layehudim haysa orah visimcha visasson vikar. The Jews had light, gladness, joy and honor. Light is referring to Torah; Gladness is referring to the festivals; Joy is referring to circumcision; Glory is referring to tefillin.

The question is asked: If the Megillah wished to say that the Jews were saved because they fulfilled the Torah, festivals, milah and tefillin, why didn’t the Megillah write that explicitly? Why was it mentioned only in code form?

Rabbi Eliezer Ginzburg in his sefer, The King’s Treasures states the following: It is well known that evil decrees instituted against the Jewish people are always in correspondence with their sins. Each transgression draws a particular type of negative force in its wake. Hence, in order to determine what sin the Jewish people are being held accountable for at any given time, one need only consider the dominant characteristic of the nation threatening them, for their enemies are nothing more than a reflection of their transgressions.

Amalek was able to strike the Jewish people when their enthusiasm for Torah observance waned. The Mechilta says in reference to the verse [Shmos 17:8]: Amalek came and battled Israel in Rephidim. Amalek came because Israel loosened their grip on the Torah. This is why Rabbi Elozar introduced his lecture on the scriptural portion of the Book of Esther with the following verse: Through laziness the ceiling collapses, and through idleness of the hands the house leaks – because of the laziness of the Jews, who did not engage in Torah study, the enemies were capable of attacking.

Perhaps, Rabbi Ginzburg continues, this is what the Megillah is teaching us by saying that “the Jews had light,” and not simply saying that “the Jews had Torah.” The Jews were not guilty of completely neglecting Torah study, or for that matter, any other mitzvah. Their shortcoming was their lack of enthusiasm for mitzvos. It was the inner light of the mitzvah which they lacked, the spark of excitement and fervor for doing Hashem’s will. The miracles which Hashem performed for Israel stoked the smoldering embers within each Jew and evoked a new fervor for the performance of mitzvos, reawakening the “light” of Torah study, the “gladness” of the Yom Tov holidays, the “joy” of circumcision and the “glory” of tefillin.

Using this principle, perhaps we can suggest why the angel wished to kill Moshe for procrastinating in the fulfillment of a mitzvah. It was not that he was deserving to die for this relatively minor transgression. Rather, when Moshe displayed a slight lack of enthusiasm for the mitzvos, he could not be the one to deliver the Torah to the Jewish people, and this was the purpose of his life. Thereupon, Tziporah immediately went and took a sharp stone and performed the circumcision of her son. Rabbi Bergman concludes that Moshe repented for this and merited to accept the Torah from Hashem and to deliver it to the Jewish people.

Read more!

The Law of the Kingdom is the Law

The Gemora in Shabbos 88a teaches that when Bnei Yisroel stood at Mount Sinai and heard the word of Hashem, He held the mountain over our heads. Hashem declared, “If you’ll accept the Torah, all will be well. If not, this will be your burial place!” Rav Acha bar Yaakov said: This can now be used as an excuse for Klal Yisroel when they do not perform the mitzvos. For when they are summoned for judgment, they can claim that they were coerced into accepting the Torah; it was not done willingly.

The Perashas Derachim asks from our Gemora (Nedarim 28a) which states that the law of the kingdom is the law and we do not allow a person to vow deceptively. If so, this should certainly apply by The Holy One blessed is He, Who is the King of all Kings. How could Klal Yisroel use the coercion as an excuse? The law of the kingdom is the law, and they took an oath obligating themselves to perform His mitzvos!

He answers that Rabbeinu Tam holds that the principle of the law of the kingdom is the law is only applicable if the king decrees on all his subjects. However, if the decree is issued only on part of his kingdom, this principle does not apply. Since Hashem is the King over all the nations of the world and He only forced Bnei Yisroel to accept His mitzvos, this principle would not apply and hence, a claim of coercion can be effective.

It emerges that regarding the seven mitzvos that were given to all Bnei Noach, the principle of the law of the kingdom is the law would apply, and a claim of coercion would not be valid.

According to this, we can explain the argument between Pharaoh and the midwives. Pharaoh asked them, “Why didn’t you listen to my commandment? The law of the kingdom is the law and since I the king decreed that all the Jewish children should be killed, you are obligated to listen to me!” They responded to him, “Your decree is not a universal one; it was only issued regarding the Jewish children and not to any others. Accordingly, the principle does not apply and we are not obligated to adhere to the laws of the kingdom. Thereupon, Pharaoh immediately decreed that all children born must be thrown into the sea.

Read more!

Holding a Sacred Object

The Gemora (Nedarim 25a) relates the following incident: There was a person who was owed money by his friend, and the two of them came before Rava. The lender said: Pay me! The borrower said: I already did! Rava said: Swear that you paid him. The borrower then filled his cane with the amount of money he borrowed and leaned on it while walking to Beis Din. Before he took the oath, the borrower asked the lender to hold his cane for him while he took the oath. The borrower then took a Sefer Torah and swore that he had given the lender whatever he had owed him. When the lender heard this he got upset and broke the cane, causing the money to fall out. It was apparent that he had “paid” him all of the money.

Rabbeinu Tam understands this Gemora to mean that the borrower denied the entire claim and was liable only for a Rabbinic oath (called a shevuas hesseis). Nevertheless, he took the Sefer Torah in his hand prior to taking the oath. This would prove that one needs to hold a sacred object even by a Rabbinical oath.

He also presents proof to this from the Gemora in Shavuos (41a) which inquires as to the differences between a Biblical oath and a Rabbinical one. The Gemora does not offer this difference; namely, that a Biblical oath would necessitate the holding of a sacred object and a Rabbinical one would not. This proves that a Rabbinical oath also required the holding of a sacred object.

The Gaonim disagree and maintain that one is not required to hold a sacred object when taking a Rabbinical oath. The Meiri writes that our Gemora cannot serve as a proof against this, for we are discussing a case where the borrower decided himself to hold the Sefer Torah. He did this as a ruse in order to get the lender to hold his cane.

According to the Ran’s explanation of our Gemora, there would be no proof at all. For our Gemora is discussing a case where the borrower admitted to part of the claim made against him. Since he wishes to avoid paying the rest of the claim, he is Biblically obligated to take an oath that he does not owe the remainder of the claim. This oath obviously requires him to hold a sacred object.

Read more!

Six Hundred and Thirteen Mitzvos

It is evident from the Gemora (Nedarim 25a) that accepting an oath to fulfill the six hundred and thirteen mitzvos is exactly the same as accepting an oath to keep the entire Torah. Reb Avi Lebowitz hearos wonders if this is really true. Firstly, the Ramban at the beginning of sefer hamitzvos discusses the possibility that the six hundred and thirteen mitzvos is not an actual count and it is not necessarily accepted by all sources. Even if we are to assume that our Gemora holds of the six hundred and thirteen mitzvos idea (as the Gemora in Makkos seems to indicate) as do all the Rishonim who list the mitzvos, aren't there still other "mitzvos" in the Torah that are not counted in the six hundred and thirteen mitzvos? There are many mitzvah concepts that would qualify as "ratzon ha'torah", even if not an absolute obligation, and by only accepting the six hundred and thirteen mitzvos, we would seemingly not be accepting all the thousands of other points that the Torah wants us to accept! How can the six hundred and thirteen mitzvos be the same as an oath on the entire Torah?

Reb Yossie Schonkopf suggests that the six hundred and thirteen mitzvos is the root for all mitzvos and as such encompass all of Torah.

Read more!

Honoring his Friend

(Nedarim 24a) If one says to his fellow, “Konam that I will not benefit from your if you do not accept from me for your son a kor of wheat and two barrels of wine” (and the fellow refuses the gift), he may annul his vow without petitioning a sage, by his fellow saying, “Did you vow for any other purpose but to honor me (that I should accept the gift)? This (the refusal of the gift) is my honor (for it is written in Mishlei: One who hates gifts shall live).

The Rosh asks: Doesn’t every neder require annulment only through a sage? How can the vower annul this neder by himself?

He answers that since this opening is so clear and compelling, the vower is permitted to annul it himself.

The Ran according to the explanation of the Ayeles Hashachar learns differently. He explains that the purpose of the vow was to honor the other fellow. Since he is being honored by refusing the gift, that is regarded as a fulfillment of the condition of the neder. The neder never has a chance to take effect for the fellow was indeed honored.

The Ra”n Elucidated
Rejecting the proof - The Gemora attempts to bring a proof from the following braisa: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov went even further and said: If one says to his fellow, “Konam that I do not benefit from you if you will not be my guest and partake of hot bread and a hot drink with me.” The fellow resisted the invitation. This is also considered a motivational neder.

The reason it says, “Even further” is because here, even though it is applicable to say, “I am not a dog,” for behold, he is forbidding himself the benefit of the invited one if he doesn’t want to accept this benefit from him, and for this reason it can be said that he really meant the neder, nonetheless, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said that they are motivational nedarim.

According to this explanation, we now see that our rejections of all the proofs above, that even Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov agrees whenever it is possible to say, “I am not a dog” were only arguments, but were not really true.

[We use the sefer “The Commentary of Rabbenu Nissim on Nedarim” from Rabbi Nathan Bushwick extensively to assist us in preparing the “Elucidation of the Ra”n.” The sefer, written in English is available for sale by writing to: Rabbi Nathan Bushwick 901 Madison Ave. Scranton, Pa 18510-1019. The cost is $25.00.]

Read more!

The Children of Yaakov and Leah

The Gemora (Nedarim 20b) states: It is written [Yechezkel 20:38]: And I will select from among you the rebels and those that transgress against me. Rabbi Levi said: This refers to children of people belonging to the following nine categories (the children will be adversely effected when they are born from such a union): Children of fear (if the husband cohabits with his wife even when she doesn’t want to) and children of a violated woman (he forced himself upon his wife); children of a hated wife; children of an excommunicated parent; children of a woman mistaken for another (he cohabited with one wife thinking she was his other wife); children of strife; children of intoxication; children of a wife whom the husband decided to divorce; children of a mingling women (such that the true father cannot be determined); children of a brazen woman.

The commentators ask from our forefather Yaakov: Cohabiting with Leah on their wedding night should have been forbidden based upon our Gemora? Firstly, Yaakov thought that she was Rachel! Our Gemora states that a union with a woman who was mistaken for another can produce degenerate children! Secondly, the Torah describes Leah as being hated. How then could Yaakov cohabit with her? Furthermore, the Ramban cites a Medrash that Yaakov hated Leah for colluding with her father and for not informing him who she truly was on her wedding night. The Medrash states: Once Yaakov saw that Leah tricked her sister, he resolved to divorce her. This is what Leah was alluding to when she called her second son, Shimon. Why was Yaakov permitted to be intimate with her under such circumstances?

There are several answers on these questions. The Ra’avad says that during the act of intimacy, Yaakov was at peace with Leah and did not harbor any ill feelings towards her.

The Beis Yosef answers that Leah was not as “well liked” by Yaakov as Rachel was, but she was not actually hated.

The Ra’avad continues that in truth, these prohibitions were only applicable after the Torah was given; they did not apply to Yaakov (in a similar vein; that is how some explain the fact that Yaakov married two sisters).

The Magen Avraham writes that Yaakov actually realized that it was Leah when she entered the chupah. Hence, at the time of cohabitation, he did not mistake her for Rachel.

The Alshich explains that the Gates of Heaven accepted the tears of Leah and caused Yaakov to never even realize that he was cohabiting with Leah (seemingly, he maintains that the adverse effect of having children from ‘an exchanged woman’ is only applicable if he realizes during cohabitation that she is the wrong woman).

P’ninei HaDaf - Lublin

Read more!

Second One Takes Effect

The Gemora (Nedarim 18a) states: Although the Mishna had stated that if someone makes two consecutive oaths that he will not eat something and he eats it, he has transgressed one prohibition (for the second one does not take effect), if the person asked for the first oath to be permitted (and it was), the second oath is now valid.

There is a discussion if the second oath (before the first one was annulled) is regarded as an oath taken in vain (similar to an oath to nullify a mitzvah).

The Ritva writes: If he has the first one annulled, the second one is not regarded as an oath taken in vain, for now, it takes effect. He, therefore, would not incur lashes for the second oath.

The Nimukei Yosef maintains that even while the first oath is intact, the second oath is not regarded as an oath taken in vain. This is because it has potential for being a valid oath, i.e. if the first one is annulled. Others say that it is not considered in vain for the second oath is essentially an oath in order to uphold a mitzvah (fulfilling the first one), and we learned above that this is an admirable thing to do.

Rashi in Shavuos explains the reason why the second oath takes effect after the first one is annulled. He says it is because a sage has the power to retroactively revoke the oath in a manner as if the oath was never uttered. Accordingly, the second one is valid, for there is no first one any longer.

The Shach writes that according to this, the second one will only take effect if a sage annulled the oath. However, if the husband annulled the oath of his wife, her second oath would not take effect. This is because a husband does not retroactively revoke her oath; it is only considered void from this moment and on. The first oath is not regarded as if it never existed and therefore, the second one does not take effect.

Reb Akiva Eiger disagrees. He states: The reason why the second oath does not take effect initially is because one prohibition cannot take effect upon another. The second prohibition exists, but it is in a pending state. As soon as the first prohibition is removed, the second one “wakes up” and takes effect. This would be true when the husband annuls the oath of his wife as well.

Read more!

Incidental Benefit

Abaye explains the Gemora (Nedarim 16b) as follows: In the case of a vow, one says, “The pleasure of the sukkah should be forbidden upon me.” (Since the vow is upon the object, not the person, it is effective.) However, in the case of an oath, one says, “I swear that I will not derive any pleasure from the sukkah.” (Since the oath is upon the person and the mitzvah is upon the person, they are contradicting each other and the oath cannot take effect.)

Rava asks on Abaye’s language: Were mitzvos given to derive benefit from them? (He should still be able to sit in the sukkah?)

Rather, Rava explains: In the case of a vow, one says, “The sitting in the sukkah should be forbidden upon me.” However, in the case of an oath, one says, “I swear that I will not sit in the sukkah.”

The Reshash asks on Rava’s question: Although the mitzvos were not given for the purpose of deriving benefit from them, it still should be forbidden to sit in the sukkah in this situation? This is because he is enjoying the incidental pleasure of the shade!

He answers that if it is shade that the person desires, he could stay inside the house. The reason he chose to sit in a sukkah is solely because of the mitzvah. It is therefore not regarded as if he is befitting from the shade of the sukkah.

The Machaneh Efraim is not satisfied with this answer. He asks that the bottom line is that he is not dwelling in his house; he is inside the sukkah and enjoying its shade! Why should this be permitted?

The Oneg Yom Tov answers: We are only concerned with the physical pleasure when the benefit is purely incidental and not related to the mitzvah. However, the mitzvah of sukkah is different. The Torah commands us to dwell in the sukkah in the same manner that one would live in his house. The enjoyment of sitting in a sukkah is not regarded as an incidental benefit; this is the fulfillment of the mitzvah. And since mitzvos were not given for the purpose of deriving pleasure from them, the (direct) benefit that one receives as he is fulfilling the mitzvah is not regarded as a benefit, and is therefore permitted.

Read more!

Ran Elucidated - Daf 16

Distinction between a vow and an oath - The Gemora cites the Scriptural source for this: How do we know that one cannot swear to transgress a mitzvah? It is because it is written [Bamidbar 30:3]: If a man makes a vow to Hashem or makes an oath to prohibit himself, he shall not desecrate his word; according to whatever came out of his mouth, he shall do. We see from here that only “his word” (a discretionary matter) he should not desecrate. However, he may desecrate it when it involves the wishes of Heaven (where his oath contradicts a mitzvah).

The Gemora asks: Why is a vow any different? If it is because it says makes a vow to Hashem, which implies that he should not desecrate his word even when his vow involves the wishes of Heaven, why, by an oath, it is also written makes an oath to Hashem (since the words “to Hashem” is written between a vow and an oath)?

Abaye answers: In the case of a vow, one says, “The pleasure of the sukkah should be forbidden upon me.” (Since the vow is upon the object, not the person, it is effective.) However, in the case of an oath, one says, “I swear that I will not derive any pleasure from the sukkah.” (Since the oath is upon the person and the mitzvah is upon the person, they are contradicting each other and the oath cannot take effect.)

The Ran explains: It is reasonable that the word “to Hashem” should be referring to a vow, but not an oath. It is logical to assume that a neder in this manner will take effect. This is because he is not vowing directly against the Torah’s commandment. The neder takes effect and he is prohibited from deriving benefit from the sukkah because we cannot force a person to eat something that is forbidden to him. However, by an oath, he is saying that he will not sit in the sukkah. This is a direct contradiction to the Torah’s commandment and he doesn’t have the power to free himself from the Torah’s commandment to sit in a sukkah.

Read more!

Zohar and the Gemora

The Gemora cites a braisa: There is greater stringency in oaths than in vows, and greater stringency in vows than in oaths. There is greater stringency in vows, for vows apply to objects necessary for the performance of a mitzvah just as to optional matters, which is not so regarding oaths (which do not take effect if one would take an oath against performing a certain mitzvah). And there is greater stringency in oaths, for oaths are valid with respect to matters that have substance and matters that are intangible, which is not so regarding vows (which do not take effect on intangible things).

It is noteworthy that the Zohar writes exactly the opposite. An oath, he says, can only take effect on a davar she’yeish bo mamash, something that has substance, whereas a vow can take effect even on a matter that lacks substance.

The Shoel U’meishiv in his haskamah to the sefer Beis Yisroel cites from the Neizer Yisroel that it is a printer’s mistake and the correct version of the Zohar is the way the Gemora states.

Reb Reuven Margoliyos disagrees and cites a Ramban in Shavuos who hints to the version that we have in the Zohar. The Ramban writes that according to Sod, vows do not take effect on matters of substance, whereas an oath will be effective on matters of substance.

In the sefer Mei Hashiloach, he explains the Zohar in a manner that is identical to our Gemora. We find in the Zohar that a davar she’yeish bo mamash frequently means something that has the ability to reproduce. The reason that an oath can take effect even on intangible matters is because an oath is an issur gavra, one is prohibiting himself from the object. The oath, therefore, is taking effect upon the person. The meaning of the Zohar is that an oath takes effect on the person, for he is a davar she’yeish bo mamash, i.e. man has the ability to reproduce; objects do not! An oath takes effect upon the person and not on the object. A vow, on the other hand, takes effect even on a davar she’ein bo mamash, something that does not have the ability to reproduce, i.e. objects. For by a vow, one is prohibiting the object upon himself (issur cheftza), and therefore, the vow takes effect upon the object, not upon the person.

Read more!

A Question of Linkage

The Ra”n Elucidated

LINKAGE - Rami bar Chama inquired (Nedarim 11b - 12a): A piece of korban shelamim was sitting next to a loaf of bread, and he said, “This (bread) should be like this (shelamim).” Is he referring to the prohibition that the meat originally had before its blood was sprinkled on the Altar, or is he referring to the fact that the meat is now permitted? If he is referring to the fact that the meat is now permitted, the neder is not effective.

The Ran asks: Even if he is referring to the present status of the meat, the neder should be valid, for there are prohibitions that still exist in the shelamim? A tamei is prohibited against eating from the korban! The “chest and the thigh” are forbidden to any non-Kohen!

He answers: We are only concerned with prohibitions that emerge because of his vow. Any prohibition coming from his vow will be forbidden to everyone because he sanctified this animal. A prohibition that is limited to a select group of people cannot be on account of his vow and therefore, such prohibitions may not serve as an association to his present vow.

Hatfasah to a Shelamim

Rami bar Chama inquired: If someone states, “This is upon me like meat of a korban shelamim after it its blood is sprinkled (on the Altar),” what is the law? The Gemora asks: If he uses this terminology, he is essentially saying that it is permitted to him (as everyone is allowed to eat the meat of a shelamim after its blood has been sprinkled on the altar)! Rather, it must that his question was in a case where a piece of korban shelamim was sitting next to a loaf of bread, and he said, “This (bread) should be like this (shelamim).” Is he referring to the prohibition that the meat originally had before its blood was sprinkled on the Altar, or is he referring to the fact that the meat is now permitted?

Reb Chaim Brisker explains: The inquiry of the Gemora is not regarding the vower’s intention (does he mean to link the object of his vow to the original status of the shelamim or to its present status?); rather, Rami bar Chama’s uncertainty is in respect to the laws of this association. Does one associate the object of his neder with prohibitions that are now present or is the association with the essential state of the shelamim, i.e. its previous state, which is the sanctity that brought about its prohibition?

According to Reb Chaim’s explanation, we can answer a challenge to this Gemora posed by Reb Shmuel Rozovsky and Reb Naftoli Trop. They ask: Why don’t we apply the principle of “undefined nedarim are treated stringently” (we are strict in regard to its meaning until the vower explains differently)? They answer that this principle is applicable only when the vower has declared a valid neder, consisting of a legitimate language fit for a neder; however, there was uncertainty regarding his true intent. In such cases, we apply this principle and we assume that a person does not express himself for nothing. He probably meant to invoke a neder. However, in Rami bar Chama’s inquiry, the question is regarding the explanation of his words; did the vower mean to associate the object of his neder with the original prohibition of the shelamim or to its present status? If he meant to link the object of his neder to the present (permitted) status of the shelamim, he is not invoking a neder at all! When one fails to express his neder with his mouth, we cannot rule stringently.

According to Reb Chaim Brisker’s explanation, however, their question does not even begin. For Rami bar Chama’s inquiry has nothing to do with the vower’s intent. Rami bar Chama is inquiring into the mechanics of invoking a neder through an association. Is the association to the object’s present status or to its previous condition? The principle of “undefined nedarim are treated stringently” does not apply here.

Read more!

“From the implication of a negative, we cannot hear the positive"

The Gemora (Nedarim 11a) asks: Who is the author of our Mishna? It cannot be Rabbi Meir, as he does not hold of the concept that if someone makes a negative statement, the positive is automatically implied. [It is not chullin means that it is like a korban.] This is apparent from Rabbi Meir’s statement (in a Mishna). Rabbi Meir states: Any condition that is not similar to the condition made (by Moshe Rabbeinu) with the sons of (the tribe of) Reuven and Gad (the condition was doubled; if the condition is fulfilled, the agreement is valid, but if it is not fulfilled, the agreement is not valid) is not a valid condition. (Obviously, we not infer the positive from the negative.)

The Rishonim ask: The Gemora in Shavuos (36a) states that Rabbi Meir only holds that “the positive cannot be implied from the negative statement” only in regards to monetary matters; however, in regards to prohibitory matters, Rabbi Meir agrees that we may infer the positive from the negative. If so, the Mishna here can very well be following Rabbi Meir’s opinion, for we are discussing the laws pertaining to vows and this is not a monetary matter, but rather, a prohibitory matter?

Tosfos answers: It is evident from the Gemora there that a prohibition that involves money has the status of a monetary matter and Rabbi Meir will still maintain that “from the implication of a negative, we cannot hear the positive.” Since a vow involves money, for one is prohibiting the possession’s of his fellow on himself, Rabbi Meir would not concede in this case.

The Ran answers similarly that since by a vow, one is prohibiting the object upon himself, it is considered a prohibition that involves money.

(A difference between Tosfos and the Ran may be by an oath, where, according to Tosfos, it still would involve money because he is prohibiting himself from deriving benefit from his fellow’s possessions; however, according to the Ran, it would not be regarded as a monetary matter since the object itself is not forbidden.)

Tosfos in Shavuos answers that Rabbi Meir concedes only by a strict prohibition, i.e. one that a person will be liable to death; however, by a vow, which is not regarded as a strict prohibition, Rabbi Meir will still maintain that “from the implication of a negative, we cannot hear the positive.” (The Rashba does not agree that the Gemora states such a distinction.)

The Rosh answers: Since by a vow, we go according to the language of people, it is regarded as a monetary matter. Rabbeinu Avraham min Hahar explains: People generally explain themselves completely. Therefore, by a vow and all money matters (for the same reason), Rabbi Meir maintains that “from the implication of a negative, we cannot hear the positive.”

Read more!

Shalom Aleichem - Aleichem Shalom

We learned in the following braisa (Nedarim 10b): Rabbi Shimon says: How do we know that a person should not say (when consecrating an offering) “to Hashem an olah,” “to Hashem a mincha,” “to Hashem a todah,” or “to Hashem a shelamim” (but rather, the Name of Hashem should always be mentioned first)? It is derived from the verse [Vayikra 1:2]: An offering to Hashem.

The Yeshuos Yaakov (Y”D 148) uses our Gemora to explain our custom of greeting your fellow with “Shalom Aleichem,” and they respond with “Aleichem Shalom.” In truth, it should be forbidden to say “Shalom aleichem,” for “Shalom” is one of the Names of Hashem and we should be concerned that a person will die immediately after saying “Shalom” without having the opportunity to conclude and say “aleichem.” If this would happen, it would emerge that he had said Hashem’s Name in vain. However, since Chazal have told us that one who greets his fellow with “shalom” will merit living a long life, there is no need to be concerned that he will die immediately following saying “shalom.” This logic is only applicable to the first one greeting his fellow, for he is the one that has this guarantee. The fellow responding, however, does not have this guarantee, and that is why he replies and says, “Aleichem shalom.”

Read more!

Pious and Righteous

The Gemora (Nedarim 10a) states: Rabbi Yehudah said in a braisa: The early pious ones were eager to bring a chatas offering, because the Holy One, blessed be He, never caused them to stumble. What did they do? They arose and made a nedavah vow of nezirus to the Omnipresent, so they should be liable to bring a chatas offering to the Omnipresent (when the nezirus was completed; this was considered virtuous).

Shoel U’meishiv asks: Tosfos writes in several places in Shas that Hashem does not cause the righteous to stumble only in respect to prohibitions dealing with eating; however, they may stumble by other prohibitions. If so, it is still possible for them to bring a chatas offering, when they stumble in other prohibitions, so why were they compelled to take a vow of nezirus?

He answers that Tosfos only said that in regards to the righteous people. They may stumble in other prohibitions. However, the pious people are on a much higher level and Hashem would not allow them to stumble in any prohibition.

Read more!

Locks of Hair Arranged in Curls

The Gemora (Nedarim 9b)states: A nedavah for nezirus is regarded as virtuous in cases such that of Shimon the Righteous (a great Kohen Gadol who served in the beginning of the second Beis Hamikdosh). For we learned in a braisa: Shimon the Righteous said, “I never ate from the meat of an asham sacrifice offered by a nazir who had become tamei except for one case. There was once a handsome young man from the south with beautiful eyes and locks of hair arranged in curls (who had become tamei and came to the Beis Hamikdosh to have his hair removed and to offer the required sacrifice). I asked him why he had taken upon himself a vow to become a nazir, which would eventually lead to having such beautiful hair removed
(even if he would have completed his term of nezirus without becoming tamei, a nazir shaves his head upon completion). He responded to me, ‘I was a shepherd for my father and one day I went to a spring to fill my pail of water and saw my reflection in the water. My evil inclination suddenly tempted me to take advantage of my looks and wished to drive me out from this world. I said to my evil inclination: Wicked one! Why are you being so haughty in a world that is not yours, with one that in the future will be worms and maggots? I swore at that time to become a nazir.’ I was so impressed (by his piety) that I kissed him on his head and said to him, May there be more vowers of nezirus like you in Israel.”

The question that is asked is why the young man with the locks of hair arranged in curls did not simply go to a barber for a haircut to remove this temptation.

Rabbi Mendel Weinbach answers that on the way to the barber he was likely to change his mind and give in to temptation. The only solution was to immediately take upon himself a vow of nezirus which would eventually force him to eliminate his hair and the problems that accompanied it.

Click below for more on this topic matter.

Food for Thought

*** What was the necessity to state that the nazir came from the south? What difference did it make where he came from?

*** How was he permitted to look at his reflection in the water; isn’t it forbidden for a man to look at a mirror?

*** Why connection is there between the “haughtiness” of the evil inclination and the temptation to sin?

Humility

By Rabbi Yosef Levinson
The Torah details the laws which apply to one who makes a vow to be a nazir. He must refrain from drinking wine and eating fresh grapes and raisins, grapeseeds and skins. He may not shave his hair; rather he must let it grow long. A nazir may also not defile himself by coming in contact with a corpse. And when the term of his vow has ended, and the nazir wishes to revert to his former life, he must first shave off all his hair and then bring korbanos, offerings, to Hashem. In total, there are ten mitzvos pertaining to the nazir (Sefer Hachinuch Mitzvos 368:377).
The mitzvos which are enumerated in the parsha of nazir were given by Hashem in order to provide a means of self-sanctification for one who wishes to do so. The Chinuch (mitzva 374) writes that by abstaining from wine, one breaks his desires and humbles himself. (While one's main focus should be on spiritual pursuits, nevertheless one should not ignore his physical needs. Abstaining from wine allows the nazir to break his desires in a manner that is not detrimental to his health, Sefer HaChinuch, ibid.)

The Chinuch adds that this is also why the nazir must let his hair grow long. By not concerning himself with his appearance, he humbles himself. Similarly, the nazir shaves his hair completely at the end of his nazirus because there is no doubt that either, extremely long hair or totally bald distorts the appearance of man.

The Chinuch proves that the purpose for growing the hair is to subdue the yetzar hara, evil inclination from the following anecdote recorded in the Gemara (Nedarim 9b). "Shimon Hatzaddik (who was the Kohen Gadol) related that once a certain nazir appeared before him. The man had beautiful eyes, was very good looking and his locks were arranged in curls. Shimon Hatzaddik asked him: 'Why do you make a vow of nazirus, which necessitates that you destroy your beautiful hair?' (For he will be required to shave his head at the end of his nazirus.) The man replied: 'I was a shepherd for my father. Once I went to draw water from the well and gazed at my reflection in the water. My yetzer hara seized me and wished to drive me from the world. I said - Rasha (wicked one), why are you conceited in a world that is not yours, with one who is destined to be consumed by maggots and worms? I swear that I will shave you for the sake of Heaven.' "

The Steipler Gaon, HaRav Y. Y. Kanievsky zt"l observes that although the shepherd did not mention the sin that the yetzer hara was enticing him to transgress, nevertheless from his response to himself, we see that he was concerned lest he become conceited. Indeed there is nothing that can drive one from both this world and the next, other than ga'ava, haughtiness. As it is written: "It is an abomination to Hashem, all who are haughty in their heart (Mishlei 16:5)." Chazal also say that regarding one who is conceited, Hashem says: "I and him cannot live in the world together" (Sota 5a). The Shechina departs from a ba'al ga'ava and he is left to his own defenses to combat his yetzer hara and survive in this world.

The Steipler continues that when one is praised for his accomplishments, he is overjoyed. At times, he might let this joy "go to his head" and he begins thinking that he is deserving of honor. One must be wary lest he fall into the trap of haughtiness. We see how this shepherd trembled when he saw his handsome features and realized that it might lead him to ga'ava. He therefore took an oath of nazirus.

HaRav Yerucham Levovitz zt"l points out that growing one's hair can have the opposite effect and can lead to ga'ava as is evident from Shimon Hatzaddik's story. It all depends on one's intent. One may become obsessed with his appearance and become conceited. Hashem despises such a person. On the other hand, if one lets his hair grow so that he appears disheveled, he will be humbled. Such an individual is Kadosh L'Hashem, holy to Hashem. Moreover, the hair itself becomes kadosh. This is meant literally - the law states that it is forbidden to derive pleasure from the hair of a nazir. Thus, the status of the nazir's hair is similar to the status of Kodashim (articles sanctified for the Beis Hamikdash).

This is the lesson of the nazir. We must realize the significance of humility. In addition, the nazir teaches us that we have the ability to elevate and sanctify ourselves. If by abstaining from wine and letting one's hair grow, a nazir is sanctified, all the more so, one who sincerely undertakes to improve himself and tackle his desires and bad character traits, is Kadosh and beloved to Hashem.
Daf Hashavua Kollel Beth HaTalmud Copyright (c) 2002 by Rabbi Yosef Levinson and reprinted here with permission

Maharal on the Yetzer Harah

By Rabbi Shaya Karlinsky

That man's yetzer harah exists only as a result of his arrogance is alluded to by the Rabbis in a number of places. In Nedarim (9b) Shimon HaTzaddik said: I have never partaken from a Nazir sacrifice, except for one time. Once, a person came from the south (at the conclusion of his nazir period) and I saw that he was very handsome, with his hair arranged in long curls. I said to him: My son, why did you see fit to destroy such beautiful hair? (A nazir must cut off all his hair at the end of the nazir period. By undertaking to become a nazir, he ensured that all his hair would have to be cut off.) He said to me: "I was a shepherd for my father in my home town, and I once went to draw water from the spring. As I looked at my reflection, my yetzer harah surged forth in an effort to distract me and undermine my existence. (The commentary attributed to Rashi explains that when he saw how handsome he was, his yetzer harah wanted to seduce him to improper behaviours.) I said: 'Evil one! How can you be arrogant in a world that is not yours, trying to incite one who is destined to become a worm (in the grave). I swear that I will shear you for the sake of Heaven.'" Immediately, I (Shimon HaTzadik) stood up and kissed him on his forehead and said to him "My son, there should be many more Jews like you who commit to a nazir period. It is those like you to whom the Torah refers in the verse 'A man who will make a nazir oath, for the sake of G-d(Bamidbar 6:2)'."

We see that when the man saw how handsome he was (leading to a feeling of arrogance) the yetzer harah was immediately aroused, with the intention of distracting him and leading him astray in order to undermine his existence. For this is the goal of the yetzer harah: To destroy a structure which has a stable existence. When the structure is already in a tenuous state, there is no need to undermine it further, and the yetzer harah leaves it alone. This young man recognized how vulnerable he was to the yetzer harah, and in order to remove (and undermine) the source of his arrogance (which he understood as being the breeding ground for the yetzer harah, and caused by a lack of sufficient clarity of his dependency on G-d) he vowed to cut off his hair for the sake of Heaven. (How much of our arrogance is caused by unwarranted attention given to our appearance? How much of that attention is caused by our need to cover up our own feelings of insecurity?) It was for this reason that Shimon HaTzadik praised him with the blessing that there should be more Jews who undertake neziruth for these pure motivations, and applied the phrase "an oath for the sake of Heaven" to this person.

Normally a person vows neziruth out of remorse for a sin that he committed. But as the neziruth drags on, he may come to regret the neziruth itself, as it becomes more difficult than he anticipated. This regret is even more likely when the person began the neziruth out of feelings of remorse for an earlier act, indicating that his decisions are frequently subject to vacillation. Just as he swung from a sinful act to an act of self-denial, it is possible that, as the difficulty of the neziruth weighs on him, he will once again change his mind.

But this young man wasn't motivated by any regret, making his neziruth purely for the sake of Heaven.
(When the source of activity is reactive, it embodies the potential for regret, and is also built on personal motivations - in this case, the desire to protect himself from damage and to eliminate guilt. So the element of lshaim shamayim, for the sake of Heaven, is lacking. When one's behavior is proactive, as it was in the case of the young man in our story, the motivation is to reach beyond the level at which he finds himself, out of an altruistic desire to elevate himself to become closer to G-d. We have discussed in a number of the shiurim the difference between service of G-d out of love and out of fear. Service out of fear includes a dimension of personal motivation. You are afraid of what will happen to you if you don't do the right thing. Service out of love is purely altruistic, and is therefore on a much higher level. This also has relevance to chumroth, adapting halachic stringencies. The Mahral in Chapter 1 indicates that the proper motivation for these stringencies is an intense love of G-d, with the desire to reach higher spiritual levels in order to come closer to Him. Too often, however, people are motivated to increase stringencies out of fear and self-centered motivations.)

(The Maharal will now elaborate on how each element of the young man's story reflected the purity of his motivations, and the fact that he was not acting in a way in which future regret was likely.)

The reason it mentions that he "came from the south," which is a long distance (from Jerusalem, where the nazir sacrifice was brought) is to emphasize that the person knew when he made the vow that he would have to travel that long distance to bring the sacrifices. This diminished the likelihood that the great distance he would have to travel would subsequently cause him to regret that he took the vow. Only unanticipated difficulties, those which a person rarely experiences, such as abstaining from wine for a significant time, raise the possibility of later regret.

The reason that it mentions that he was "a shepherd for his father in his home town" is because the yetzer harah besets a person when he is idle instead of being involved in productive activity. If the young man's yetzer harah was aroused due to his own idleness, then he would have been responsible for having invited the yetzer harah to entice him. Activities which would then be necessary to neutralize that self-inflicted yetzer harah could not be termed "for the sake of Heaven," but would have been a protective measure taken for his own welfare, in response to his own negligence. Therefore, it was significant that he had been a shepherd (a productive activity), not wasting his time in an idle way and not making himself vulnerable to the yetzer harah. Furthermore, the work of being a shepherd was being done for his father, so he was involved in a mitzvah (honoring his father) further insulating him from the yetzer harah. In addition, the task was being done in his home town, where he felt subject to the influence and authority of his father (which enhances humility, further insulating him from the yetzer harah) . Had he been far away from his home, he may have felt the desire and the ability to resist the authority his father, creating a sense of independence and arrogance, inviting the control of the yetzer harah. A neziruth made to in response to a feeling of independence and arrogance would not be judged purely "for the sake of Heaven." (When a person travels away from home, there is a common tendency to lower our inhibitions compared to the way we would behave at home. This is true for young men and women going away to university or camp, and for adults away on vacation or a business trip. This is an important and very relevant insight that we have from the Maharal's explanation.

But the young man did nothing to induce the yetzer harah. Rather it came upon in an unexpected way, as he unexpectedly saw his reflection in the pond and realized how handsome he was, inducing an urge to show off this beauty. This attack by the yetzer harah was no fault of his, and the response to become a nazir, resulting in his cutting off his hair, was purely "for the sake of Heaven."

(In order to fully to understand the connections being made by the Maharal, we again need to focus on the difference between serving G-d out of love and out of fear, which we discussed in the first chapter, especially in Mishna 3. Most dependable people will intervene to rectify a situation for which they feel responsible, with an element of ego being one of the motivating forces. So in the case where the individual was responsible for creating his vulnerability to the yetzer harah, the response to neutralize that yetzer harah can be viewed as having a self-centered component. But when someone observes a situation for which he has no responsibility, he will only take action to rectify a problem if he feels a connection to the outcome on a transcendent level. You look to help a loved one without examining how the situation developed, because of your love and commitment to that person. It is an altruistic and giving perspective. When someone finds himself in a situation where he has a legitimate excuse for inaction, the motivation for taking action is on a higher plane than action taken when one will be blamed for a negative outcome. So, when our young man found himself beset by the yetzer harah through no fault of his own, it would have been very easy to succumb to that yetzer harah. His proactive response, not looking for excuses but looking to do what needed to be done to fulfill the will of G-d, is the result of "service out of love," and is why Shimon HaTzakik referred to this as a nezirut that was purely "for the sake of Heaven," motivated by something that transcends the individual.)

From every element of this story, we see that the source of the yetzer harah is arrogance, with the goal of distracting man from the purpose of his existence in the world, leading to his ultimate destruction.

The class is taught by Rabbi Shaya Karlinsky, Dean of Darche Noam Institutions, Yeshivat Darche Noam/Shapell's and Midreshet Rachel for Women.

http://www.torah.org/learning/maharal/p3m1part2.html

[END]

Read more!