2,711 pages of Talmud. A gem a day.

We start with a quote from the song Hair from the musical Hair:

“Down to here
Down to there
Down to there?
Down to where?
It stops by itself

Don’t never have to cut it
‘Cause it stops by itself”

Our daf discuss a Nazir Olam – a permanent Nazir. It discusses a practical question, if you take a vow to be a Nazir from then on, does that mean you can never cut your hair?

What if it becomes

“A home for the fleas
A hive for the buzzin’ bees
A nest for birds
There ain’t no words for the beauty and the splendor
The wonder of my Hair (hair, hair, hair, hair, hair)
Grow it, show it
Long as I can grow it
My hair”

Okay, I will stop quoting the musical and quote the daf:

The Gemara clarifies a halakha taught in the mishna: And where is the concept of a permanent nazirite written? As it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: Absalom was a permanent nazirite, as it is stated: “And it came to pass at the end of forty years, that Absalom said to the king: I pray to you, let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebron” (II Samuel 15:7). And he cut his hair once every twelve months . . . Rabbi Nehorai says: Absalom cut his hair once every thirty days. Rabbi Yosei says: He cut his hair from one Shabbat eve to another Shabbat eve, as we find that the sons of kings cut their hair from one Shabbat eve to another Shabbat eve.

So, we get three opinions on how often Absalom, a permanent Nazir, cut his hair. The rabbis discuss why once a week can’t be right – there is no real difference in the wieght of the hair after a week. At a month, one’s hair is pouffier, especially if it’s short. Even if we allowed our hair to grow all year, it only would grow an average of 6 inches, so, it would never get as long as imagined in the musical. As someone who has donated my hair many times, it does take about 2 years to grow the 10-12 inches of hair needed for a donation. I wonder if the nazirim would donate their lovely locks.

The daf gives us the most beautiful story of a nazir in the Talmud (we may have even seen it before). The story asks us to examine the reason we are making our vows – are we making them for the sake of a higher purpose? Or is it out of anger, or selfishness? Will they regret making their vow?

Shimon HaTzaddik said: In all my days as a priest, I never ate the guilt-offering of a ritually impure nazirite, apart from the offering of one man who came to me from the South, who had beautiful eyes and a fine countenance, and his locks were arranged in curls. I said to him: My son, what did you see to become a nazirite, which would force you to destroy this beautiful hair, as a nazirite must cut off all his hair at the conclusion of his term? He said to me: I was a shepherd for my father in my town, and I went to draw water from the spring, and I looked at my reflection in the water. And my evil inclination quickly rose against me and sought to drive me from the world. I said to my evil inclination: Empty one! For what reason are you proud in a world that is not yours, as your end is to be maggots and worms when you die. I swear by the Temple service that I will become a nazirite and shave you for the sake of Heaven. Shimon HaTzaddik relates: When I heard his response, I arose and kissed him on his head, and said to him: May there be more nazirites like you in Israel, whose intentions are noble, and who would not regret their vow of naziriteship even if they became impure. With regard to you the verse states: “When either a man or a woman shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord” (Numbers 6:2). The verse speaks of a vow that is not undertaken out of anger or spite, but purely for the sake of God.

A beautiful story about a beautiful young man. Interesting the parallels between his story and the Greek legend of Narcissus. Narcissus looks in a pool of water and falls in love with his own reflection. Here, we see how our rabbis want us to value humility and try our best to avoid narcissism. Who is the best Nazir Shimon HaTzaddik ever meets? The one who takes the vow because he wants to humble himself in his heart.

The lesson to us all is to put God, of a higher power/higher purpose, above ourselves always.

Today’s gem: know the full extent of what you’re getting into before you agree.

Rabbi Shimon says: One is not obligated as a nazirite until he vows that all items and actions forbidden to a nazirite are forbidden to him. And the Rabbis say: Even if he vowed to abstain from only one of them, he is a nazirite.

Here, a person may say, “Hey! Nazarites don’t cut their hair, I’m into the long-hair look, I will be a nazarite!” But they they find out they can’t go to their uncle’s funeral and don’t want to be a nazarite anymore. Well, Rabbi Shimon says that, for someone to become a Nazir, they need to know and list all the things they will be required to abstain from as a nazir . . . but the rabbis disagree.

I like this a lot. I like Rabbi Shimon’s point. Before we dive into a new lifestyle or career (or relationship) we should really know what we are getting into.

(Like, I can see someone agreeing to abstain from wine – but raisins? They’re natures candy!)

Welcome to a new tractate!!!! Woohoo! And the Gemara starts off with the perfect question for us as we enter into Nazir – why are we reading this tractate now? Why is Nazir in the book of Nashim (which means women)?

GEMARA: The Gemara begins by clarifying why this tractate appears in the order of Nashim within the six orders of the Mishna. Now, the tanna is engaged in the study of the order of Nashim, which discusses laws concerning marriage and the resulting obligations as well as with forbidden sexual relations. What then is the reason that he teaches the laws of the nazirite here? The Gemara answers: The tanna is engaged in the study of the verse pertaining to divorce: “Then it comes to pass, if she finds no favor in his eyes, because he has found some unseemly matter about her” (Deuteronomy 24:1). And this is what he is saying: What caused the woman to commit the transgression of adultery, alluded to in the verse by the phrase “unseemly matter”? It was wine. And the tanna is saying: Anyone who sees a sota in her disgrace should abstain from wine. Consequently, tractate Nazir is placed in the order of Nashim, immediately preceding tractate Sotah, which is about a woman suspected by her husband of having been unfaithful, and tractate Gittin, which discusses divorce.

Wow! So, here are some things to know as we embark on this tractate together. While Cohens (priests) and Levites are dedicated to temple service by virtue of their birth, ANYONE can become a Nazir and dedicate time to temple service. The Nazir swears off wine (or grape thing including grapes or raisins or juice) and does not cut his/her hair while a nazir and cannot become ritually impure being in contact with corpses or graves (even those of family members).

As anyone can make this vow and be a nazir, the gemara asks why it’s in this book about women? Why do we read it before we read Gittin, which is all about divorce?

It uses two proof texts to explain why we study Nazir now and not in another book. The first is from Deuteronomy where it says that a man can divorce his wife for an “unseemly matter.” What could be more unseemly than having an affair? This is implied as the laws about the Sotah (the woman accused of adultery when there are no witnesses) and the Nazir come next to one another in the Torah. And the tanna is saying: Anyone who sees a sota in her disgrace should abstain from wine. They are implying that the woman would not have had an affair had she been sober. So, why become a nazir? Many might take a vow to become a Nazarite in order to stop drinking (think of it as rehab). And so we see how our rabbis connect this book to women’s issues and think of it as a necessary read before we get to Sotah (adultery) then Gittin (divorce).

On yesterday’s daf we learned that, originally, a woman married to a kohen who made a claim that she was raped (an dis therefore forbidden to her husband) was believed and her husband would be forced to divorce her. We also learned that later, the rabbis worried that women would claim to be raped if they wanted to initiate a divorce even if it hadn’t really happened and so they said she had to bring proof. Today, we get a number of cases where women intimate that they were raped . . . but they aren’t believed because it’s only circumstantial evidence. For example:

It is related that there was a certain woman, who on every day of engaging in sexual intercourse with her husband, would rise early in the morning and wash her husband’s hands. One day she brought him water to wash his hands, in response to which he said to her: This matter, i.e., sexual intercourse, did not occur now. She said to him: If so, it may be that one of the gentile aloe merchants [ahaloyei] who were here just now should be blamed; if it was not you, perhaps it was one of them. The case came before Rav Naḥman, who said: There is reason to suspect that she might have cast her eyes upon another man, and therefore there is no substance to her words. She lacks credibility and her statement is unreliable, and so she remains permitted to her husband.

But, let’s say the husband caught a man in their house? Then surely she should be believed, right?

The Gemara relates another incident about a certain man who was secluding himself [meharzeik] in a house, he and a certain married woman. When the owner of the house entered, the adulterer burst through the wall of palm branches and fled. Rava said: The woman is permitted to her husband. The assumption is that she did not sin, for if it is so that the man had committed a transgression, he would have hidden himself in the house instead of revealing his identity by escaping in the open.

Wow. Caught the guy in the house – running for his life – and we still think nothing happened. . .

The Gemara concludes with one final incident about a certain adulterer who entered the house of a certain married woman. When the man, i.e., her husband, came home, the adulterer went and sat himself behind the door, so that the husband would not know that he was there. There was some cress [taḥlei] lying there in the house, and the adulterer, but not the husband, saw that a snake had come and tasted of it, perhaps thereby contaminating it with its venom. The master of the house wanted to eat from that cress, without the woman’s knowledge. The adulterer said to him: Do not eat from the cress, as a snake has tasted of it. The case was brought before Rava, who said: His wife is permitted to him, for were it so that the adulterer had committed a transgression, it would have been preferable for him that the husband should eat the cress and die. This is because one who commits adultery is also suspected of bloodshed, as it is written: “For they have committed adultery and blood is on their hands” (Ezekiel 23:45), indicating that adultery leads to murder.

Oh good grief. Now, because a man wasn’t willing to watch the husband of his lover die – he is not suspected, even though he is in the house alone with her, even though he hid. Maybe the rabbis just didn’t want to punish a man who saved a life with stoning (the punishment for adultery).

Either way, wild stories with which to end tractate Nedarim. The gem? Give people the benefit of the doubt… even if they may not deserve it.

Our Mishna teaches that, originally, if a woman made one of three statements (I will only focus on the first) which indicated that she could no longer live with her husband, the beit din would force him to divorce her and pay her ketuba. 

MISHNA: Initially the Sages would say that three women are divorced even against their husbands’ will, and nevertheless they receive payment of what is due to them according to their marriage contract. The first is the wife of a priest who says to her husband: I am defiled to you, i.e., she claims that she had been raped, so that she is now forbidden to her husband.

This wife is the one i want to focus on for today’s daf. Why? Well, the rabbis worry that a priest’s wife who simply doesn’t want to be married to her husband anymore might claim that she was raped when she wasn’t! So, they change the ruling in the Gemara:

They subsequently retracted their words and said that in order that a married woman should not cast her eyes on another man and to that end ruin her relationship with her husband and still receive payment of her marriage contract, (read, she goes with another guy and gets alimony from hubby #1) these halakhot were modified as follows: A priest’s wife who says to her husband: I am defiled to you, must bring proof for her words that she was raped.

Wow! How horrific all around. How terrible to have a system where women cannot get out of their marriages and might be tempted to lie in order to get court support for her to leave her husband. And, how incredibly horrific to make a woman prove she was raped! This was way before rape kits and it’s still so hard for women to prove they were raped and so few are believed.

The gem? Maybe that the vast majority of us don’t live in this world anymore.

It is related that there was a certain man who took a vow that all benefit from the world should be forbidden to him if he marries a woman when he has not yet learned halakha.

Okay, so this guy vows that he won’t marry until he learns Halakhah. However, if he does marry before that time – he cannot “benefit form the world.” What does that mean? As we shall soon see, part of what that means is that he can’t wear clothing! Let’s see if he can master his studies before he marries:

He would run up a ladder and rope but was not able to learn the material, i.e., despite all his efforts he failed in his studies. Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna came and misled him, allowing him to understand that even if he took a vow, the vow would not take effect, and so he married a woman.

So, he marries even though he didn’t learn the halakhah! Why? Well, he couldn’t remember his studies so Rav Aha tells him that he can marry and that his vow won’t take effect . . .but it does!

And Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna then smeared him with clay to protect him from the elements, as it was now prohibited for him to benefit from the world by wearing clothes. And he then brought him before Rav Ḥisda, to dissolve his vow.

How hilarious is this! A guy wearing clay so that he is not walking around naked all because he couldn’t remember halkhah. Oy! How many times have I told myself that I won’t do X until I finish whatever it is I am working on. (Currently, I won’t so the crossword mini until I finish this post.) Goes to show that we should not set ourselves up this way. Vows of motivation may be good in theory, but in practice we might end up single or, apparently, naked.

A couple I married recently got divorced. When they married, the groom had his grandmothers diamond recent for his bride. This is not an uncommon thing – men proposing with a family heirloom. But what happens if the relationship falls apart?

I have also seen many couples who have had to sign prenups because one of them comes from significant money. No one is hoping the relationship will end, but the parents of the bride or groom want to ensure that any money they inherit is solely under the purview of their child.

So, how do we give to our children in a way that our in-law does not have rights to the gift? It’s a question on today’s daf and it was even harder to answer back then when women did not have the same rights and when there weren’t as many lawyers (still plenty but not like today).

With regard to one who vows that benefit from him is forbidden to his son-in-law, but he nevertheless wishes to give his daughter, i.e., the wife of that same son-in-law, money, then, though he cannot do so directly, as anything acquired by a woman belongs to her husband, he should say to her: This money is hereby given to you as a gift, provided that your husband has no rights to it, but the gift includes only that which you pick up and place in your mouth.

There is a work-around happening here. As soon as the money belongs to the woman it also belongs to her husband. However, her father only wants HER to receive the gift. So, what does he do? He has his daughter hold the money but it’s only only officially hers when she places it in her mouth. Once food is in a woman’s mouth, her husband can no longer take it from her. Before that, it’s her father’s and so her husband has no claim on it. Interesting work around.

This struck me today because, no matter how much we may love our in-laws, our child always comes first. My mom always said my husband was her favorite child, but I also knew that she would always be there for me and love me and even hate him if that’s what I needed from her (thank God my husband is awesome so it was never an issue). There are certain things that stay in the family.

The man from the couple that divorced told me that he bought his ex-wife a new diamond ring before they officially split up. He wanted his grandmother’s diamond ring back, but still thought his ex should have a ring to wear/sell/transform/call her own. I thought he went above and beyond, he just thought it was the right thing to do.

Today’s gem is that, there are certain things which, once said, can never be taken back.

The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is: The legal status of a pause or retraction within the time required for speaking a short phrase is like that of continuous speech, and so a person can retract what he first said if he issues the retraction within this period of time after he finished speaking. This principle holds true in almost every area of halakha, except for the case of one who blasphemes God; or in the case of an idol worshipper, who verbally accepts an idol as his god; or one who betroths a woman; or one who divorces his wife. In these four cases, a person cannot undo his action, even if he immediately retracts what he said within the time required for saying a short phrase.

While the entire tractate of Nedarim is about revoking vows, there are certain things that we can never revoke or never undo. It does not mean that we cannot repent, that we cannot work to mend the damage we have done, but we cannot unhear it and we cannot forget it. Again the message is to be careful with our words. Here, we think about how our words damage our relationships. How there are certain things you never say unless you are ready to face the consequences. That there are certain things you can say that there is no coming back from.

Today’s gem asks us what are the things forbidden to us that we want the most?

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

While our daf is discussing a woman’s handiwork, it does pose an interesting idea – that things that are forbidden to us get a special kind of status in our minds. I think of chocolate to people on diets, vodka to an alcoholic, the sound of the slot machine to the gambler . . . how tempting things become once we know we can’t have them. That’s the whole playing hard to get thing too. I wonder what Rav Ashi was craving when he cited Shmuel, was it his wife’s cooking or something else entirely?