Nedarim 81a — the Talmud in English

the whole body -

all the more so!

Prevention of bathing, which applies to his entire body, certainly entails pain and affliction of the soul; and why, according to Rabbi Yosei, is he unable to annul it

They said

to resolve:

No! Washing -

is more stringent according to Rabbi Yosei!?

Rabbi Yosei holds that prevention of washing garments is greater pain than prevention of bathing.

And the proof of this is from that which

Shmuel said:

This entanglement of the head,

one who does not comb the hair of his head, and as a result he has dirt and filth on his head -

brings

about

blindness,

blindness. For the light of the eyes draws nourishment from the hair of the head.

The entanglement of garments,

one who does not wash his garments, and as a result his garments are dirty -

brings

about

madness,

insanity.

The entanglement of the body,

one who does not bathe, and as a result his body becomes foul and dirty -.

brings

about

boils and sores,

painful pustules.

And it is demonstrated that prevention of washing garments is more severe than prevention of bathing. For there is a remedy for pustules, whereas there is no remedy for madness.

And therefore Rabbi Yosei holds that prevention of washing garments is a greater affliction of the soul than prevention of bathing.

They sent from there,

they sent from the Land of Israel to Babylonia: a.

Be careful with entanglement.

With washing the garments and with bathing, in order to prevent affliction of the body.

b.

Be careful

to study Torah

in a group,

because the students sharpen one another.

But one who studies alone, regarding him it is said: “A sword upon those who are alone, and they become foolish.”

c.

Be careful with the children of the poor

to make an effort to teach them Torah.

For from them Torah will emerge

because they have no other occupation, and their minds are humble.

As it is said: “He shall pour water [

the Torah is compared to water]

from his pails [

from the poor among them] .”

The verse teaches

that from them,

from the poor,

Torah will emerge.

d.

And for what reason are Torah scholars not generally destined to have Torah scholars emerge from their sons?

For the most part, they are not sons of Torah!

Rav Yosef said:

in order

that they should not say

their sons that

the Torah -

is an inheritance for them.

That is, they do not study Torah because they believe that the Torah passes to them as an inheritance.

Or others will say, “It is an inheritance for them,” whereas we do not succeed in the study of Torah .

Rav Sheshet son of Rav Idi says: So that they should not impose themselves

their sons

upon the community.

For if Torah would not cease from them, we would fear that they would “impose themselves” [take control] over the community.

Mar Zutra says:

That is not the concern. Rather,

because they are imposing themselves upon the community,

for already now, the sons of Torah scholars, before they “inherit” the Torah, impose themselves upon the community.

Rav Ashi says: Because they call people “asses.”

For they do not conduct themselves respectfully toward others, because of the “inheritance” of Torah that is within them.

Ravina says: Because they do not recite a blessing over the Torah first!

Because they are diligent in engaging in Torah, they are not diligent in reciting the blessing over the Torah, and the blessing that “we and our descendants shall be” does not apply to them

. And this is like that which

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

What

is the meaning of this

that is written:

When the prophet Jeremiah prophesied about the destruction and said: “

Who is the wise man, and he will understand this -

why has the land been lost?”

This matter was asked of the sages and of the prophets, and they did not explain it -

until the Holy One, blessed is He, explained it Himself.

As it is written: “And the Lord said -

because they abandoned My Torah

which I placed before them, and they did not heed My voice, and they did not walk in it.”

And he challenges:

“They did not heed My voice” is “they did not walk in it”!

If the verse’s intention is, in its plain sense, that they did not study Torah, what is the distinction between “they did not heed My voice” and “they did not walk in it”?

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav: That they did not recite a blessing over the Torah first

For certainly they were constantly engaged in Torah, and therefore the sages and the prophets were astonished over why the land had been lost, until the Holy One, blessed is He, who knows the depths of the heart, came and revealed that the Torah was not important in their eyes, and they were not engaged in Torah for its own sake; and as a result they treated the blessing over the Torah lightly. And this is what the verse said, “they did not walk in it,” meaning that they did not study for its own sake .

Isi bar Yehuda did not come to the study hall

of

Rabbi Yosei.

For three days

three days

he encountered

him,

Vardimus, son of Rabbi Yosei.

He said to him -

Why has the Master not come to Father’s beit-midrash for these three days

and he asked him why he had not come to the beit-midrash of his father, Rabbi Yosei, for three days.

He said to him -

For I do not know where the reasoning of your father is found

because I do not understand the reasoning of your father, Rabbi Yosei.

He said to him -

Let the Master tell me what he said; perhaps I know his reasoning

Tell me what my father, Rabbi Yosei, said; perhaps I know his reasoning.

He said to him -

This is that which was taught:

Rabbi Yosei says: Their washing takes precedence over the lives of others

for this is not understandable by reasoning, and necessarily he learned it from the Torah,

from where do we derive the verse?

He said to him: As it is written:

When they entered the land, the Torah commanded: “They shall give to the Levites, from the inheritance of their possession, cities in which to dwell, and open land for the cities around them,” and afterward it is written:

“And their open land shall be for their animals, and so on”

and for their property and for all their living beings:

What is “their living beings” -

If you say an animal

If we say that the verse’s intention is that the animals should drink from the spring in the open land,

but is not an animal included within beast

Since it is already written in the verse that the beasts shall drink from the open land, it was unnecessary to write “animal,” for an animal is included within beast.

Rather, what is “their living beings”? Human life itself

Rather, necessarily the verse’s intention is that human beings shall live from the open land.

It is obvious -

Certainly human beings need water to drink.

Rather, is it not so

that the verse’s intention is that they should have from the spring in the open land water for

washing.

And the reason that it calls it in the language of life is

for there is the pain of entanglement

and this is the life of the soul 19 .

We learned in the Mishna:

Rabbi Yosei said: These are not vows of affliction of the soul

It was raised as a question before them -

according to Rabbi Yosei

who says that bathing and adornment are not vows of affliction of the soul,

what is the law: may he annul because of matters between him and her

Did we say that he disagrees with the Rabbis specifically because of affliction of the soul, and does not annul, but regarding matters between him and her Rabbi Yosei agrees that he annuls?

And the practical difference is, as explained in the Gemara at the beginning of the chapter, that according to the Rabbis, who say that he annuls because of affliction of the soul, he annuls both for himself and for others; whereas according to Rabbi Yosei, who annuls because of matters between him and her, he annuls only for himself, and if she was divorced and married another, his annulment is void.

Or perhaps it is not even included among matters between him and her .

Come and hear:

Rabbi Yosei said: These are not vows of affliction of the soul

It follows

but they are matters between him and her

For if we say that Rabbi Yosei holds that it is not even included among matters between him and her, Rabbi Yosei should have said, “He may not annul.” And from the fact that Rabbi Yosei says, “These are not vows of affliction of the soul,” it is demonstrated that this is included among matters between him and her.

And we reject this:

Perhaps he said it to them according to their view: According to me, they are not even matters between him and her; according to you, who say that they are vows of affliction of the soul, concede to me that these are not vows of affliction of the soul.

For in fact Rabbi Yosei holds that it is not even included among matters between him and her. And the reason Rabbi Yosei did not formulate his words, “He may not annul,” is because of the view of the Rabbis: According to me, it is not even a matter between him and her, but at least concede to me that this is not affliction of the soul.

What

The question has still not been resolved.

Rav Adda bar Ahava says: He annuls

because Rabbi Yosei concedes that bathing and adornment are included among matters between him and her.

Rav Huna says: He does not annul

because -