Nedarim 81a (פא.) — the Talmud in English

The entire body -

All the more so!

Preventing bathing, which affects his entire body, certainly entails pain and affliction of the soul; so why, according to Rabbi Yosei, can he not annul the vow

? They said

to resolve this:

No! Laundering

is more severe according to Rabbi Yosei!

Rabbi Yosei holds that preventing laundering entails greater pain than preventing bathing.

And proof of this is from that which

Shmuel said:

Neglect of the hair,

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

brings

about

blindness,

for the light of the eyes draws sustenance from the hair of the head.

Neglect of clothing,

one who does not launder his clothing, and as a result his clothing is dirty -

brings

about

madness,

insanity.

Neglect of the body,

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

brings

about

boils and ulcers,

painful eruptions.

And it is evident that preventing laundering is more severe than preventing bathing. For boils have a remedy, whereas madness has no remedy.

Therefore Rabbi Yosei holds that preventing laundering entails greater affliction of the soul than preventing bathing.

They sent word from there,

they sent from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia: a.

Be careful with neglect of cleanliness.

With regard to laundering clothing and bathing, in order to prevent bodily affliction.

b.

Be careful

to study Torah

in a group,

because the students sharpen one another.

But with regard to one who studies alone, it is said: “A sword is upon the solitary ones, and they become foolish.”

c.

Be careful with the children of the poor

to make an effort to teach them Torah.

For Torah will emerge from them

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

As it is stated: “He will pour water [

the Torah is compared to water]

from his buckets [

from his poor ones]”.

The verse teaches

that from them,

from the poor,

Torah will emerge.

d.

And why is it not common for Torah scholars to produce Torah scholars from their sons?

For the most part, they are not learned in Torah!

Rav Yosef said:

In order

that

their sons should not say that

Torah

is an inheritance for them.

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

Alternatively, others might say: “It is an inheritance for them, whereas we do not succeed in Torah study.”

Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, says: So that they should not exercise authority

over their sons

over the community.

For if Torah would not cease from them, we would fear that they would “exercise authority” [dominate] over the community.

Mar Zutra says:

That is not the concern. Rather,

because they dominate the community,

as already now, the sons of Torah scholars, before they “inherit” the Torah, exercise authority over the community.

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

For they do not accord honor to others, on account of the “inheritance” of Torah within them.

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

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

.

And this is like that which

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav:

What

is the meaning of that which is

written:

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

Who is the wise man who will understand this -

why has the land perished?”

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

until the Holy One, blessed be 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 listen to My voice, and they did not follow it.”

And he raises a difficulty:

“They did not listen to My voice” is the same as “they did not follow it.”

If the verse means, in its plain sense, that they did not study Torah, what is the distinction between “they did not listen to My voice” and “they did not follow it”?

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

They certainly were engaged in Torah constantly, and therefore the Sages and the prophets were astonished over why the land had perished, until the Holy One, blessed be He, who knows the depths of the heart, came and revealed that the Torah was not important in their eyes and that they did not study Torah for its own sake. Consequently, they treated the blessing over Torah lightly. This is what the verse means by “they did not follow it,” namely, that they did not study it 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, the son of Rabbi Yosei.

He said to him -

Why has the Master not come to my father’s study hall for these three days,

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

He said to him -

Because I do not know where the reasoning of your father’s statement lies,

as 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 said; perhaps I know his reasoning.

He said to him -

This is what was taught:

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

For this cannot be understood logically, and necessarily he learned it from the Torah;

from where is it derived from a verse?

He said to him: As it is written:

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

“And their open land shall be for their animals, etc.”

and for their property and for all their living beings:

What is the meaning of ‘their living beings’? -

If you say it means wild animals,

if the intent of the verse is that the wild animals should drink from the spring in the open land,

but is not a wild animal included in the category of animal?

Since it is already written in the verse that the animals shall drink from the open land, it was unnecessary to write “wild animals,” as a wild animal is included in the category of animal.

Rather, what is the meaning of ‘their living beings’? It means human beings themselves.

Rather, necessarily, the intent of the verse is that people should derive their life-sustenance from the open land.

It is obvious -

people certainly need water to drink.

Rather, is it not

the intent of the verse that they should have water from the spring in the open land for

laundering.

And the reason it calls this “life” is

because there is the pain of neglect of cleanliness,

and this is vital to life 19 .

We learned in the Mishna:

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

They raised a dilemma:

According to Rabbi Yosei,

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

what is the halakha as to whether he may annul the vow on account of matters between him and her?

Do we say that he disagrees with the Rabbis specifically with regard to affliction of the soul, in which case he does not annul the vow, but with regard to matters between him and her Rabbi Yosei agrees that he annuls it?

And the practical difference is as explained by the Gemara at the beginning of the chapter: According to the Rabbis, who say that he annuls the vow on account of affliction of the soul, he annuls it both for himself and for others; whereas according to Rabbi Yosei, who annuls it on account of matters between him and her, he annuls it only for himself, and if she is divorced and marries 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 may be inferred:

but they are matters between him and her.

For if Rabbi Yosei held that they were not even included among matters between him and her, Rabbi Yosei should have said, “He may not annul the vow.” Since Rabbi Yosei says, “These are not vows of affliction of the soul,” it is evident that they are included among matters between him and her.

And they reject this:

Perhaps he said this to them according to their view: According to my view, they are not even matters between him and her; according to your view, since you 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 they are not even included among matters between him and her. And the reason Rabbi Yosei did not use the wording “he may not annul” is because of the opinion of the Rabbis: “According to my view, they are not even matters between him and her, but concede to me that in any event this is not affliction of the soul.”

What

is the conclusion? The dilemma remains unresolved.

Rav Adda bar Ahava says: He may annul the vow

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

Rav Huna says: He may not annul the vow

because -