{"id":11442,"date":"2008-01-24T23:22:00","date_gmt":"2008-01-24T23:22:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/production.ou.org\/life\/other\/masechet_nedarim_3541\/"},"modified":"2015-10-28T08:11:14","modified_gmt":"2015-10-28T13:11:14","slug":"masechet_nedarim_3541","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ou.org\/life\/torah\/masechet_nedarim_3541\/","title":{"rendered":"Masechet Nedarim 35a-41b"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Coming Week’s Daf Yomi by Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz<\/em><\/p>\n

This essay is based upon the insights and chidushim (original ideas) of Talmudic scholar Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, as published in the Hebrew version of the Steinsaltz Edition of the Talmud.<\/em><\/p>\n

This month\u2019s Steinsaltz Daf Yomi is sponsored by Dr. and Mrs. Alan Harris, The Lewy Family Foundation, and Marilyn and Edward Kaplan<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Nedarim 35a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

One of the basic sources in the Talmud<\/a> that deals with issues of birth control appears on our daf<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Rav Bevai<\/a> taught a baraita<\/a><\/em> before Rav Nahman<\/a>. Three categories of women may use a mokh<\/em> (an absorbent cloth) while engaged in marital relations \u2013 a minor, a pregnant woman and a nursing woman. The minor, because she might become pregnant and as a result might die.<\/p>\n

In Masechet<\/a> Yevamot<\/a><\/em> (12b<\/a>) Rav Bevai’s explanation continues:<\/p>\n

A pregnant woman may use a mokh<\/em> because she might cause her fetus to degenerate into a sandal<\/em> (a formless creature); and a nursing woman, because she might have to wean her child prematurely, which may result in its death. What is the age of such a minor? From the age of eleven years and one day until the age of twelve years and one day. One who is under or over this age must carry on her marital intercourse in the usual manner. This is the opinion of Rabbi Meir<\/a>. The hakhamim<\/a><\/em> say that all women should carry on marital intercourse in the usual manner, and heaven will have mercy on them (i.e. no harm will come to them), based on the passage that states (Tehillim<\/a> 116:6<\/a>) \u201cHaShem<\/a> preserves the simple.\u201d<\/p>\n

The rishonim<\/a><\/em> differ as to how to understand this baraita<\/em> and what its implications are for the halakha<\/a><\/em>. According to Rashi<\/a>, the discussion is whether a woman can insert a physical barrier into her vaginal canal as a means of birth control. Rabbi Meir’s position is that a woman who has reason to fear that pregnancy will result in a danger to her or to her unborn child is permitted to do so, although it would be forbidden to other women. Tosafot<\/a> and others reject Rashi’s explanation, arguing that inserting a mokh<\/em> during relations would be forbidden. They suggest that the mokh<\/em> is an absorbent cloth that is inserted following sexual relations in an attempt to remove the semen. According to Rabbi Meir, a minor as well as a pregnant or nursing woman would be obligated to use this mokh<\/em> in an attempt to keep a potentially dangerous pregnancy from developing (a method that is recognized today as being of limited use, if any), while other women would be permitted to do so.<\/p>\n

\n

Nedarim 36a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The commandment obligating a person to bring a korban Pesach<\/a><\/em> \u2013 the Passover sacrifice \u2013 says seh le-bet avot <\/em>(see Shemot<\/a> 12:3<\/a>), which appears to mean that a single sacrifice is brought for every family. \u00a0Nevertheless, Rabbi Zeira<\/a> teaches that this does not mean that all family members, including small children, are automatically included in the sacrifice by the Torah<\/a>. Our Gemara<\/a> points to a Mishnah<\/a> in Masechet<\/a> <\/em>Pesachim<\/a><\/em> that supports this ruling. The Mishnah (Pesachim 89a<\/a>) teaches that when a father tells his children “I will slaughter the korban Pesach<\/em> on behalf of whoever gets to Jerusalem<\/a> first,” the child who reaches the city first is credited with the sacrifice for himself, but his siblings are ultimately included as well. While it is clear from this Mishnah that children are not automatically included, the Gemara questions how the other children can be included at all. The rule is that the only people who participate in a korban Pesach<\/em> are those who had arranged to do so in advance. If the animal was already slaughtered for sacrifice, how can the children be included?<\/p>\n

The Gemara responds that in this case the father was simply trying to encourage his children to be enthusiastic and hurry to perform the mitzvah<\/a><\/em>.<\/p>\n

Tosafot<\/a> and the Ran<\/a> conclude from this discussion that children who are under bar<\/a><\/em> and bat mitzvah<\/a><\/em> age are not obligated to participate in the korban Pesach<\/em>, and none of the rules of the sacrifice apply to them. Thus, the rule that they need to arrange to be participants in this specific korban<\/em> does not apply to them, and they can eat it even if they were not included.<\/p>\n

Some point out that the Gemara in Pesachim<\/em> offers an alternative explanation for the Mishnah; it suggests that the children under discussion are adult children who are obligated in the sacrifice. According to that approach, the father would certainly have needed to include his children in the sacrifice before it was slaughtered, and that he, in fact, did so. The suggestion is that the father did not disclose this to his children however, and in the interest of encouraging their enthusiasm, made them think that only the child who arrived in Jerusalem first would merit participation in the korban<\/em>.<\/p>\n

\n

Nedarim 37a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

It is surprising to learn that teaching Torah<\/a> on Shabbat<\/a> should be restricted in any way. Nevertheless, our Gemara<\/a> quotes a baraita<\/a> <\/em>according to which tinokot lo korim ba-tehilah be-Shabbat, ela shonim be-rishon<\/em> \u2013 children should not be taught to read a new section on Shabbat, although they can review something that they have already learned.<\/p>\n

The typical method of teaching that was practiced in Talmudic<\/a> times was that the teacher would teach a passage to his students and review it with them until they were able to read it on their own. They would also add explanations appropriate to the age of the student. After the children learned how the passage should be pronounced properly, together with its explanation, they would review it over and over again (shonim be-rishon<\/em>, shonim ba-sheni<\/em>) until they learned it by heart. Only then would they continue on to the next passage. We can well understand that the very first interaction with the passage was the most difficult one, while subsequent review sessions \u2013 even the very first one, i.e. shonim be-rishon<\/em> \u2013 became easier and easier.<\/p>\n

Although Tosafot<\/a> suggest that the reason to restrict an initial presentation of a lesson on Shabbat is because of a concern with oneg Shabbat<\/em> \u2013 that the child will find the lesson tedious and will be upset on Shabbat \u2013 the simple understanding of the Gemara is that our concern is with payment: the salary that the teacher will be paid for his work on Shabbat. If the teacher is getting paid for teaching proper pronunciation of the pasuk<\/em>, or verse (there is another opinion that the teacher is getting paid more for his babysitting), the main “work” is getting the student to grasp the basics of the passage \u2013 i.e. the first presentation \u2013 while subsequent repetition is merely review. Rashi<\/a> suggests that the point of the baraita<\/em> is to allow the first review, which is permissible and would not be considered to be payment for work on Shabbat, but certainly subsequent review would be permitted, as well.<\/p>\n

\n

Nedarim 38a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

What qualification does a person need to be a prophet?<\/p>\n

Our Gemara<\/a> brings a statement taught by Rabbi Yochanan<\/a>, who says that by using Moshe<\/a> as an archetype we learn that a prophet must be:<\/p>\n