{"id":11488,"date":"2008-02-08T00:12:00","date_gmt":"2008-02-08T00:12:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/production.ou.org\/life\/other\/masechet_nedarim_4955\/"},"modified":"2015-10-28T08:58:06","modified_gmt":"2015-10-28T13:58:06","slug":"masechet_nedarim_4955","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ou.org\/life\/torah\/masechet_nedarim_4955\/","title":{"rendered":"Masechet Nedarim 49a-55b"},"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

 <\/p>\n

Nedarim 49a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Perek ha-noder min ha-mevushal<\/em>, the sixth chapter of Masechet<\/a> Nedarim<\/a><\/em>, returns us to the earlier discussion of intention and definition. What does a person mean when he says, for example, that he will not eat mevushal<\/em> – “cooked food”? Does that include roasted or boiled food? How wide an interpretation should words be given?<\/p>\n

One suggestion made by Abayye<\/a> is that any food that is eaten in conjunction with bread would be considered a tavshil<\/em>. He bases himself on a baraita<\/a><\/em> that includes certain gourds as cooked, because sick people eat their bread with them. This leads the Gemara<\/a> to tell the following story, which is understood as contradicting the idea that a gourd can be good for a sick person:<\/p>\n

Once, when Rabbi Yirmiyah<\/a> fell ill, a doctor was called to visit him. Upon seeing a kara<\/em> in the house, the doctor turned around and left, saying “the angel of death is in the house, and I am expected to heal him?!” The Gemara then distinguishes between different types of gourds \u2013 whether they are soft or hard, and whether it is the whole gourd or the inside part of the gourd.<\/p>\n

The kara<\/a><\/em> is the “bottle gourd” or Lagenaria vulgaris<\/a><\/em>, a summer vegetable of the gourd family. It usually grows on the ground, although sometimes it is hung to grow down from poles. It is a large vegetable (40-50 cm in length; 25-30 in width), which grows in the shape of a bottle or pitcher. If it is harvested young, it can be cooked and eaten. Its seeds are used as dessert nuts.<\/p>\n

Gourds have a high nutritional value, although if they are harvested late, they become hard. For this reason, and also because of the fibers that it contains, gourds may be hard to digest, particularly for people who are ill and need to be eating easily digestible foods.<\/p>\n

\n

Nedarim 50a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Our Gemara<\/a> is the source for one of the greatest Talmudic<\/a> love stories \u2013 Rabbi Akiva<\/a> and Rachel.<\/p>\n

Rachel was the daughter of Ben Kalba Savu’a<\/a>, who came from one of the wealthiest and most politically powerful families in Israel during the time of the destruction of the Second Temple<\/a>. Akiva, a 40-year-old shepherd who worked for Ben Kalba Savu’a, asked Rachel to marry him. \u00a0She agreed to do so if he promised to devote himself to the study of Torah<\/a> after their wedding. Akiva agreed to do so, and they secretly married. Upon learning of this Ben Kalba Savu’a threw Rachel out of his house and disowned her, condemning her to a life of poverty while Akiva studied. The Talmud relates that after 12 years of study, Akiva returned with 12,000 students, but before entering his house he heard his wife say that she would be willing to have her husband continue to learn for another 12 years. Taking her on her word, he returned to the beit midrash<\/a><\/em> for another 12 years, returning home this time with 24,000 students.<\/p>\n

According to the Gemara, by this time Ben Kalba Savu’a had come to regret the decision to disown his daughter, and upon hearing that a great Rabbi had come to town he called on him to ask to annul his vow. Rabbi Akiva asked him whether he would have made the vow to disown his daughter had she married a Torah scholar. Upon informing him that he would not have done so even if his son-in-law knew a single chapter or verse, Akiva identified himself. Released from his vow, Ben Kalba Savu’a gave the couple half of his estate.<\/p>\n

One question that is raised by the commentaries focuses on how Rabbi Akiva’s newfound knowledge could be a reason to annul a vow. Ordinarily an argument that is nolad<\/em> \u2013 a new situation \u2013 cannot be used as a reason to undo a vow; rather, it needs to be a mistake that existed at the time that the vow was made. The Ritva<\/a> argues that since the marriage was predicated on Akiva’s willingness to study, his success could not be considered nolad<\/em>; furthermore it is likely that he did have some learning at the time the vow was made. The Me’iri<\/a> suggests that every person who is potentially a scholar \u2013 as Rabbi Akiva proved to be \u2013 cannot be considered without knowledge.<\/p>\n

\n

Nedarim 51a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Our Gemara<\/a> describes the difficult relationship that Rebbe \u2013 Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi<\/a> \u2013 had with one of his closest students, Bar Kappara<\/a>. From the stories in the Gemara it appears that Bar Kappara was an incorrigible comic who refused to stop even upon Rebbe’s request. It appears that Rebbe \u2013 who carried himself with great seriousness and dignity, to the extent that he was called “Rabbeinu ha-Kadosh<\/em>,” our holy Rabbi \u2013 did not want to engage in levity. The Maharsha<\/a> explains that Bar Kappara believed that it was a great mitzvah<\/a><\/em> to bring joy to people generally, and specifically to those who were, by their nature, somber and serious.<\/p>\n

Among the specific incidents that are mentioned by the Gemara, one takes place at the wedding reception of Rabbi Shimon<\/a>, Rebbe’s son. Bar Kappara asked Rebbe a series of questions, which were actually riddles related to the meaning of words in the Bible, and he succeeded in refuting all of his answers. Bar Kappara agreed to tell Rebbe the answers only if Rebbe would dance before him and have his wife serve him wine. Although Bar Kappara’s intent may have been to add to the levity of the affair, the Gemara reports that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s son-in-law, ben Elasah<\/a>, was so offended by the spectacle that he and his wife left the wedding.<\/p>\n

Bar Kappara was one of the last tanna’im<\/a><\/em>, a student of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi (Rebbe) and a friend of Rabbi Hiyya<\/a>. We are never told his first name, although some suggest that his father was Rabbi Elazar ha-Kappar<\/a>, who died before he was born, and that he, too, was named Elazar. He was knowledgeable in both Torah<\/a> (authoring a collection of baraitot<\/em><\/a> known as Mishnat bar Kappara<\/em>) and in general knowledge, which is why he was sent on several occasions as the Jewish emissary to the Roman government. Almost all of the first-generation amora’im<\/em><\/a> in Israel were his students. He was known as a satirist with a healthy sense of humor, and even offered critique that extended to Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nassi and his family, which may explain why \u2013 his close relationship with Rebbe notwithstanding \u2013 he did not receive Rabbinic ordination until after Rebbe’s death.<\/p>\n

\n

Nedarim 52a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

Our Mishnah<\/a> teaches that a person who takes a vow that he will not drink wine is allowed to eat food that has wine mixed into it, even if he can taste the wine. If, however, when he took his neder<\/a><\/em> he said “I vow that I will not taste this wine,” if enough fell into the food that the taste of the wine can be discerned, then he would not be allowed to eat it.<\/p>\n

The Ran<\/a> explains that in this case we follow the language of the neder<\/em> as it was expressed. If his vow prohibited wine, we understand that his intention was to forbid the drinking of the wine itself and not wine in food, even if there was enough to leave a taste of wine in the food. If, however, the statement that he made prohibited tasting wine, we must interpret his intention as relating even to the taste of wine.<\/p>\n

The Shach<\/a> in the Shulchan Aruch<\/a><\/em> rules that this is true in the case of an ordinary person who takes a vow to refrain from drinking wine. If, however, the person who takes the vow is someone who does not like the taste of wine and makes the neder<\/em> for that reason, then even if he said that he would refrain from drinking wine \u2013 and says nothing about the taste of the wine \u2013 we will interpret his vow to apply to the taste of wine. Rav Ephraim Navon, in his book Machane Ephraim<\/em>, rejects this distinction and argues that we only seek an interpretation of his words if his statement is inherently unclear. In this case, we will simply accept the simple meaning of his neder<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Some of the commentaries have a different reading of the Gemara<\/a>. According to them, the second case is different from the first not because of an emphasis on taste, but rather because the person taking the vow specified “this wine” rather than wine in general. Once the person specifically prohibited “this wine” it becomes like any other forbidden food and cannot be consumed if there is even a small taste of it.<\/p>\n

\n

Nedarim 53a-b<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The Mishnah<\/a> on our daf <\/em>teaches that anything that is known by a shem levai<\/em> \u2013 a qualifying name \u2013 will not be included in a general vow. For example,<\/p>\n