Nedarim – “Vows” – The Mind of Dan Perlman

Nedarim – “Vows” – I Won’t

I gather that “you can’t make me” is the theme of this next tractate within the Book of Women. I suppose after “I do” that “I won’t” is a reasonably natural segue. The tractate, as I understand it, addresses the rules around taking a voluntary oath or vow that precludes oneself from the use or interaction with an object or being – though I have the feeling it’s more nuanced than that. Beyond what appears to be a rather extensive section on defining just exactly what a vow is, the tractate addresses vows in the arenas of sacrifices, food, and… daughters.
10/27/22, Chapter 1, Page 2 – This seems a really good place to start on the topic. Hedging in a vow is not permitted. That’s to say that if you word a vow and substiute in some synonym for a part of your declaration, but any reasonable person who hears you say it would assume that you meant something more, or less, specific, you’re bound by that. No using tricky language to get out of your oath. Common sense usage of words trumps your legal trickery.
10/28/22, Page 3 – I have never quite understood what Nazirites are. Some sort of temporary, one year commitment to aseticism. I get that, but I’ve never been clear why, within Judaism, it was a thing. Vaguely, I gather it has something to do with penance. Today’s page discusses taking the vow to be one, and points out that care should be taken of when one utters the vow, because once uttered, it takes effect, and if you utter it again, it adds on another year to your vow.
10/29/22, Page 4 – Upon uttering the vow of becoming a Nazirite, it is expected that that take effect immediately. Noted here are if you utter the vow while in a cemetery, you must leave the cemetery immediately, because Nazirites are not allowed to enter them. You must shave your head with haste, because delaying would be a violation of your oath. And, no, you can’t finish that last glass of wine, you should have chugged it before announcing your vow.
10/30/22, Page 5 – I figured it wouldn’t be long before the opening section on Nazirite vows was tied to women or marriage in this tractate series. Today’s page starts at the far end of the latter, treating the get, the divorce document, as a vow. It’s funny, we think of divorce as the breaking of a vow, but the Talmudic rabbis treated it as a man taking an oath that he would not interfere with his ex-wife’s choice of future partners or her happiness in future relationships. That’s, surprisingly, rather progressive!
10/31/22, Page 6 – Guys… if you want to get engaged to be married, state your betrothal request clearly, and women, likewise, your response. No “hey, if we got married it’d be cool, right?” “yeah, whatever”. A vaild betrothal, according to the rabbinical folk requires a clear statement that is unambiguous. Anything else is just casual conversation with no import or obligation.
11/1/22, Page 7 – Following on yesterday’s page, today’s continues looking at various examples – giving to charity, designating space for a specific use, and more. The conversation is over the differences in intent and obligation between “I should start giving to charity”, “I’m going to give to charity”, and “I’m going to give $X to Charity Y”. The more specific the statement, the more it’s considered a vow, and the more it creates an enforceable obligation. This seems pretty common sense, but even today we’ve all seen court cases and public opinion trials over someone’s obligations based on nebulous statements.
11/2/22, Page 8 – Today the rabbis address what to do when you have a dream where you’ve been ostracized for breaking a vow. Back in waking life, you have to be greeted, or de-ostracized, by ten people who have studied halakah, or Torah law, in order to remove the dreamt ostracism. One suggestion is to sit at a busy crossroads and say hi to everyone, and eventually, at least ten of those who greet you in return will have been Torah scholars. I guess that’s easier than trying to figure out which of your friends and colleagues is qualified.
11/3/22, Page 9 – I like the philosophical underpinnings of today’s discussion. Vows, as proposed in this tractate, are things you state you will do or abstain from doing in order to prove to the world, your community, yourself, that you are a virtuous individual. The conversation then revolves around whether a virtuous individual has any need to make vows, since being virtuous is already a part of who they are, leaving vows to “wicked” people who are trying to make themselves out to be something they’re not.
11/4/22, Page 10 – A core part of taking on the year of abstention as a Naziritie from various pleasurable things in life is sin. The vow is both a declaration of being a sinner, and a statement of intent to atone for whatever one’s sins might have been. Until the successful completion of the vow, one is still considered a sinner. Successful is operative. Any breaking of the vow during the year negates the entire thing and you’d have to start over. If you choose to. Active atonement for sin is a recommendation, not an obligation.
11/5/22, Page 11 – The rabbis tackle the issue of not fulfilling the conditions of a vow. Some opine that as vows are voluntary, if they don’t include clearly stated consequences for breaking the vow, life just goes back to normal, as if the vow was never made. Others assert that there must be some sort of commonly understood consequence for having broken the vow, specific to they particular vow in question, to keep people from making empty and meaningless vows intentionally. Sounds like arguments over politicians making promises.
11/6/22, Page 12 – Making a vow to do or not do something that you’re already obligated to do or not do is empty and meaningless. It’s perfectly fine to acknowledge that you’ve fulfilled or not-fulfilled an obligation and promise to do better in the future. But, declaring your vow as if it’s not something you were already obligated to do is just mummery.
11/7/22, Page 13 – Fascinating the parsing that these rabbis sometimes do with the way something is phrased. In their view, a vow must relate to something of substance, a physical thing or act that can be observed. So a person cannot vow not to speak to someone, not to work with someone, not to walk with someone, but for a vow to be valid, they must vow not to use their mouth in the manner of speaking, their hands in the manner of working, or their feet in the manner of walking.
11/8/22, Chapter 2, Page 14 – Making a vow, an oath, a promise, that you’re already obligated to do or not do by Torah law is considered making a mockery of the process. The rabbis demand that someone who does so renounce that vow, because it leads to making light of them. A slippery slope to having one’s word having no value.
11/9/22, Page 15 – Making a vow that is either impossible to keep or would violate Torah law is forbidden, because it “profanes one’s word”. My favorite example, the last one cited is that given that the Torah obligates a man to have sexual intercourse with his wife for purposes of procreation, he cannot vow to not have sexual relations with her, instead, he can only vow to, well, not enjoy it. I’m not sure how that doesn’t fall under the “impossible to keep” portion of this ruling.
11/10/22, Page 16 – Is there a difference between a vow and an oath? According to the Talmudic folk, yes (of course, they’re talking about the Hebrew words, which have different connotations than the English words do). A vow is taken against a particular object of substance, e.g., “I declare that X is forbidden to me”. An oath places a stricture on the person making the declaration, e.g., “I will not do X”. And, again, the rabbis emphasize that if either a vow or oath violates Torah law, or is impossible to keep, it is invalid.
11/11/22, Page 17 – Making a vow or oath that is already covered by a vow or oath that you’ve already made is just self-puffery, and the new vow or oath is invalidated. To put it in a modern context, if you’ve vowed to be vegan for a year, further vowing not to eat sushi, or have a milkshake, is moot. Nobody will think you’re extra-vegan or extra-righteous. Just extra pompous.
11/12/22, Page 18 – The Talmudic rabbis have a solution for the type of folk who double down on their vows or oaths. If two vows overlap or repeat, treat them as consecutive vows rather than concurrent vows. So a person who declares twice that they’re going to abstain from something for the next year, suddenly finds themselves faced with a two-year abstention period. They note that it requires careful parsing of the way the person worded their statements, but it’s clear they’re out to curb some of that pretention.
11/13/22, Page 19 – I feel like the Talmudic rabbis missed the point of Yoda’s training of Luke. Here, discussing the vows of a nazirite who isn’t quite living up to the rules, things seem to come down to just how much credit to give the person for at least giving it a go. Some go so far as suggesting that just having made the effort will not only improve his life, but is worthy of some sort of figurative participation trophy.
11/14/22, Page 20 – One rabbi declares that abnormal sexual activity is at the root of disabilities: blindness is caused by having anal intercourse, muteness is caused by cunnilingus, and deafness is caused by discussing non-sexual matters during intercrouse. Another learned scholar replies that he and his wife have done all those activities and their kids are just fine. Others chime in, but the general consensus is that the first rabbi is an ignoramus.
11/15/22, Chapter 3, Page 21 – Today the rabbis started in on reasons for dissolving a vow. These included exhortation, exaggeration, unintention, and circumstances beyond your control. They spend most of today’s page on the first, which might be best illustrated by your typical courtroom/legal TV drama of “I swear this is my final offer” sort of statements, which we all know ends up changing as the plot unfolds. They also start to argue a tangent as to whether regret and/or haste in making a vow is grounds for dissolution. This is looking like an interesting chapter.
11/16/22, Page 22 – When you’re angry, nothing else matters, not even God. And God’s response, so say the rabbis, is “the Lord shall give you a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and languishing of soul”. Which, obviously, to anyone learned, we’re talking about hemorrhoids. Methinks that one of the senior rabbinical folk was suffering from those and decided to make it an object lesson instead of applying Preparation H.
11/17/22, Page 23 – Today’s page is a litany of using ridiculous circumstances to accomplish this, to the level of asking the petitioner if he’d have made the vow if he’d have known that in the future the sages would have difficulty coming up with a reason to dissolve it. If he says yes, then that’s sufficient reason for them to declare it null and void. Their approach is beginning to seem like “don’t make any promise you don’t already know you’ll easily keep”, which to me makes promises seem pretty empty and meaningless.
11/18/22, Page 24 – Not only do we have the four categories of reasons for simply annuling your vows – exhortation, exaggeration, unintention, and unexpected circumstances, but, the rabbis remind us, at the beginning of each new year, between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, we can simply declare all our vows and oaths null and void and start over. One begins to wonder if the entire purpose of this tractate is to convince people not to make promises, period.
11/19/22, Page 25 – Things really seem to be headed down the path of – if you didn’t understand every possible outcome, every possible nuance, every possible condition, at the time you made a vow or oath, you can be released from it by simply presenting that case to whomever you made the vow or oath to. While I can understand the logic of that, it also seems to make vows and oaths near meaningless, as unless you are absolutely certain of the outcome and that you will achieve it, no one’s going to hold you to your word.
11/20/22, Page 26 – We’re off on an allium tangent today. The key points seem to be, store your onions in a net bag rather than letting them roam free on your countertop, because the bag will prevent evil spirits from entering the bulbs, and later on you, when you eat them raw. Or, you could, you know, cook them, which will drive the evil spirits out. And kuferi, or boiler onions (a new one for me, surprisingly), are small, immature onions, that evil spirits apparently don’t like.
11/21/22, Page 27 – A woman who takes a vow of chastity who is raped is not to be held liable for having violated her vow. Well that’s good to know.
11/22/22, Page 28 – A person whose life, or the life of a friend or relative, or property, is threatened can make a vow or oath with no intention to actually keep it, and is released from the vow or oath after explaining that they were under duress.
11/23/22, Page 29 – Making a bargain with God is an interesting approach to vows. More or less, “I dedicate this thing/situation/action to God if he makes sure that this condition is fullfilled. If the condition isn’t, then this thing/situation/action is no longer sanctified.” For me, that seems like a way of avoiding responsibility for the outcome of the vow. Again, much of this tractate seems dedicated to ways to get our of keeping your word. I imagine that’s not the intent, and am curious to see where all this is leading.
11/24/22, Page 30 – If one takes a vow to not derive benefit from a person who sees the sun this includes blind people, who could, if they had sight, see the sun, but not fetuses nor fish. It’s not clear why one would make such a vow, nor why fish would be specified – given that they’re not people, but do see the sun. If one takes a vow to not derive benefit from a person with dark hair, this includes people who are bald, or elderly with white hair, because internally, they may have dark hair. Again, not clear why one would make this vow.
11/25/22, Page 31 – Although today’s page is centered around vows or oaths to not derive benefit from fellow Jews, an offhand comment sent me down the rabbit hole of… garlic. Only mentioned in two short passages in Numbers in the entire Torah, somehow, later, the sages decided that garlic was not only important for Jewish food in general, but that there is an obligation to include it as part of Sabbath meals. Take that Sebastian Maniscalco.
11/26/22, Page 32 – We have an interesting digression on today’s page as we hop back in time to what amounts to a conversation between Abraham and God. The question at hand? Circumcision, which Abraham was not good about enforcing among the early Israelites. Setting aside the various tangents into astrology, divination, and numerology, what we come down to is God’s assertion that circumcision is key to becoming perfect in his eyes. Which implies that God creates us imperfect, with conditions on achieving perfection.
11/27/22, Chapter 4, Page 33 – There’s a lot that’s strange in the Talmud, as we’ve seen on this journey together. Vows and oaths has been particularly odd for me, because they seem to mean something different, culturally, than what they do in modern life. Today touches on taking vows in regard to not benefiting from or not eating another person’s food. While I can come up with many reasons why you might choose not to eat or benefit from another’s food, I’m at a loss as to why it requires a promise to God.
11/28/22, Page 34 – Even the rabbis are getting fed up with these vows and oaths. Looking at lost and found items, consecrated items, ownerless items, and people taking vows around them, the learned folk muse that perhaps it would be better if people just stopped all this vowing and oathing. I have to assume, from a perspective millennia on, that it was just part of the cultural milieu to make vows and oaths and dedications to God or gods, and the sages were trying to break people of the habit.
11/29/22, Page 35 – Are Temple priests, or for that matter, any kind of priests, agents of God or agents of Man? You’d think such a weighty question would rate more than two paragraphs, but here it’s part of a discussion of whether or not a priest who handles a sacrifice for a private individual might be violating that person’s vows by doing something on their behalf that the person might have sworn to or not to do. I do like the original question though, and I can’t help but imagine that the Talmud will come back to it.
11/30/22, Page 36 – Talmudic rules state that you can do something on behalf of someone else, even without their knowledge, as long as it’s to their benefit. You can’t do so if it’s to their detriment. How this relates to vows and oaths is that you may have inadvertently caused a person to violate one of theirs, if the benefit derived from what you did for them would be a violation if they did it themselves. It is up to them, when they find out, to decide if that benefit is now a detriment, and can reject your “gift” out of hand. And you don’t get to be pissy about it.
12/1/22, Page 37 – Rabbis and other spiritual leaders need to earn a living and most religious institutions aren’t designed around them not receiving a salary. It’s still a bit unsettling to “listen in” on them discussing how to charge a fee for teaching the Torah and Talmud to children and teens. Since God imparted the wisdom for free, it’s commanded that they share it for free too. “Child watching”, i.e., babysitting, and “teaching spelling, punctuation, and grammar” appear to be the popular routes to go.
12/2/22, Page 38 – Today’s discussion continues around payment for teaching Torah, going back to Moses, who taught the laws given to him by God on Mt. Sinai, to the Jews, for free. But what stood out to me as they discuss his carrying and breaking those original stone tablets, proving how mighty he was, was the description of the tablets themselves – 6 x 6 x 3 handbreadths, or, at roughly 4″ per handbreadth, those things were 2 x 2 x 1 feet. And the words were not inscribed on their surface but an integral part of their structure. That doesn’t square with the way they’re usually depicted now, does it?
12/3/22, Page 39 – When someone is ill, it’s a mitzvah, a good deed, an obligation, to visit them and confort them. Doing so, say the rabbis, takes away 1/60th of their suffering, which you then carry away with you. So, organize sixty friends to visit the sick, relieving them of their illness and allowing them to regain their feet and get back to their life. Unless… they’re a wicked person, destined for Gehenna (the Jewish equivalent of hell), in which case, it seems, let them suffer. Lines have to be drawn!
12/4/22, Page 40 – Those who care enough to visit the sick are contributing to their health and life, while those who don’t visit the sick are actively causing their death. The sages put some time limitations on visits, suggesting that they be made after the person has been awake in the morning for at least three hours, and not within three hours of when they will go to sleep again. These relate to the frame of mind of the visitor, who, seeing someone refreshed from a night of sleep might conclude they’re not so ill after all, and conversely, as the sick person’s energy lags later, might conclude things are so bad that even prayer won’t help.
12/5/22, Page 41 – Long before Douglas Adams asserted that a towel was the most important thing, the Talmudic rabbis opined that for a man in exile, the necessities were a lamp, a bowl, and a rug. While they didn’t explicate their reasoning as well as Adams did, the general direction seemed to be for study, sustenance, and sleep. Today’s page also includes the earliest version I’ve ever seen of the infamous frog and scorpion crossing the river story.
12/6/22, Page 42 – Tying things back to a past tractate, if you vow not to derive benefit from a particular person’s lands, crops, livestock, etc., does that hold during a Sabbatical Year? Some rabbis argue that the land remains the property of the deed holder, they just can’t profit from it, others that the land is, in practice, ownerless, and therefore, any benefit you derive is from God and nature, not the person your vow specifies. They don’t reach a consensus.
12/7/22, Page 43 – Proxy vow breaking is the topic of the day, as the rabbis admonish one and all that having someone else obtain something for you from someone you’ve sworn not to interact with is just as much a violation of your vow as if you’d done it yourself. It’s becoming clear that the Talmudic rabbinic council is trying to break an existing common practice of making offhand promises. Basically, trying to get an entire culture to restore the concept of one’s word being something honorable.
12/8/22, Page 44 – I like when something from back in those heady Talmudic days ties in with something in modern law. The rabbis decide, after much debate, that if a person declares his property ownerless, or sold, or given away, he has three days to, well, change his mind. Now, while not universally applicable, within the US and many other countries there are consumer protection acts that include a right of recission, usually in regard to loans or credit, allowing you three days to back out of a contract. Wonder if we’ve found the source?
12/9/22, Chapter 5, Page 45 – A bizarre logistical moment as yesterday’s argument ends with a single paragraph on today’s page, and a new chapter starts with a single sentence posing a question, but the argument doesn’t show up until tomorrow’s page. The question being, if two people jointly own a courtyard are now estranged and have vowed not to have anything to with each other, can they make use of the jointly owned courtyard? We’ll hold our collective breath until tomorrow.
12/10/22, Page 46 – All seem agreed, in the situation of a jointly owned courtyard where the two owners have vowed not to benefit from each other that neither of them can operate a mill, setup an oven, raise chickens, or open a bathhouse. Beyond that, it seems a question of size. If the courtyard is big enough that each can have their own personal space, then a line is drawn. If not, then regardless of their vow, they are both considered owners of the entire space.
12/11/22, Page 47 – Does a vow remain effective after death? Obviously, not the death of the person who made the vow, though I imagine the rabbis could posit a vow that is passed on like an inheritance, but in this case, they’re talking about the death of the person whom the vower has sworn not to benefit from. Can he benefit from the estate, after it has been inherited or sold? The decision is not conclusive, as their are cogent arguments on both sides. It’s all very Hatfield and McCoy.
12/12/22, Page 48 – The rabbis are talking about ownership of communal property and how that affects vows. But it’s the ownership that interests me, as they assert different classes of the population have different stakes in things like The Temple, local houses of worship, bathhouses, wells, etc. They suggest, slyly it seems to me, that the common folk, sign over our ownership rights of any communal property to the “Nasi”, more or less the political and spiritual leaders, and let them act on all our behalfs without having to worry our pretty little heads about things like benefits and profits.
12/13/22, Chapter 6, Page 49 – Taking a vow to not eat cooked food… attention all you raw food enthusiasts! “Cooked” seems to be a point of contention among the sages, who mostly opine that this does not include things which have been boiled or roasted. And apparently the Talmudic council isn’t fond of “gourds”, which I take to include various squashes and pumpkins, asserting that these are not only just for sick people, but are also the only food, besides porridge, which may be spit out in front of your teachers or elders.
12/14/22, Page 50 – What, you ask, is a turemita egg? I can hear you asking, it’s been a burning question on the tip of your tongue for years. It’s an egg, generally prepared by a slave (making them a very valuable slave) that involves dunking an egg back and forth into hot and cold water until the egg shrinks enough that it can be swallowed whole. At that point, the egg is swallowed whole, and it magically picks up the properties of internal lesions and illnesses, and upon… emergence, allows a doctor to diagnose what ails you. Now, you know.
12/15/22, Page 51 – Bar Kappara was an early 3rd century sage who was noted for his biting satire when arguing points. In a discussion of sexual mores, he discusses the terms used for three different “abominations”, noting that none of them mean something forbidden, but are violations of social norms. He notes that a man who sleeps with a woman and her daughter is putting himself in an untenable social situation; he asks if a woman who has intercourse with animals might be doing so to spice up an otherwise dull love life; and posits that a man who engages in homosexual behavior is simply pursuing an atypical path.
12/16/22, Page 52 – Specifics matter when it comes to vows, which, as the arguments proceed, sounds very much like legal arguments on any of various court tv shows. If one vows not to eat meat, does that exclude gravy and/or drippings from the meat? If one vows not to drink milk, can they drink whey or eat cheese or butter? If one vows not eat grapes, does that include wine? Olives – olive oil? While there’s disagreement, it quickly becomes clear that all the rabbis favor clarity in one’s vow statement.
12/17/22, Page 53 – For my purist friends in the sommelier community, you’ll be happy to know that the Talumudic rabbis ruled that when one uses the word “wine” one is referring to grape wine, and no other. Vinegar too. For my cooking friend purists, “oil” in the kitchen refers to only olive oil, and no others… except if you live in a part of the world where a different oil, like sesame, or another seed oil, is the de facto norm, in which case “oil” is assumed to refer to that one.
12/18/22, Chapter 7, Page 54 – In a nod to all those people who self-identify as vegetarians while heading out to their local sushi bar, eating shrimp cocktail, or nibbling on crispy fried grasshoppers, you are vindicated by the Talmud. The rabbis declare that those who vow not to eat meat are still allowed to eat fish and insects (at least the kosher ones), because they are not considered meat. Talmudic wisdom or not, I maintain that people who eat seafood or “anything that doesn’t have a face” but is still made of flesh, are not vegetarians.
12/19/22, Page 55 – In today’s biology lesson from the learned Talmudic rabbis, we find that truffles and mushrooms are not considered “produce of the earth” as are vegetables, fruits, grains, and legumes. Why? Because, as everyone knows, truffles and mushrooms draw their nutrition from the air, not from the ground. Cue the breatharian movement.
12/20/22, Page 56 – Lost, for me, in the rabinnical discussions about vows against entering this house or that, or the second floor of a house, or sleeping on one bed or another, is the “why?” I can understand, in the heat of an argument or some such, someone exclaiming, “I’ll never set foot in this house again!” That’s a throwaway line. But they’re discussing someone making the same statement in front of God and witnesses, with consequences to not keeping to that statement. I’m continually left with “why would anyone make these sorts of vows?”
12/21/22, Page 57 – Not everyone can cook. Still, it seems to me that a man swearing a holy vow in front of God and witnesses not to eat a single morsel of his wife’s food is a bit excessive. There must have been some really bad cooks among the Talmudic rabbis’ spouses though, because they don’t seem to find this an odd approach at all.
12/22/22, Page 58 – Weeding is not the same thing as harvesting. If you’re out there, weeding away in your fields, and you happen to stop and have a nibble of a leaf or root or fruit or veg, you don’t have to carefully set aside ten percent of whatever you’re eating as a tithe for God. He understands healthy snacking.
12/23/22, Page 59 – Today’s page is about tithing onions. Well, not really, onions are just the example used. If you tithe your onion crop, setting aside 10% and giving it to the appropriate authorities, that should be it, right? Not so according to some of those on the receiving end. After all, you replant some onions and yield a new crop. While some would say yes, and you tithe that, those who want more suggest that your original tithe was insufficient as it should have been based on the future yield. Double taxation and compound interest!
12/24/22, Chapter 8, Page 60 – Phrasing matters, as always. Taking a vow to not drink wine “today” or “this day” lasts only until sunset, while “for a/one day” lasts 24 hours. Same with weeks, months, years, etc. Here’s the thing, if you have to swear that forcefully just see if you can make it without a drink for a day, a week, or “dry January”, you’ve got bigger issues, and swearing off it forever might be the appropriate approach.
12/25/22, Page 61 – A man is married and has a couple of daughters. His wife dies, he remarries, and has two more daughters. One day he announces that his “older daughter” is to be betrothed. This sets off an entire Talmudic argument as to which daughter he is speaking about – the older of the original two or the older of the second two, or the younger of the original two, who is still older than either of the second two. My concern with this passage is that the argument is set off because he, himself, claims he doesn’t know wich daughter he is referring to. Really?
12/26/22, Page 62 – One day, Rabbi Tarfon is ensconced under a fig tree on the corner of a post-harvest property, eating figs that have been left for the poor. The owner spies him, and thinking that he might be the thief who has been raiding his vineyards and fields throughout the year, grabs him, sticks him in a sack, and heads to the river to drown him. Tarfon cries out, identifying himself. The man, realizing he’s grabbed the wrong guy, and a famous one to boot, drops the sack and runs away. Tarfon is relieved, bemoans his guilt for having used his fame as a Torah scholar in order to escape, thus deriving personal benefit from a spiritual pursuit.
12/27/22, Page 63 – A particularly unsatisfying day’s passage. Setting aside the particulars, which were, not surprisingly, about the timing of various vows, yet again, mention is made, as it has been many a time, about the leap month of I Adar, a month inserted 7 times in every 19 years, on a mathematical cycle, to get the lunar calendar to line up with the solar one. What I can’t find, despite much searching, is why the extra month duplicates the name of an existing month, ending us up with I Adar and II Adar. Why not call it something else?
12/28/22, Chapter 9, Page 64 – Back at the start of Chapter 2, on Pages 14-16, we talked about how making vows you don’t fully intend to keep dishonors your word, and creates a reputation for yourself of being a person whose word is worthless. In proper Jewish fashion, the rabbis double down on this by delving into how you being a dishonorable person reflects on your parents, shaming them for raising a person like you. They ask, would you have still made that vow you never intended to keep had you thought about your parents’ and family’s reputation?
12/29/22, Page 65 – If you swear an oath or take a vow to support someone, even if it’s something that’s morally or ethically wrong, you can only dissolve that oath or vow in their presence. The example given is one king witnessing another king eating a live rabbit (who knows why). Having promised never to reveal that, the promiser feels compromised, and solicits the rabbinic court’s permission to reveal the story, which they give. The king who is now the subject of gossip, basically sues the court and receives their abject apology for not having insisted he be present when the vow was dissolved.
12/30/22, Page 66 – Are mistaken assumptions grounds for dissolving a vow? How about not having checked the calendar? After all, if you’ve sworn off good food and drink for a period of time, but hadn’t realized that a particularly fun holiday fell within those dates, shouldn’t you be able to party when the festivities come around? We’re sure you’d have never made the vow had you realized, so go ahead, eat and drink to your heart’s content, we won’t hold you to your word. My people do like a good feast.
12/31/22, Chapter 10, Page 67 – The father and the fiancé of a betrothed girl or woman can nullify any vow she makes. If they agree. They can’t do it individually, but have to come to consensus. Of course, the woman has no say in the matter, other than whatever powers of persuasion she may hold over one, the other, or both of them.
1/1/23, Page 68 – As it appears to be the theme of this new chapter, I had to wait 24 hours to find out how we might further subjugate women. The question: if her husband to be nullifies his fiance’s vow, but her father does not, does that weaken her vow, or cut it in half. The illustration: the woman has sworn not to eat two olives. If her fiance nullifies that, and it cuts the vow in half, does that mean she can eat one without consequence? If she eats two does she get flogged? Or, if it’s weakened, does she receive a lesser punishment than flogging?
1/2/23, Page 69 – It’s a common trope in TV and movies and probably all other media when a new husband discovers that perhaps he doesn’t “wear the pants” in the family. Today the rabbis (mostly our famous dueling duo of Shammai and Hillel) discuss how to handle nullifying a husband’s nullification when he shows up, perhaps a bit worse for the wear, asking to reinstate his wife’s vow just the way she wanted it. Mostly, the rabbis suggest that she simply re-vow, but this time, neither husband nor father has a say in it.
1/3/23, Page 70 – So when does a woman get to decide whether or not to nullify her own vows? Once she’s married and has reached the age of majority, her father’s say over her vows is removed. But not her husband’s. It’s not clear, but it seems like she and he then have an equal say, a baby step in the right direction. If her father dies before she’s married, or of age, she also gets a say. If, however, her husband dies, his say reverts to her father.
1/4/23, Page 71 – Which husband gets to have a say in nullifying his wife’s vows? No, this isn’t a case of women being able to have multiple husbands (now allowed), the converse of men having multiple wives (allowed), but rather, a woman who betroths and/or marries one man after another, perhaps up to 100 a day, according to the argument presented. Despite the fantastical choice of number, the point of the rabbinical argument was that the only husband who gets to nullify his wife’s vows is the last one, all the others lose their right when the betrothal or marriage is terminated.
1/5/23, Page 72 – I’m not saying this isn’t still misogynistic, but it turns out that the Talmudic sages have a reason for all this father and husband nullifying vows stuff we’ve been reading the last few days. Since, within the culture at the time, a husband was responsible for his wife’s promises, the practice was for the father to nullify her vows when she left home to join her new husband, who nullified her vows on her arrival, thus ensuring a clean slate, and no outstanding obligations. I somehow have the feeling that more than one family took advantage of this practice to get out of paying a debt.
1/6/23, Page 73 – The Talmudic rabbis are back on deaf people (not “the deaf”, an archaic term now considered offensive, which I understand – just like talking about Jews or Jewish people, it’s fine, but as soon as you add the article to it, “the Jews”, you’ve entered dicey territory). For a husband to nullify his wife’s vows, is it indispensable that he hear her say them? The rabbis argue, but to my mind, it seems specious, as the husbands on previous pages didn’t always hear the vows themselves, but were informed about them, or, as we saw yesterday, simply pro forma nullified any and all of them.
1/7/23, Page 74 – Everything in the Talmud has a tendency to have some sort of interconnection. Remember way back when we had an entire book on levirate marriage? That’s the requirement that a man marry the widow of a brother who has died, and all its twists and turns? Well, of course now the sages have to decide if one who has a levirate betrothal, as opposed to a “full acquisition betrothal” (love the term acquisition in regard to a wife, no?) gets to have a say in nullifying her vows. Mostly, they think not, unless the levirate betrothal is consummated, i.e., they “do it”.
1/8/23, Page 75 – A husband-to-be gets to nullify his wife-to-be’s vows (with her father’s agreement) so as not to incur responsibility for her promises. We’ve already seen that. But, of course, we all know how impulsive and reckless young women are. So, just as a pre-emptive, the Talmudic folk grant that he can also nullify any and all vows she makes between that moment and their marriage. Just so, you know, she doesn’t undo his previous nullification by rashly re-promising all the things he’s already said no to.
1/9/23, Page 76 – When a betrothed or married woman makes a new vow, her husband has, for all intents and purposes, until sunset to ratify, nullify, or ignore her vow. If he doesn’t nullify her vow by sunset, it becomes binding. Recommendation for a woman in this sort of cultural marriage? Wait until a few minutes before sunset to make your vows. Or, hey, don’t get married to a controlling jerk. Maybe marry someone with whom you can make decisions together?
1/10/23, Page 77 – The issue posed today arises from yesterday’s sunset clause, in regard to the Sabbath. Other than vows specifically related to the Sabbath, the husband can’t nullify her vows related to other things, because of the strictures on addressing “other business” on the Sabbath. The rabbis, generally, opine that for such vows, he has 24 hours to nullify or ratify her vows. What’s interesting to me is that nothing is said of her having made a vow unrelated to the Sabbath, on the Sabbath, in the first place.
1/11/23, Page 78 – Color me confused. Not for the first time with Talmud readings. We’ve just spent a couple of days talking about the short time limits for a husband to nullify his wife’s vows, and suddenly on today’s page we’re talking about husbands who remain silent on the topic, apparently with the malicious intent to annoy their wives, being given up to ten days to nullify her vows after lulling her into a sense of security that he’s not planning to. When he is. But what happened to sundown on the same day?
1/12/23, Chapter 11, Page 79 – Can a husband nullify any or all of his wife’s vows? No, say the rabbis, just certain types. First, “vows of affliction”, those that cause deprivation, such as vowing not to eat, or drink, or do certain beneficial activities, like exercise or health care. Further, they note, in the event of divorce, if the vow was something that affected both of them, his nullification carries forward; however, if it only affected her, his nullification is… nullified, and she is subject to that vow again.
1/13/23, Page 80 – Star Trek fans know that there’s a deep philosophical conundrum between “the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many” and “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one”. Much of this simply comes down to situational awareness, what the playing field is in which the conversation is happening. And the Talmudic rabbis are no stranger to this argument, as they debate the use of fresh water for human health, animal health, and laundry, and whose needs take precedence.
1/14/23, Page 81 – At the start of this chapter, I’d thought we’d be heading into other types of vows that can be nullified by a husband, but most of today’s page is still on obligations to the community, primarily in regard to bathing and laundry. But we do, at the end, swing back to a wife’s vows, with the rabbis pointing out that there are certain vows that are just invalid from the start, like refusing to take care of the house, her husband’s well-being, and having sex (procreative, not recreative), which are spousal obligations.
1/15/23, Page 82 – We talked much earlier in this tractate about being careful about the wording of a vow, making clear what you’re promising to do and not do. The sages discuss a woman who has vowed chastity. If she just doesn’t want to have sex with her husband, she needs to say so, though he can annul it as it affects them both and it is considered a martial obligation for both of them. If she just says she doesn’t want to have sex, his nullifcation only affects them. If they divorce she is forbidden from sex with anyone else, in perpetuity.
1/16/23, Page 83 – “Are husbands people?” It’s actually an important logistical question for vows, as the rabbis explore when a wife vows to not accept benefit or charity from others, does that include her husband? She’s trying to assert herself as self-sufficient, but the question is whether she really is, given the cultural milieu, or is she because she’s part of a relationship? The majority side that her husband is not “people” and the vow doesn’t apply to him.
1/17/23, Page 84 – A woman who vows not to benefit from others can still, it is asserted, receive charity, such as tithes and gleanings. This leads to a tangential discussion as to the ownership of… well… future tithes. As in, if a farmer has harvested his crop but not yet designated a portion of it as his tithe for the poor, and a poor person comes and takes some of it, knowing that it will be tithed soon, is he stealing and owes restitution, or simply taking an advance on his due?
1/18/23, Page 85 – Harking back to Ketubot, one of the earlier tractates, the rabbis note that a woman’s vow not to allow her husband any benefit from her is invalid because part of the marriage contract requires that some portion of her earnings are communal (just as his earnings are required to go for food, shelter, clothing, and child rearing), and sexual intercourse is a requirement of marriage. It’s still recommended he nullify her vow, as, if they divorce, her vow would take effect, preventing them from future interactions. Of course, she could just vow it again after the divorce.
1/19/23, Page 86 – If I can’t have it, I’m going to make sure you can’t either. The sages segue from a husband’s nullifying his wife’s autonomy, to a borrower who so doesn’t want to pay back a loan that he consecrates what he borrowed to the Temple, which overrides his debt. He loses what he borrowed, but so does the lender. Of course, no one’s going to loan him anything after that. Except maybe the IMF.
1/20/23, Page 87 – If a man nullifies a vow he “thinks” his wife made, but she didn’t, it was actually his daughter, his nullification still counts, against both of them; and vice versa. If a man “thinks” that his wife made a vow, but doesn’t know what it is, nor when it was made, but it occurs to him that he might want to nullify it, even though more than 24 hours has passed, he can nullify them and then pick and choose later when he knows the details. You know, men just had so little power in those relationships….
1/21/23, Page 88 – Back in tractate Eruvim there was much discussion about shared food among what today we might call a social bubble, to avoid carrying food outside the home on the Sabbath. On today’s page we discuss the different family members who might go collect a share of food, and for whom they can collect it. Not surprisingly, the assertion is made that a man’s wife can only collect food on behalf of her husband and their household, since “her hand is like his hand”, and not for others. Unless, of course, he permits her to.
1/22/23, Page 89 – With all this nuliification of vows by husbands and fiances, I was beginning to wonder if, back in the day, women had any power over their vows at all. I turns out, yes, in three categories of women: a divorced or widowed woman who is remarrying, a woman who was a full adult before getting betrothed, and a woman who was an orphan before getting betrothed. Their vows are their own and their husbands or fiances have no nullification powers.
1/23/23, Page 90 – Apparently, women trying to get out of having sex with their husbands was a thing (perhaps it still is). A woman claims to no longer be a Jew, and is cutting herself off from Judaism. Therefore she is no longer permitted to her husband. But, her husband can declare any of her vows that affect him as null and void, now she’s stuck with still having to have sex with him, but can never have it with another Jew. Of course, there’s that dreamy Catholic boy on the other side of the street….
1/24/23, Page 91 – This has been, so far, the most challenging tractate of the Talmud. It started off fairly interesting, exploring a culture that involved vows and oaths as a matter of course and questioned whether that was an appropriate way to approach life choices. But it quickly devolved into asserting the power dynamics of a father over his daughter, and more, of a husband over his wife. On the final page, a final challenge to women, as the rabbis discuss whether a woman’s word that she has been raped is to be believed. Their assertion is that while she’s unlikely to lie face to face in a private setting with her husband, because it doesn’t gain her anything, she may well do so in public, in court, forcing him, if she wishes, to divorce her and pay off her marriage contract, allowing her to start a new life, with money in pocket.

Go back to Ketubot/Written

Go forward to Nazir/Abstinent

Go back to Main Page