Nedarim - Daf 80
- The case of “Konam the pleasure of bathing to me if I bathe today,”
The Mishnah on Daf 79a quoted two types of cases that are a machlokes Tannaim if they qualify as nedarim of inuy nefesh: אם ארחץ – “If I bathe,” and אם לא ארחץ – “if I do not bathe” (as well as parallel cases of adorning). The Gemara asks what the neder was, and the condition of “if I bathe,” that was attached to it. After rejecting the suggestion that she forbade all produce on herself if she bathes, the Gemara suggests that she said: “Konam the pleasure of bathing to me if I bathe.” The Tanna Kamma holds that abstaining from bathing constitutes inuy nefesh, so the husband may revoke the neder, and Rebbe Yose disagrees. The Gemara objects that if so, Rebbe Yose should have clearly said that this is not even a condition of inuy nefesh, instead of not “nedarim” of inuy nefesh. The Gemara therefore adjusts the case to be הנאת רחיצה עלי לעולם אם ארחץ היום – “Konam the pleasure of bathing to me if I bathe today,” and Rebbe Yose’s reasoning is ניוול דחד יומא לא שמיה ניוול – repugnance of one day’s lack of bathing is not called repugnance.
- “The pleasure of bathing is forbidden to me if I do not bathe in flax-steeping water”
The Gemara asks what the neder is in the second case of the Mishnah, where she apparently added the condition of אם לא ארחץ – “if I do not bathe.” Rav Yehudah suggests that she said, “The pleasure of bathing is forbidden to me if I do not bathe in flax-steeping water” (which is foul-smelling), where both choices have an afflictive impact. However, the Gemara rejects this interpretation, because the parallel case of אם לא אתקשט – “if I do not adorn myself,” would have to be a condition of adorning herself with some filthy substance, and this could not be described as adornment at all. Therefore, Rav Yehudah interprets this case to be that she swore not to bathe, and it is not a conditional neder at all. The Ran, based on his girsa, adds that the first case of the Mishnah no longer needs to be a condition of not bathing “today,” and can be a case where she said “Konam the pleasure of bathing on me if I bathe.” The previous objection, that Rebbe Yose should have said the “condition” is not inuy nefesh, is no longer compelling, since the second case of the Mishnah does not involve a condition at all.
- The difference between bathing and laundering: Not laundering can lead to insanity
The Gemara poses a contradiction in the position of Rebbe Yose, who holds that not being able to bathe does not constitute inuy nefesh. A Baraisa teaches that a spring which emanates from a city, and there is insufficient water for the residents of this city and the next city to which the spring flows, the first city’s lives take precedence. The same would be for their livestock’s needs versus those of the neighboring city, as well as their laundering needs. In the final case, Rebbe Yose holds (in disagreement with the Tanna Kamma) that even if the first city’s laundering needs are pitted against the drinking needs of the second city, the first city’s laundering needs take precedence, because he considers it a life-critical issue. The Gemara asks, can bathing the body be less critical than laundering clothing? The Gemara on the next Daf answers in the affirmative, because Shmuel said: ערבוביתא דמאני מתיא לידי שעמומיתא – Uncleanliness of the clothing leads to insanity, which cannot be cured. ערבוביתא דגופא מתיא לידי שיחני וכיבי – Uncleanliness of the body leads to boils and sores, which can be cured.
