Nedarim - Daf 83

  • Hafarah of one of the prohibitions of nezirus: אין נזירות לחצאין – There is no halfway nezirus

The Gemara challenges Rebbe Yochanan’s position, that when one revokes an element of inuy nefesh, the non-afflictive element remains, for it was taught in a Baraisa: A woman who accepted nezirus upon herself, which the husband subsequently revoked, והיא לא ידעה שהפר לה – and she does not know that he revoked it, does not incur malkos when she drinks wine or comes in contact with tumah of the dead, since the nezirus has been voided. The Gemara asks according to Rebbe Yochanan’s opinion, even though the drinking of wine was revoked because of inuy nefesh, the Baraisa should have mentioned that she would incur malkos for eating the grape seeds and skins which are non-afflictive!? Rav Yosef answered: אין נזירות לחצאין – There is no halfway nezirus. The Rosh explains that her original neder of nezirus is a single neder encompassing all the prohibitions of nezirus, so his hafarah of part of the nezirus voids the entire neder. In contrast, the neder from two loaves is essentially two separate nedarim, so the husband’s hafarah of one does not dictate the voiding of the other.

  • If refraining from tumah from the dead is inuy nefesh

The Gemara further challenges Rebbe Yochanan from a Baraisa: A nezirah who became tamei meis, and the husband revoked her nezirus, she only brings the chatas bird, but not the olah bird normally also required for a nazir who became tamei (the Gemara above explains why she stills brings the chatas bird). According to Rebbe Yochanan, that the non-afflictive element of a neder remains after hafarah, then she should remain forbidden in contact with tumah, which presumably does not cause discomfort. If so, she is still obligated to complete her full nezirus term without becoming tamei and should now bring the full set of korbonos brought by a nazir who became tamei (i.e., the additional asham and olah bird). The Gemara answers that refraining from tumah does indeed cause discomfort (so the husband can revoke it), as Rebbe Meir taught: What is the meaning of the passuk: והחי יתן אל לבו – “And the living shall take it to heart”? דיספוד יספדון ליה, דיבכון יבכון ליה, דיקבר יקברוניה – One who eulogizes others will be eulogized. One who cries over others will be cried over. One who buries others will be buried. Refraining from these activities will deprive her of these benefits.

  • If the husband is included in a neder from בריות

The next Mishnah teaches: קונם שאני נהנה לבריות אינו יכול להפר – If she said, “Konam my benefiting from people,” he cannot revoke it, ויכולה היא ליהנות בלקט שכחה ובפאה – and she can benefit from leket, shich’chah, and pe’ah (because they are ownerless). The Gemara observes that the Mishnah seems to consider the husband not to be included in the neder from “people,” and he cannot revoke the neder because he can provide her needs. (The Gemara reads the second clause of the Mishnah as a separate halachah, rather than the reason for the first clause). The Gemara asks that the second clause, that she may take leket, shich’chah, and pe’ah, implies that she may not benefit from the husband, for otherwise she would not be considered poor. Ulla said that the husband is not included in the neder, and the Mishnah is offering an additional reason why he cannot revoke the neder (to include a case where the husband is poor and cannot provide her needs). Two more answers are given.