Nedarim 128

Chapter 128

א ורבא אמר א"כ אין נדרים נשאלין לחכם
1 Raba explained: If so no one will seek a Sage's absolution for his vow.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since God's honour may apply to all vows, if such is suggested, every person will annul his vow himself, and thus the solemnity of vows be destroyed. ');"><sup>1</sup></span> We learnt: BUT THE SAGES ADMIT TO R. ELIEZER THAT IN A MATTER CONCERNING HIMSELF AND HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, THEIR HONOUR IS SUGGESTED AS AN OPENING. Now, as for Abaye, who explains [it as meaning], if so, vows are not properly revoked, it is well: here, since he has been [so] impudent, he is impudent.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For obviously, if he has been so impudent as to make such a vow, he is sufficiently brazen not to offer regard for his parents' honour as a ground for absolution, unless he has genuinely repented of having acted so contumaciously toward them. ');"><sup>2</sup></span>
ב תנן ומודין חכמים לרבי אליעזר בדבר שבינו לבין אביו ואמו שפותחים לו בכבוד אביו ואמו בשלמא לאביי דאמר אם כן אין נדרים ניתרין הכא כיון דאיחצף ליה הא איחצף ליה
2 But on Raba's explanation. Viz., if so, none will seek a Sage's absolution for his vow, why is such an opening suggested to him here?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since one can thus annul his own vow. ');"><sup>3</sup></span> — I will tell you. Since all [other] vows cannot be annulled without a Sage,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This not being accepted as a ground in other vows. ');"><sup>4</sup></span>
ג אלא לרבא דאמר אם כן אין נדרים נשאלין לחכם הכא אמאי פותחין אמרי כיון דכל נדרי לא סגיא להון דלאו חכם הכא נמי פותחין:
3 it may be offered as an opening here too.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' On account of other vows, it will be the practice to apply for absolution to a Sage, and that will be adhered to even in such an isolated ease as this, which is an exception to the general rule. ');"><sup>5</sup></span> R. ELIEZER ALSO RULED: A NEW FACT MAY BE GIVEN AS AN OPENING, etc. What is R. Eliezer's reason? — R. Hisda said: Because Scripture saith, [And the Lord said unto Moses in Midian, Go, return into Egypt:] for all the men are dead [which sought thy life].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. IV. 19: the Talmud states below that Moses had vowed to Jethro not to return to Egypt, on account of the men who sought his life, and now God absolved Moses of his vow on the grounds that they were dead. ');"><sup>6</sup></span>
ד ועוד אמר רבי אליעזר פותחין בנולד כו': מ"ט דרבי אליעזר אמר רב חסדא דאמר קרא (שמות ד, יט) כי מתו כל האנשים והא מיתה דנולד הוא מכאן שפותחין בנולד
4 But death was a new fact:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., one that arose subsequent to Moses' vow. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> this proves that a new fact is given as an opening. What then is the reason of the Rabbis? — They argue thus: Did these men die? Surely R. Johanan said on the authority of R. Simeon b. Yohai: Wherever nizzim [quarrelling] or nizzawim [standing] is mentioned, the reference is to none but Dathan and Abiram?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Cf. Ex. II, 13: And when he went out on the second day, behold, two men of the Hebrews strove together (nizzim), with: That is that Dathan and Abiram, which were famous in the congregation, who strove against (hizzu. of which nizzim is a participle) Moses against Aaron. Cf. also, Ex. V, 20: And they met Moses and Aaron, who (sc. they) stood (nizzawim) in the way, with Num. XVI, 65. And Dathan and Abiram came out, and stood (nizzawim) etc. The similarity of language leads to the assumption that the same people are referred to in all cases, viz., Dathan and Abiram Now, it was on their account that Moses fled from Egypt, and God told him that they were dead. But they reappear in Korah's rebellion. Hence the statement that they were dead cannot be taken literally. ');"><sup>8</sup></span>
ה ורבנן מאי טעמייהו קסברי הנהו מי מייתי והא אמר ר' יוחנן משום ר' שמעון בן יוחי כל מקום שנאמר נצים ונצבים אינן אלא דתן ואבירם אלא אמר ר"ל שירדו מנכסיהן
5 But, said Resh Lakish, they had become poor.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'they had descended from their property'. V. supra p. 16, n. 3 Now, though impoverishment was also a new fact, yet since it is of common occurrence (here regarded as more likely than death, as he left them, presumably, in good health), the Rabbis regard it as one which might be foreseen, and therefore a legitimate ground for absolution. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> R. Joshua b. Levi said: A man who is childless is accounted as dead, for it is written, Give me children, or else I am dead.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Gen. XXX, 1. ');"><sup>10</sup></span>
ו אריב"ל כל אדם שאין לו בנים חשוב כמת שנאמר (בראשית ל, א) הבה לי בנים ואם אין מתה אנכי ותניא ארבעה חשובין כמת עני ומצורע וסומא ומי שאין לו בנים עני דכתיב כי מתו כל האנשים מצורע דכתיב (במדבר יב, יב) אל נא תהי כמת וסומא דכתיב (איכה ג, ו) במחשכים הושיבני כמתי עולם ומי שאין לו בנים דכתיב הבה לי בנים ואם אין מתה אנכי
6 And it was taught: Four are accounted as dead: A poor man, a leper, a blind person, and one who is childless. A poor man, as it is written, for all the men are dead [which sought thy life].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. n. 2. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> A leper, as it is written, [And Aaron looked upon Miriam, and behold, she was leprous. And Aaron said unto Moses&nbsp;…] let her not he as one dead.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XII, 10-12. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> The blind, as it is written, He hath set me in dark places, as they that be dead of old.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lam. III, 6: this is interpreted: he hath set me in dark places, just as the blind, who are accounted as long since dead. ');"><sup>13</sup></span> And he who is childless, as it is written, Give me children, or else I am dead.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Possibly the inclusion of the poor and childless was directed against the early Christian exaltation of poverty and celibacy. ');"><sup>14</sup></span>
Previous ChapterNext Chapter