The Form of Hatarat Nedarim

Continuing my discussion of hatarat nedarim. Here are a few nitpicks I have with the instructions given in the machzor.

First, the instructions at the top (circled in red):

"The three 'judges' sit while the petitioner stands before them and states:"

At issue is how the hatarah works. Based on their commentary, Artscroll thinks it does not work at all. In which case I suppose it makes sense to have the judges sit. The purpose is to make the person realize the severity of his sins by vowing, and the more formal we can make it, the better.

However, assuming that is actually supposed to work, there are two means an annulment can happen. One is to find a specific petach, an opening, such that if the person had known X, he never would have vowed. The other is to open the vow with charatah, regret. It seems that the idea within the formula is that they are opening with charatah. Whether the particular brand of charatah, of regretting the making of the vow but not the particular actions, is valid, I will not address here, but certainly, this seems to be the intent of the formula. The difference lehalachah between them is that for the former, real deliberation must be done, and so the judges must sit. But when we open a vow with regret, no deliberation need be done, and so the judges may stand. And yet the directions here are that the judges sit. I do not understand this requirement. The directions may be a matter of custom rather than halacha.

While on this subject, all sorts of other restrictions of a bet din are relaxed, for these are not judges but rather "judges," as the machzor makes clear. Thus, hatarah can be done at night, or on Shabbos if the neder needs be annulled for the sake of Shabbos. And the judges may be related to one another.

My next nitpick is with the formula the judges use in responding to the petitioner. According to the Rambam, the judges only need to say one time, one language of annulment. Thus, they can say muttar lach, or they can say machul lach, or they can say sharui lach.

The Tur (IIRC) has a more developed formula. Once again, they can say muttar lach (or they can say machul lach, or they can say sharui lach). But whatever they say, they say three times. Thus (see here)

טור יורה דעה סימן רכח

מי שנדר ונתחרט יש תקנה ע"י חרטה ואפילו נדר באלהי ישראל כיצד יעשה ילך אצל חכם מומחה וסביר ואם אין יחיד מומחה ילך אצל ג' הדיוטות והוא דגמיר דגמרי להו וסברי וידעו לפתוח לו פתח ויתירו לו והאידנא אין מומחה שיהא ראוי להתיר ביחיד בפחות מג': ואין לו לאדם להתיר במקום רבו ובמקום שיש גדול ממנו אא"כ יתן לו רשות וכיצד הוא ההתרה יאמר לו ג"פ מותר לך ואפילו מעומד ובקרובים ובלילה ובשבת אפילו אם היה אפשר לו מאתמול לישאל עליו ובלבד שיהא לצורך השבת כגון שנדר שלא לאכול או לבטל מעונג שבת.

Or according to Shulchan Aruch:

שולחן ערוך יורה דעה סימן רכח
כיצד היא ההתרה, יאמר לו ו ד] ג' פעמים: מותר לך, ה] או שרוי לך, או מחול לך, (<ד> בכל לשון שיאמר), (ב"י בשם הרמב"ם), ז ו] <ה> אפילו מעומד, (ב) ובקרובים, ובלילה, ובשבת, אפילו אם היה אפשר לו מאתמול לישאל עליו, ז] ובלבד שיהיה לצורך השבת, כגון שנדר שלא לאכול או ליבטל מעונג השבת. ח ח] <ו> וחרמי צבור, נהגו להתיר אף על פי שאינם לצורך השבת.

So that we see that it is one, or the other, or the other. Not all three, even though he adds this point, just as Tur, of repeating whichever lashon is chosen three times. And even that is not strictly required. As Shach says:

ש"ך יורה דעה סימן רכח
ג' פעמים - לאו דוקא דבחד זימנא נמי סגי אלא עושין כן כדי לחזק הענין עט"ז ומשמע דבדיעבד סגי בפעם אחת וכ"כ הב"י והב"ח בשם הרמב"ם דא"צ שיאמר רק פעם אחת:

The nusach in the machzor has all three leshonos, and the judges repeat the whole formula three times. Thus, there is a total of nine statements. Plus we have the whole paragraph, not just those three phrases, which they recite three times. This is exceptional overkill. But then, I suppose it makes for great ritual. Ritual likes repetition of threes. As you might guess, I take exception to this. (Perhaps we might say this is kedei lechazek hainyan to the nth degree. Or rather the threefold repetition is kedei lechazeik hainyan while the use of all three languages, plus more, is just the way that liturgy grows way past what is required...)

While on this subject, I might note that again lehalacha, it seems that the bet din can annul vows of multiple people, just as they can annul several vows simultaneously (though there is dispute about the latter, about several vows where one is chal on top of the other, such that it only takes effect once the first one is annulled). So the typical process in shul is possibly a tremendous time waster. It depends. If people always pair up in threes, then they get out pretty quickly. But an acceptable alternative is to let several people say their petitions, and have the bet din then grant the annulment to all of them.

Finally, a word as to the translation of hakol yihtu muttarim lach, hakol mechulim lach, hakol sheruyim lach. Artscroll translates

"May everything be permitted you, may everything be forgiven you, may everything be allowed you."

I forget where I saw it, but I seem to recall other explanations. Mutar as in untying, as with a knot, and the same for sharui. And for machul, not in the same of forgiven, but rather making profane, as in lo yachel devaro, and the associated derashot.

Note: Not halacha lemaaseh. Don't pasken or act based on blogs.

Hatarat Nedarim -- As Atonement

This is just a throwaway thought. I criticized the Artscroll for presenting the hatarat nedarim on erev rosh hashanah as a sham, where the real purpose was "as a means of repentance for the sin of abusing vows."

I still do not believe that this is the function of the hatarah. But perhaps we can find an early echo of this idea in the Yerushalmi Nedarim, 18b:

ואתיין אילין פלוגוותא כאילין פלוגוותא דתני יום הכיפורים צריך לפרוט את מעשיו דברי רבי יודה בן בתירה. רבי עקיבה אומר אינו צריך לפרוט את החטא. אית תניי תני צריך לפרוט את הנדר. אית תניי תני אינו צריך לפרוט את הנדר.

Thus, the requirement to delineate one's sins, or lack of such a requirement, is compared to the requirement to delineate one's neder, or to the lack of such a requirement.

It is appropriate to delinate one's sins for Yom Kippur. And indeed, that seems to be the role of Ashamnu and VeAl Chataim where it is really appropriate to substitute one's personal sin that one actually did, in place. (Perhaps a later post on this, and how the plural saves us.) And so we don't really list them, or we list a bunch of them. But then, we say

ועל כלם אלוה סליחות סלח-לנו מחל-לנו כפר-לנו
ועל חתאים שאנו חיבים עליהם, ארבע מיתות בית דין,
סקילה שריפה הרג וחנק על מצות עשה,ועל מצות לא תעשה,
בין שיש בה קום עשה, ובין שאין בה קום עשה,
את הגלוים לנו, ואת שאינם גלוים לנו,
את הגלוים לנו,כבר אמרנום לפניך, והודינו לך עליהם.
ואת שאינם גלוים לנו,לפניך הם גלוים וידועים

or else:

על מצות עשה ועל מצות לא תעשה, בין שיש בה קום עשה ובין שאין בה קום עשה, את הגלויים לנו ואת שאינם גלויים לנו. את הגלויים לנו, כבר אמרנום לפניך והודינו לך עליהם. ואת שאינם גלויים לנו, לפניך הם גלויים וידועים. כדבר שנאמר: הנסתרות לה' אלוהינו, והנגלות לנו ולבנינו עד עולם, לעשות את כל דברי התורה הזאת. כי אתה סלחן לישראל ומחלן לשבטי ישורון בכל דור ודור, ומבלעדיך אין לנו מלך מוחל וסולח אלא אתה.

and so, this excuse from having to list all our vows, seems par for the course. And saying that they are so many seems like a confession of a lot of wrongdoing. And so, perhaps there is something to that idea.

Also, within the extended text the dayanim say, they say "aval yesh kan slicha mechila vechappara," which surely has to do with atonement and forgiveness. And they say that just as they matir them in the bet din down here, so should they matir them in the Bet Din above.

Even so, for all the reasons I gave above, I do not believe this is the true (or at least only) function of hatarat nedarim on erev Rosh Hashanah. The presumption is that, at least at some point in Jewish history, it did work. If the present nusach works, prove it. If not, fix it.

Note: Not halacha lemaaseh. Don't act based on blogs.

Is Hatarat Nedarim A Sham? pt v (paskening like Rav Pappa because of the Yerushalmi)

In the first post of this series, a question: how could hatarat nedarim on erev Rosh haShanah work, if it specifically avoided pirut haneder, and halachah requires this even bedieved? And other questions.

In the second post of this series, a proposed answer: that when the gemara and Rishonim say that bedieved it does not work without pirut haneder, they were not speaking of the case where the judges know that the neder is not being specified.

In the third post if this series, I explained Rosh's reasoning for paskening like Rav Pappa, and questioned the first of those reasons, by showing that Rav Pappa was not actually batrai.

In the fourth post, I tackle the second of Rosh's reasons, and how we might cope with Rav Huna apparently holding like Rav Pappa.

In this fifth post, I address the final reason given by Rosh -- that the Yerushalmi seems to hold like Rav Pappa.

As a reminder, here is the Rosh. Click on the picture to see it very large. You want the first column, d"h kasavar.

Rosh gives three reasons we should hold like Rav Pappa over Rav Nachman:

1) Rav Pappa is later than Rav Nachman, so he is batrai, and hilcheta kebatrai.

2) Rav Huna holds like him.

3) The Yerushalmi seems to conclude like Rav Pappa that there is such an obligation.

To address the third point:

This Yerushalmi occurs in the 5th perek of Nedarim, 18b:

אית תניי תני צריך לפרוט את הנדר. אית תניי תני אינו צריך לפרוט את הנדר. חד בר נש נדר דלא מרווחא אתא לגבי רבי יודן בר שלום אמר ליה ממאי אישתבעת אמר ליה דלא מרווחא. אמר ליה רבי יודן וכן בר נש עביד דילמא בקביוסטיסא אמר ברוך שבחר בתורה ובחכמים שאמרו צריך לפרוט את הנדר:

A slight, probably unimportant, difference between Rosh's girsa and our girsa of Yerushalmi, but noteworthy since we were speaking earlier about the rabbinic nature of the obligation to delineate the neder -- our Yerushalmi has ברוך שבחר בתורה ובחכמים שאמרו צריך לפרוט את הנדר, while Rosh is missing the word בתורה.

Rosh used the conclusion of the Yerushalmi to show that we hold that one needs to delineate the particulars and circumstances of the neder. But I am not convinced this is sufficient cause to rule like Rav Pappa over Rav Nachman.

Firstly, the Yerushalmi spells out explicitly that there are competing braytas. One says one needs to delineate the neder and one says that you do not need to do so. There was an incident before Rabbi Yudan bar Shalom, and he praises this position requiring delineating the neder.

But this could be for one of two reasons. Either he was uncertain, and this incident convinced him, or else he was of one particular position. Now, Rabbi Yudan bar Shalom was a 4th century Palestinian Amora, which means that he was a contemporary of both disputants, Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak and Rav Pappa. So the fact that Rav Pappa has a corresponding element in Eretz Yisrael is not so convincing. Different Amoraim hold different positions. On the other hand, the fact that the Yerushalmi saw fit to relate this particular incident may be meaningful. It might not be meaningful, but rather was a known incident, and was relevant to relate in this context. But it might indeed be meaningful, as a way for the Yerushalmi to let it be known how this Tannaitic dispute was resolved -- that the chachamim finally decided that there is a requirement to delineate the neder.

Even if the Yerushalmi does relate it for this purpose, the Rif has a principle that the Amoraim of Eretz Yisrael (and perhaps the Savoraim) were greater experts in Yerushalmi than we are (since Yerushalmi was closed before Bavli), and if they did not cite a Yerushalmi which would be at odds with our Bavli, then it is because this is not to be relied upon. Personally, I do not find that argument so convincing, given the difficulty of conveying information from one place to another, and for other reasons I won't specify here, why I think it possible that the Bavli did not know all the details of the Yerushalmi. But if you endorse such a position, this could be a reason for wondering whether the Yerushalmi, if it really is saying this, should be relevant.

One final, parting note. In the Yerushalmi, Rabbi Yudan bar Shalom praises the Hashem who chose the Torah and the Chachamim. But why praise? There are two possible reasons.

(1) That he would have annulled without hearing all the details, and it would have been effective. That is, based on what the person who took the vow said, the vow might have been annulled, and then the person would go on to sin, playing with dice and profiting.

(2) That because of this peice of information held back, he would have thought the vow was annulled, but in truth it would not be annulled.

I would favor the former over the latter, for stylistic reasons and reasons having to do with Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak's concern, but here I will not elaborate.

Is Hatarat Nedarim A Sham? pt iv (paskening like Rav Pappa because Rav Huna concurs)

In the first post of this series, a question: how could hatarat nedarim on erev Rosh haShanah work, if it specifically avoided pirut haneder, and halachah requires this even bedieved? And other questions.

In the second post of this series, a proposed answer: that when the gemara and Rishonim say that bedieved it does not work without pirut haneder, they were not speaking of the case where the judges know that the neder is not being specified.

In the third post in this series, I explained Rosh's reasoning for paskening like Rav Pappa, and questioned the first of those reasons, by showing that Rav Pappa was not actually batrai.

Now, in this fourth post, I tackle the second of Rosh's reasons.

As a reminder, Click on the picture to see it very large. You want the first column, d"h kasavar.

Rosh gives three reasons we should hold like Rav Pappa over Rav Nachman:

1) Rav Pappa is later than Rav Nachman, so he is batrai, and hilcheta kebatrai.

2) Rav Huna holds like him.

3) The Yerushalmi seems to conclude like Rav Pappa that there is such an obligation.

To now address the second point:

We have the fact that Rav Huna rules like Rav Pappa and against Rav Nachman. Each of these people was the heads of an academy:

Rav Huna: Head of Sura.
Rav Nachman bar Yaakov (plain Rav Nachman): Nehardeah
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak: Pumbedita
Rav Pappa: Nehardeah

But Rav Huna does not explicitly rule like Rav Pappa. Rather, the setama de-gemara proposes a reason for Rav Huna's statement, asks on it, and proposes its own explanation. Thus, we see:

התקין רבן גמליאל הזקן שתהא נודרת כו': אמר רב הונא לא שנו אלא בשלא ניסת אבל ניסת אין מדירין אותה ניסת מאי טעמא דמיפר לה בעל כי לא ניסת נמי לכי מנסבא מיפר לה בעל אין הבעל מיפר בקודמין וניחוש דלמא אזלה לגבי חכם ושרי לה קסבר צריך לפרט את הנדר רב נחמן אמר אפי' ניסת ניסת ודאי מיפר לה בעל דמדרינן לה ברבים

But all Rav Huna said was that אמר רב הונא לא שנו אלא בשלא ניסת אבל ניסת אין מדירין אותה. Why should only a non-married woman take the vow, but not a married woman? The setama de-gemara proposes that this is because the husband can simply annul her vow. But this need not be so. If we say like Amemar, as the setama de-gemara proposes for Rav Nachman, that דמדרינן לה ברבים, and such a vow, the husband is not able to annul. This is such a ready solution that it is perhaps questionable why Rav Huna would say not to impose the vow.

I would suggest an alternative. We see in the parallel Yerushalmi on the Mishna, on Yerushalmi Gittin 21b, the reason for imposing this vow:

בראשונה היו נשבעות לשקר וקוברות את בניהם שנאמר

ירמיהו ב) לשוא הכיתי את בניכם. ועוד שאימת נדרים עליהן יותר מן השבועות.

Thus, they would swear falsely and as Divine penalty, their children, who they were stealing from, would die.

What would compel a widow to steal from the orphans and swear falsely? Profit motive, though even that is hard to understand. But the situation is not so dire if she is married and thus being supported, or if she does not have to worry about being a good catch with money coming into the marriage. Therefore, the extremity of the vow is not called for, according to Rav Huna. But Rav Nachman says that the impose the vow even if she is married.

I am not arguing forcefully that this need be so, but rather that this seems to be a valid alternative to the setama de-gemara's suggestion. If so, Rav Huna was never talking about the new husband's hafarah, and would then not be compelled to channel Rav Pappa in explaining why a chacham's hatarah would not work.

A second possibility is that Rav Huna actually intended it just as the setama de-gemara proposed. But that does not mean that hatarah from a chacham was something he considered. And even if he considered it, it does not mean that he dismissed it for the reason the gemara gave -- that there is a requirement for pirut haneder. I would propose the following alternatives.

a) Rav Huna holds that a neder which involves other people cannot be annulled, even bedieved, as deduced by various Rishonim as halacha in general, and this is a neder which was entered into because of other people.

b) Even if we say that potchin bacharata, the regret needs to be real. And it is not real here, because the widow had the option not to enter into the neder in the first place. If she enters into the vow with intent to have it annulled, then she is not really regretting taking the vow.

c) And then the chacham can only operate by finding a petach, which requires knowing the whole circumstances of the vow. And then the chacham would decide not to annul it.

So we do not need to say that Rav Huna is saying that we require pirut haneder, and that absent such specification, the annulment is invalid even bedieved. This is then no support for Rav Pappa over Rav Nachman.

A third possibility is that Rav Huna even agrees with the conclusion the setama de-gemara proposes, and so requires pirut haneder even bedieved. But should we care? As we will see when addressing the Yerushalmi, the dispute between Rav Nachman and Rav Pappa about whether pirut haneder is required is actually a Tannaitic dispute, with one brayta like Rav Nachman and one brayta like Rav Pappa. So it stands to reason that different Amoraim would hold like different braytot. And if Rav Huna indeed holds one way, there may well be other Amoraim who hold the other way. Just because the setama de-gemara was able to attribute Rav Pappa's position to one named Amora, via logic, does not mean that many other Amoraim did not stand in line with Rav Nachman.

Indeed, as mentioned earlier, based on the Rif's girsa, Rav Pappa's disputant is Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, his contemporary. But Rav Huna's disputant may well be plain Rav Nachman, who is Rav Nachman bar Yaakov, and that Rav Nachman need not subscribe to Rav Pappa's view. (On the other hand, we cannot pin him down to any position.) Is this really a way of determining halacha, based on a majority of Amoraim we can manage to pin down, without getting a representative sample of Amoraim? For all we know, many others may hold like the other brayta and thus with Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak.

Furthermore, if Rav Pappa's disputant is indeed Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, his contemporary, then both of them are batrai compared with Rav Huna. Such that they knew the competing braytas, they knew that in an earlier generation of Amoraim there was Rav Huna who held one way, and yet, they divided, with Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak willing to state the halacha was not in accordance with Rav Huna. Shouldn't the batrai aspect compel us to ignore the earlier staked position of Amoraim, and just treat it as a straight machlokes? I don't know, and I am no master in kelalei horaah, but I believe a valid argument can be made here. And that Rosh did not make that argument firstly because he would not argue with the setama de-gemara, but secondly because his assumption, based on his girsa, is that Rav Nachman is Rav Nachman bar Yaakov, such that only Rav Pappa is batrai.

Note: Not intended halacha lemaaseh. Consult your local Orthodox rabbi.

Is Hatarat Nedarim A Sham? pt iii (paskening like Rav Pappa because he is later)

In the first post of this series, a question: how could hatarat nedarim on erev Rosh haShanah work, if it specifically avoided pirut haneder, and halachah requires this even bedieved? And other questions.

In the second post of this series, a proposed answer: that when the gemara and Rishonim say that bedieved it does not work without pirut haneder, they were not speaking of the case where the judges know that the neder is not being specified.

Now, in the third post in this series, I wish to address whether Rif, Rosh, etc., are correct in ruling in accordance with Rav Pappa over Rav Nachman. This is important because only according to Rav Pappa is pirut haneder required as protocol. According to Rav Nachman, it should not be done.

Pictured to the right is a scan of the Rosh. Click on the picture to see it very large. You want the first column, d"h kasavar.

Rosh gives three reasons we should hold like Rav Pappa over Rav Nachman:

1) Rav Pappa is later than Rav Nachman, so he is batrai, and hilcheta kebatrai.

2) Rav Huna holds like him.

3) The Yerushalmi seems to conclude like Rav Pappa that there is such an obligation.

And so, we shall have to address each of these three in turn. Here, we will address the first point, and declare:

1) Rav Pappa is not actually batrai.

We have two ways of accomplishing this.

a) Rav Pappa is batrai when compared with plain Rav Nachman, who is Rav Nachman bar Yaakov. (See here.) But what if the Rav Nachman in this dispute is Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak? (See here.) Rav Nachman bar Yaakov was a disciple of Shmuel and so is of an earlier generation than Rav Pappa, who was a student of both Abaye and Rava. But if it is Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, then he is of the same generation of Rav Pappa, for he was also a student of both Abaye and Rava. Then, neither is batrai. And it makes more sense for there to be a dispute between the two.

I do not make this suggestion idly. In fact, the Rif has a girsa of this gemara in which he explicitly has Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak rather than just plain Rav Nachman. Thus, in Nedarim, on 21b in the pages of Rif:

גרסינן בפרק השולח
צריך לפרט הנדר או לא
רב פפא אמר צריך
רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר אין צריך
דאי אמרת צריך זמנין דגייז וחכם מה דשמע מיפר
ורב פפא אמר צריך דלמא אמילתא דאיסורא משתבע
והלכתא כרב פפא:

We learn in perek haSholeach {=the 4th perek of Gittin, daf 35b}:
Does one need to spell out the vow {when asking absolution} or not?
Rav Pappa said: He needs to.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: He does not need to.
For if you say that he needs, there are times that he will cut off his words, and the sage will only annul that which he hears.
And Rav Pappa said: He needs to, for perhaps he swore about something which was forbidden.
And the halacha is like Rav Pappa.

Rif still says the halacha is like Rav Pappa, but his reason does not need to be that Rav Pappa is batrai. Indeed, he specifies no reason, though the reason may well be that Rav Huna holds like Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, rather than that Rav Pappa is later. Meanwhile, Rosh has the girsa of just plain Rav Nachman, and so he cites this as a reason.

This is really enough for me. Lectio difficilior dictates that "bar Yitzchak" is more likely to be dropped than added to a text, and so the most likely original is Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak.

Of course, a bit earlier in the gemara, we have Rav Nachman arguing with Rav Huna. This would presumably be the earlier Rav Nachman, namely Rav Nachman bar Yaakov. This could also explain the reason for the dropping of "bar Yitzchak" a bit later in the gemara, when a Rav Nachman argues with Rav Pappa.

b) But I could propose another solution, if I wished. Namely, that Rav Nachman is indeed Rav Nachman bar Yaakov, who is a student of Shmuel, but his disputant is not Rav Pappa, but rather Rav Pappi, who some say was of an earlier generation. Indeed, we have Rav Pappi visit Mar Shmuel's house, and so some then distinguish Shmuel from Mar Shmuel, but I believe others say that Rav Pappi was of an earlier generation. Since he visited Shmuel's house, he would be of the same generation as Shmuel's student, Rav Nachman bar Yaakov.

While I did not look, and thus certainly have no manuscript evidence to support me in this bold assertion, I do have the fact that this is not the only time "Rav Nachman" and "Rav Pappa" disagree. We also have a dispute between Rav Nachman and Rav Pappa elsewhere. (See here for a partial list.) We really need to sit down and see whether we can figure out a rule for this.

Thus, for example, from my transaltion in the Rif:

Rav Nachman said: People do not make a son the agent in the place of his father. And Rav Pappa {our gemara: Rav Pappi} said: People do make a son the agent in the place of his father.
And the halacha is that people to make a son an agent in place of his father.

And in this dispute, we have a girsological variant between Rav Pappa and Rav Pappi. Lectio difficilior would argue in favor of the less well-known Rav Pappi, but then again, if one scribe writes פפ' מ instead of פפא, the shmitchik could be reinterpreted by the next scribe as a yud.

But other gemaras (e.g. this) make me favor the identification of Rav Pappa rather than Rav Pappi. Thus, I would reject option (b) but would promote option (a).

All in all, we have this compelling variant in the words of the Rif that Rav Nachman is Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak, and so he is a contemporary of Rav Pappa. Rosh's first argument in favor of ruling like Rav Pappa is thus readily dismissed.

Note: This is all not intended halacha lemaaseh.

Is Hatarat Nedarim A Sham? pt ii (an answer)

In the previous post, I contrasted two statements in the Artscroll. In introducing hataras nedarim, they state
"It is meritorious to annul vows on the day before Rosh Hashanah (see commentary)."

but then in discussing it in the commentary, they give several reasons it should not work, ending with the declaration that

And, as the declaration itself makes clear, the halacha requires that the vow be specified. Consequently, the present declaration must not be understood as a halachic annulment, but as a means of repentance for the sin of having abused vows.

I put forth several objections to this in the previous post. For example, if it is a sham, then they should warn people more clearly, or else the general public will come to accidentally violate their vows, which have not been annulled. If it does not work, how is it meritorious? Judaism does not have rituals, but rather mitzvos, so why promote something that does not actually have halachic effect? Either fix the institution, or do not do it! And if you want to cast it as repentance, Judaism already has existing forms for repentance. Finally, it is clear that Aruch HaShulchan regards it as actual hataras nedarim, and derives a law about hatarah in general from the hatarah customarily done on erev rosh hashanah.

In this post, I propose an answer. I believe that even though Rif, Rosh, and Shulchan Aruch all state that even bedieved if there is no pirut of the neder or the sibba it is invalid, they would all maintain hatart nedarim in the form it appears for erev rosh hashanah is valid, at least bedieved.

How can this be so?

We will have to go back to the gemara, and see how this develops. The Aruch haShulchan states that this requirement for pirut haneder is an institution of the Sages, rather than something Biblically mandated. And this seems fairly clear from the Yerushalmi Nedarim where Rabbi Yudan bar Shalom praises Hashem that the Chachamim saw fit to require pirut haneder. {ברוך שבחר בדברי חכמים שאמרו צריך לפרט את הנדר.} And it is clear from the dispute from the specifics of the dispute in Bavli Gittin 35b between Rav Nachman and Rav Pappa about this requirement.

That gemara reads:

צריך לפרט הנדר או לא
רב פפא אמר צריך
רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר אין צריך
דאי אמרת צריך זמנין דגייז וחכם מה דשמע מיפר
ורב פפא אמר צריך דלמא אמילתא דאיסורא משתבע

We learn in perek haSholeach {=the 4th perek of Gittin, daf 35b}:
Does one need to spell out the vow {when asking absolution} or not?
Rav Pappa said: He needs to.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: He does not need to.
For if you say that he needs, there are times that he will cut off his words, and the sage will only annul that which he hears.
And Rav Pappa said: He needs to, for perhaps he swore about something which was forbidden.

And Rif says we hold like Rav Papa.

This clearly reads like a dispute as to the proper procedure. Rav Pappa gives as a reason a logical argument why it is a good idea to require it. And so Rav Pappa says we should require it for perhaps he swore about something that was forbidden. And Rav Nachman says we should not institute it, and gives a reason not to implement this restriction -- it could lead to an error where the Sage will annul only what he hears.

Even Rav Nachman thus agrees that once we require this as standard hatarat nedarim procedure, that bedieved if one does not fully specify, it could not be valid. That is, Rav Nachman's concern -- that "there are times that he will cut off his words, and the sage will only annul that which he hears" -- is equal to the statement that if this is required, lack of pirut haneder would invalidate the hatarat nedarim.

A bit earlier on the same amud is part of the basis of saying that bedieved it would not be valid. The gemara there records a dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Nachman:

התקין רבן גמליאל הזקן שתהא נודרת כו': אמר רב הונא לא שנו אלא בשלא ניסת אבל ניסת אין מדירין אותה ניסת מאי טעמא דמיפר לה בעל כי לא ניסת נמי לכי מנסבא מיפר לה בעל אין הבעל מיפר בקודמין וניחוש דלמא אזלה לגבי חכם ושרי לה קסבר צריך לפרט את הנדר רב נחמן אמר אפי' ניסת ניסת ודאי מיפר לה בעל דמדרינן לה ברבים

So Rav Huna says the neder is only imposed on the woman where she is not married. The setama de-gemara offers an explanation, that it is because the husband could just annul it for her anyway. This is an extremely plausible explanation, but not necessarily the required one. (Bli neder, I will offer an alternative in the next post.) Then, the setama de-gemara asks why a married woman is any different from a woman in general, for such a woman can go to a chacham to get him to be mattir the neder. The setama de-gemara answers that Rav Huna must hold against Rav Nachman, his disputant here, and like Rav Pappa, that we require pirut haneder. And, as Rosh explains, if she explains the neder and the reason for the neder, the chacham will certainly not be mattir her neder. And if she does not explain the neder and the reason for it, the hatarah will not be effective.

Thus, we see that even bedieved, without pirut haneder, the hatarah is invalid. We see this explicitly in the words of the Rosh. And the Tur requires pirut haneder but does not mention that bedieved it is invalid, which is strange given that the Rosh was his father, so he should presumably agree. But we see this made explicit in Shulchan Aruch, from Rav Yosef Karo.

But how could a derabbanan requirement uproot the hatarah working on a deorayta level? The answer, once again, to my mind is that it is like Rav Nachman's explanation. If this widow does not elaborate to the chacham, then his hatarah is obviously based on false information, so it is not valid. But if she did elaborate, then he would not grant it.

And this, I think, is why the Tur does not bother to say that bedieved the hatarah is invalid. The Tur already said this earlier, when he said that it is obvious that if one lies to the chacham, the hatarah is invalid. This is just another application of this obvious rule.

Compare this to the text in the hataras nedarim on erev Yom Kippur. The second page is pictured to the right. Click on it to see it larger. And the last paragraph there reads:

"Now behold, according to the law, one who regrets and seeks annulment must specify the vow, but please be informed, my masters, that it is impossible to specify them because they are many. Nor do I seek annulment of those vows that cannot be annulled; therefore may you consider them as if I had specified them."

Clearly, the author of this language believes that with such an excuse, one can get around the requirement of pirut haneder at least on a bedieved level. Now, this may just be amaratzus. Who knows who composed this language? I don't know. (Though it is quite possibly knowable.) Similarly, on the previous page, annulment was requested for vows even impacting other people. This might again be ignorance, though at there I believe I can show this might be subject to dispute.

But assuming it is not amaratzus, then the author of this formula believes this will satisfactorily dismiss any requirement of pirut haneder. How is this possible? I would suggest that this is simply that by telling the "dayanim" that you are not listing the nedarim, they will not be basing themselves on any partial description of the neder. Though this is a violation of the protocols set up by Chazal for hatarah, since the dayanim know, Rav Nachman's concern does not apply, and so bedieved it would be a valid hatarah.

At this point, I think this is pashut peshat in the gemara and the various Rishonim and Acharonim, such that Rif, Rosh, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch would all agree. But then, I may be wrong about this.

In the next post, I intend to address the question of whether the halacha really should be in accordance with Rav Pappa against Rav Nachman.

Note: Not to be taken halacha lemaaseh.

Is Hatarat Nedarim a Sham? pt i (the question)

Is hataras nedarim a sham?

I saw something curious the other day when looking through my Artscroll Rosh haShanah Machzor. (Click on the image to see a full page, readable picture.) It begins with the order of hatarat nedarim. And they say at the beginning (page 2, circled in red) that

"It is meritorious to annul vows on the day before Rosh Hashanah (see commentary)."

But then, in that commentary, on page 2 (also circled in red), we are given three "problems" with the hatarat nedarim, as formulated. The third problem is critical, and invalidates the entire hatarat nedarim.

They write:
1)

However, as the declaration makes clear, this annulment applies only to vows for which the halacha permits annulments and for which there is a halachically acceptable reason for doing so.

That is fine. Yes, hatarat nedarim only works for certain types of vows. This is true in general, not just for the one on erev Rosh haShanah.

They continue:
2)

Likewise, annulment is valid only if the vows involve only oneself. If, however, the vows were adopted for the sake of, or involve, someone else, they cannot be annulled without the consent of the other party.

This is based on specific gemaras and the readings by various Rishonim, but we are not going to go into this at this juncture. Let us accept that. That is true for any vow, for any hatarat nedarim. But there still must be some other vows one can do hatara on, just as hatarat nedarim performed on other days is valid.

They continue:
3)

Also, for an annulment to be effective halachically, the regret must be complete and preferably be accompanied with a valid reason for regret.

Yet it seems we are not finding a regular petach here for the neder, but rather releasing of potchin via charata, regret, with all sorts of interesting ramifications such as that the "dayanim" do not even have to bother sitting, despite the instructions found in your Artscroll machzor. And if they are expressing regret and the regret is complete, the vow is released. So there are vows for which this hatara should work. Fine.

But then they note:

4)

And, as the declaration itself makes clear, the halacha requires that the vow be specified.

And they are listing this as a reason the annulment won't work. Though they do not say it explicitly, this seems to be a major impediment, which would turn the entire hatarat nedarim into a sham.

This is based on a recent gemara in Gittin 35b, which was brought down lehalacha by the Rif on Nedarim, page 21b in pages of the Rif (link goes to my Rif Yomi blog).

גרסינן בפרק השולח
צריך לפרט הנדר או לא
רב פפא אמר צריך
רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר אין צריך
דאי אמרת צריך זמנין דגייז וחכם מה דשמע מיפר
ורב פפא אמר צריך דלמא אמילתא דאיסורא משתבע
והלכתא כרב פפא:

We learn in perek haSholeach {=the 4th perek of Gittin, daf 35b}:
Does one need to spell out the vow {when asking absolution} or not?
Rav Pappa said: He needs to.
Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak said: He does not need to.
For if you say that he needs, there are times that he will cut off his words, and the sage will only annul that which he hears.
And Rav Pappa said: He needs to, for perhaps he swore about something which was forbidden.
And the halacha is like Rav Pappa.

Indeed, if you look at the Rosh, he says that if you do not specify the neder {pirut haneder}, then even bedieved the hatarah of the chacham is not valid. (He says this a bit earlier in the gemara, on the words of Rav Huna.) His son, Tur, does not explicitly say that bedieved it does not work, though he lists the requirement of pirut haneder. And Rav Yosef Karo, in Shulchan Aruch, requiers pirut haneder and states that bedieved, if you do not do it, the hatarah is not valid.

If so, since we are not listing the specific nedarim or (according to certain Rishonim explaining that gemara) the sibba, the events leading up to the neder being taken, the hatara should not work at all, for this reason. It is all a sham!

And this is what they conclude in the Artscroll machzor:

Consequently, the present declaration must not be understood as a halachic annulment, but as a means of repentance for the sin of having abused vows.

Thus, it is indeed a sham, and your vows are not annulled.

This is mystifying. Firstly, if this is really so, they should not hide it in plain sight in the commentary, and only say

"It is meritorious to annul vows on the day before Rosh Hashanah (see commentary)."

at the start. The hatarat nedarim does not work!!!! And hundreds of thousands of religious Jews are thinking it works, and will go on to violate their nedarim, thinking incorrectly that they are annulled! They should put a warning! And it would not be meritorious, because it would lead to many Jews committing sins.

It reminds me of the Monty Python skit about the crunchy frog:

Praline: Am I right in thinking there's a real frog in here?

Milton: Yes. A little one.

Praline: What sort of frog?

Milton: A dead frog.

Praline: Is it cooked?

Milton: No.

Praline: What, a raw frog?

(Superintendent Parrot looks increasingly queasy.)

Milton: We use only the finest baby frogs, dew picked and flown from Iraq, cleansed in finest quality spring water, lightly killed, and then sealed in a succulent Swiss quintuple smooth treble cream milk chocolate envelope and lovingly frosted with glucose.

Praline: That's as maybe, it's still a frog.

Milton: What else?

Praline: Well don't you even take the bones out?

Milton: If we took the bones out it wouldn't be crunchy would it?

Praline: Superintendent Parrot ate one of those.

Parrot: Excuse me a moment. (exits hurriedly)

Milton: It says 'crunchy frog' quite clearly.

Praline: Well, the superintendent thought it was an almond whirl. People won't expect there to be a frog in there. They're bound to think it's some form of mock frog.

Milton: (insulted) Mock frog? We use no artificial preservatives or additives of any kind!

Praline: Nevertheless, I must warn you that in future you should delete the words 'crunchy frog', and replace them with the legend 'crunchy raw unboned real dead frog', if you want to avoid prosecution.

Milton: What about our sales?

Praline: I'm not interested in your sales, I have to protect the general public.

By putting a sham procedure in the beginning of their machzor, they are causing the general public to sin.

Furthermore, if it is a sham, how is it that it is meritorious to do it? Why should it be a good, positive thing, to engage on erev Rosh Hashanah in a procedure which does not work, halachically speaking?

As I believe the Rav said: Judaism does not have rituals. A Catholic has rituals. A Jew has mitzvot.

If this is ineffective, it is not a mitzvah. Why should an empty ritual be meritorious?

The answer might be, as they say, that we should view it as just a fancy way of as a means of repentance for the sin of having abused vows.

However, if this is so, why do it in the form of an ineffective hatarat nedarim? Surely this is not the original intent of the ritual. And why should we convene a bet din to say muttar lach? If you want to ask forgiveness, or repent, speak to Hashem and say you are sorry, and actually repent. We have appropriate existing forms for this. We do not need to make use of a sham ceremony, which will work as a stumbling block to the public.

Furthermore, I do not believe that in generations past it was regarded entirely as a sham ceremony. For example, when discussing the laws of hatarat nedarim in general, the Aruch haShulchan mentions that while there might be an injunction against being mattir neder in the same location as your rebbe, this is not the case, for we see on erev Rosh haShanah that people are not makpid on that. One could have said that that is because the hatarat nedarim on erev Rosh haShanah is a sham. But clearly, Aruch haShulchan thought that it was real.

Of course, perhaps that hatarat nedarim in his day did not have the present form, shown in the Artscroll machzor. Or perhaps it did. If it did, then we have to find some explanation for why this hatarat nedarim is not a sham, despite these apparent halachic problems, and particularly despite this last halachic problem.

If, however, the form was different in the days of the Aruch haShulchan, that it is specifically that which it is meritorious to do. Namely, a real, functioning, hataras nedarim. And if you find halachic problems with the present form, you fix it. Put a place for people to list out the specific neder, and so on and so forth. Make it work. Then it will be what people in generations past did on erev Rosh Hashanah. And then it will be meritorious. Until then, it is not meritorious, but just silliness.

In part ii, why lack of pirut haneder on erev Rosh Hashanah does not impede the hatarat nedarim from working, even according to all the Rishonim and Acharonim. Tune in, probably tomorrow.

Note: Don't rely on this series practically. Consult your local Orthodox rabbi.

Purifying The Megillah -- a Kol Koreh

(Note: You can download this kol koreh as a Word document, together with its kol koreh letterhead, here. Further note: Updated URL.)

Recently, a matter of great importance has been brought to our attention. In a few days, Jews across the world will be reading megillas Mordechai in shul, and may chas veshalom stumble in a very serious matter of prohibition.

As we know, we have made great strides this year in preventing any sort of improper hirhur on the part of frum Jewish men, whether by removing sheitel displays, canceling concerts which men and women would have attended separated merely by a mechitza, ensuring that no picture of a female appears in our papers, and more recently, calling attention to the crisis of the Jewish Press carrying sheitel ads.

And yet, on the holy day of Purim, many will gather in shuls and hear the names of two great beauties pronounced, multiple times. This is clearly a problem, for kol beIsha erva, everything about a woman is erva. And not just a picture conveys the woman's beauty but even her name! As we see in Nedarim 66b, Rabbi Yishmael beRabbi Yossi said, שמא שמה נאה, perhaps her name is beautiful? And he concludes that יפה קורין לה לכלוכית שהיא מלוכלכת במומין, that her name, L-chluch-s, was indeed beautiful because it was fitting for her specific traits. And Koheles 7:1 states טוֹב שֵׁם ,מִשֶּׁמֶן טוֹב and Shir Hashirim 1:3 states לְרֵיחַ שְׁמָנֶיךָ טוֹבִים שֶׁמֶן תּוּרַק שְׁמֶךָ עַל-כֵּן, עֲלָמוֹת אֲהֵבוּךָ, that "Thine ointments have a goodly fragrance; thy name is as ointment poured forth; therefore do the maidens love thee."

If a name is attractive, then we should not be simply calling it out for all men to hear, and be attracted by it. Indeed, we see in Megillah 15a that there is a dispute about the hirhur caused by repeating the name of Rach-v, the wife of Yehoshua, because she was so beautiful. And the same gemara states תנו רבנן ארבע נשים יפיפיות היו בעולם שרה [רחב ואביגיל] ואסתר ולמאן דאמר אסתר ירקרוקת היתה מפיק אסתר ומעייל ושתי, linking Rach-v with Esth-r or V-shti in terms of beauty.

The solution should be to ban the names Esth-r and V-shti from our reading of megillas Mordechai. We have groggers, which we already use to obliterate the name Haman. Let us do the same for Esth-r and V-shti (and also Z-resh), in order to make our megillah-reading all the more holy and desired by Hashem.

Nedarim 82a: Does Proximity Affect Girsology? And Did Rav Yehuda cite Rav or Shmuel?

From my translation of Rif on Nedarim 82a-b:

{Nedarim 82a}

אמר שמואל משמיה דלוי כל הנדרים בעל מפר לאשתו חוץ מן הנאתי על פלוני שאינו מפר
אבל הנאת פלוני עלי מפר

{Nedarim 82b}

א"ר יהודה אמר שמואל נדרה משתי ככרות מאחת מתענה ומאחת אינה מתענה מתוך שמפר למתענה מפר לאינה מתענ' ורב אסי א"ר יוחנן מפר למתענה ואינו מפר לשאינה מתענה

Shmuel said in the name of Levi: All vows, a husband annuls for his wife, except for "my benefit upon Ploni," which he cannot annul. But "the benefit of Ploni {should be forbidden} upon me," he can annul.

Rav Yehuda cited Shmuel {our gemara: Rav}: If she vowed off two loaves, one of which involves self-denial and one which does not involve self-denial {e.g. if one was of fine flour and one was of course flour}, since he can annul in respect of that which causes self-denial, he can also annul in respect of the one which does not cause self-denial.
And Rav Assi cited Rabbi Yochanan: He may annul the one causing self-denial, but may not annul the one which does not cause self-denial.

Rav Yehuda often cites Rav and often cites Shmuel, and this is a pretty frequent girsological variant -- whether he cites Rav or Shmuel. Sometimes this makes a practical halachic difference -- in terms of whether we rule like him over a different Amora, or whether we draw consistent opinions within Rav or Shmuel.

This is an interesting instance, though. Besides substituting Shmuel for Rav, Rif also trims a section of gemara which is not lehalacha, immediately before. This brings the earlier statement, which was Levi citing Shmuel, into a much nearer proximity. In turn, this might influence a sofer's error in substituting Shmuel for Rav, assuming Rav Yehuda citing Rav was the original text. In our gemara, there is a moderate amount of material separating the two statements, such that such a slip of the quill would be less likely.

I wonder if we can establish this as a consistent occurrence, using more than just anecdotal evidence. If so, it can serve as a useful tool in identifying girsological variants, both within a single text which has a proximate matching name, and where we have different texts with greater distance between statements. Perhaps someone has already done such a study, manually. If I had the time, I might design the following experiment. (Because I take an interest in computational girsology.) Take a corpus of text from Bavli, and a corpus of parallel text drawn from Rif. Align the two texts. Find each name substitution (=girsological variant) and within each text, measure the distance to the nearest occurrence of that name, and see if there is a tendency to echo the more proximate name. (Of course, not only names influence other names. I have seen things akin to the word שמא influencing the introduction of שמואל.)

a

Nedarim 72b: Is Rami bar Chama's Question Resolved, Or Not?

From my Rif translation:

{Nedarim 72b}
Mishna:

דרך תלמידי חכמים עד שלא היתה בתו יוצאת מביתו אומר לה כל נדרים שנדרת בתוך ביתי הרי הן מופרין
וכן הבעל עד שלא תכנס לרשותו אומר לה כל נדרים שנדרת עד שלא תכנסי לרשותי הרי הן מופרין אם משתכנס לרשותו אינו יכול להפר

IT IS THE PRACTICE OF TORAH SCHOLARS THAT BEFORE HIS DAUGHTER DEPARTS FROM HIS HOUSE {in marriage = nisiun}, HE SAYS TO HER, "ALL THE VOWS WHICH YOU VOWED IN MY HOUSE ARE ANNULLED."
LIKEWISE THE HUSBAND, BEFORE SHE ENTERS INTO HIS CONTROL WOULD SAY TO HER, "ALL VOWS WHICH YOU VOWED BEFORE YOU ENTERED INTO MY DOMAIN ARE ANNULLED," BECAUSE ONCE SHE ENTERS INTO HIS CONTROL HE CANNOT ANNUL THEM.
Gemara:

בעי רמי בר חמא בעל מהו שיפר בלא שמיעה ושמע אישה דוקא או לאו דוקא
ובעיין לא אפשיטא

Rami bar Chama inquired: Her husband, may he annul without hearing? Is "and her husband heard it" exact {and thus required} or not?
And our question is not resolved.
{Therefore we would act stringently.}

If we actually examine the gemara, we see that Rava responds to Rami bar Chama's query based on the Mishna. To cite a fuller translation from Soncino:

Rami b. Hama propounded: Can a husband annul [a vow] without hearing [it]: is, and her husband heard it, expressly stated, or not — Said Raba: Come and hear: IT IS THE PRACTICE OF SCHOLARS, BEFORE THE DAUGHTER OF ONE OF THEM DEPARTS FROM HIM, TO DECLARE TO HER, 'ALL THE VOWS WHICH THOU DIDST VOW IN MY HOUSE ARE ANNULLED'. But he did not hear them! — Only when he hears them does he annul them. If so, why make a declaration before he hears? — He [the Tanna] informs us this: that it is the practice of scholars to go over such matters. Come and hear, from the second clause: LIKEWISE THE HUSBAND, BEFORE SHE ENTERS INTO HIS CONTROL, WOULD SAY TO HER [etc.]! — Here too it means that he said, 'When I hear them.'

So Rava gives a very compelling answer from the Mishna. This give and take which follows is typical of the style of the anonymous setama digmara which tries to find ways to argue the other side. But if it is indeed post-Talmudic, and Ravina and Rav Ashi are sof horaah, we should not say that this is an unresolved question, with all the halachic implications. Furthermore, I find the push-off extremely weak. Specifically, how can the gemara say:

Come and hear, from the second clause: LIKEWISE THE HUSBAND, BEFORE SHE ENTERS INTO HIS CONTROL, WOULD SAY TO HER [etc.]! — Here too it means that he said, 'When I hear them.'

when the end of that second clause is "BECAUSE ONCE SHE ENTERS INTO HIS CONTROL HE CANNOT ANNUL THEM?" It would seem that the annulment would only apply at the hour he heard, even though he already has fulfilled the making of the pronouncement. But if it is only chal once she enters his domain, it is extremely difficult, IMHO, to say that he says this to her because he no longer has the power to annul once she enters his domain. There are, of course, possible answers (e.g. some argument about it applying limafreia once he hears later), but one can always offer false teirutzim to justify even that which is not true.

Daf Yomi Nedarim 62: Sold for Flame, Or to a Fire-Temple?

From Nedarim 62, from my Rif translation:

רב אשי ה"ל ההוא אבא זבניה לנורא
א"ל רבינא לר"א והא איכא לפני עור לא תתן מכשול
א"ל רוב עצים להסקה ניתנו:

Rav Ashi had a forest which he sold for flame. {Our gemara: a fire-temple.}
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But there is the injunction of "place not a stumbling-block before a blind man."
He said to him: Most wood is for heating {rather than idolatry}.

It seems to me there is a potentially great halachic difference which could come out of these variant girsaot. If as our gemara, that he sold it to a Bei Nura, a fire-temple, then this would be permission even for this, for even they might well use it not for their idolatry. If it is just Nura, as the Rif seems to have it, then this is not necessarily permission to sell it to a temple which specifically often makes use of exactly this for their idolatry. Perhaps the idea was that one could sell firewood to the general populace, because even though there are probably some fire-worshipers out there, who is to say that you sold it to one. And only in such a situation would it not be an issue of lifnei iver. Perhaps.

Daf Yomi Nedarim 57a: Kfar Yama vs. Kfar Dima; Uprooted vs Stock

From my Rif blog:

ישמעאל איש כפר ימא ואמרי לה כפר דימא העלה בידו בצל שעקרו בשביעית ונטעו בשמינית ורבו גידולין על עקרו והכי קא מיבעיא ליה

Yishmael, resident of Kefar Yama, and some say, of Kefar Dima, brought in his hands {or perhaps idiomatically, propounded} an onion which was uprooted in the 7th year {shemitta} and planted in the 8th, and its growth was more than its stock, and this was his question...

Some say, as I often say, is always a girsological variant, and we should look to textual problems to explain and possibly resolve them. The difference between כפר ימא and כפר דימא is a single letter, the daled, and that daled is similar to the resh which precedes it, in form. We can thus understand how the daled could have been accidentally deleted, or accidentally introduced.

I am unsure how to translate שעקרו. I follow Soncino who wrote "that has been pulled up." But I wonder because of the letter גידולין על עקרו. Perhaps שעקרו means that "its stock was" {or "its stock developed} in the 7th year. And it stayed planted into the 8th. But then of course we would expect ונטעו to be an actual action, which would mean that it was uprooted before. First I lean one way, then I lean the other, and finally I chicken out and follow Soncino.

Daf Yomi Nedarim 55a: Nehar Pakod or Nehar Pania? Or Harpania?

In Nedarim 55a, from my Rif translation:

בר מר שמואל פקיד דליתנון תריסר אלפי זוזי מעללתא דנהר פקוד לרבא

The son of Mar Shmuel ordered that thirteen thousand zuz worth of alalta {=the Aramaic equivalent of tevuah} from Nehar Pekod {our gemara: Nehar Pania} should be given to Rava.

Based on the principle of lectio difficilior, it would seem that Nehar Pania, as we have in our gemara, is correct and original. We know Nehar Pekod from elsewhere. It appears 15 times in Babli (10 times as miNehar Pekod, and 5 times as deNhar Pekod), and twice in Yerushalmi (as miNehar Pekod, in the same fascinating story). It most likely crept into the text here as accidental repetition of the earlier verb פקיד, and was a known and recognized place.

Soncino tells us a bit about Nehar Pania:

[Harpania, a rich agricultural town in the Mesene district S. of Babylon situated on a hill and canal. Obermeyer (op. cit.) p. 198ff.]

It seems that he is interpreting this as without the nun. Just Harpania. We find mention of Harpania elsewhere, in Nedarim daf 17a:

יתיב רב המנונא קמיה דעולא וקא הוי בשמעתא אמר מה גברא ומה גברא אי לאו דהרפניא מאתיה אכסיף א"ל כסף גלגלתא להיכא יהבת א"ל לפום נהרא א"ל א"כ מפום נהרא את
מאי הרפניא אמר ר' זירא הר שהכל פונין בו במתניתא תנא כל שאין מכיר משפחתו ושבטו נפנה לשם
אמר רבא והיא עמוקה משאול שנאמר (הושע יג) מיד שאול אפדם ממות אגאלם ואילו פסול דידהו לית להו תקנתא פסולי דהרפניא משום פסולי דמישון ופסולי דמישון משום פסולי דתרמוד פסולי דתרמוד משום עבדי שלמה והיינו דאמרי אינשי קבא רבא וקבא זוטא מיגנדר ואזיל לשאול ומשאול לתרמוד ומתרמוד למישן וממישן להרפניא:

R. Hamnuna sat before 'Ulla and was engaged in discussing a traditional law when the latter remarked, 'What a man! And how much more important would he have been had not Harpania been his [native] town'! As the other was embarrassed, he said to him, 'Where do you pay poll tax'? — 'To Pum Nahara', the other replied. 'If so', 'Ulla said, 'You belong to Pum Nahara'.
What [is the meaning of] Harpania? — R. Zera replied: A mountain whither everybody turns. In a Baraitha it was taught: Whosoever did not know his family and his tribe made his way thither. Raba said: And it was deeper than the nether-world, for in the Scripture it is said, I shall ransom them from the power of the nether-world; I shall redeem them from death, but for the unfitness of these there is no remedy at all; the unfit of Harpania on account of the unfit of Meshan, and the unfit of Meshan on account of the unfit of Tarmod, and the unfit of Tarmod on account of the slaves of Solomon. Thus it is that people say, 'The small kab and the big kab roll down to the nether-world, from the netherworld to Tarmod, from Tarmod to Meshan, and from Meshan to Harpania.

If so, perhaps to make Nehar Pania work, we would have to drop the nun of nehar as well as the space between the words.

Daf Yomi Nedarim 53a: The Common Local Oil As Min haMuvchar

As discussed in a previous post about what oil, wax candles, and min hamuvchar, the gemara in Shabbat 23a reads:

א"ר יהושע בן לוי כל השמנים כולן יפין לנר ושמן זית מן המובחר אמר אביי מריש הוה מהדר מר אמשחא דשומשמי אמר האי משך נהורי טפי כיון דשמע לה להא דרבי יהושע בן לוי מהדר אמשחא דזיתא אמר האי צליל נהוריה

R. Joshua b. Levi said: All oils are fit for the Hanukkah lamp, but olive oil is of the best. Abaye observed: At first the Master [Rabbah] used to seek poppy-seed {/sesame} oil, saying, The light of this is more lasting; but when he heard this [dictum] of R. Joshua b. Levi, he was particular for olive oil, saying, This yields a clearer light.

Before considering justifications of each practice as locally proclaimed in the gemara Shabbat (both reasons being offered by Rabba), there is perhaps another factor in play. And this is what we find in our local gemara in Nedarim, 53a:

תניא הנודר מן השמן בארץ ישראל מותר בשמן שומשומין ואסור בשמן זית ובבבל אסור בשמן שומשמין ומותר בשמן זית

מקום שמסתפקין מזה ומזה אסור בזה ובזה
פשיטא
לא צריכא דרובא מסתפקין בחד מנהון מהו דתימא ניזל בתר רובא
קמ"ל ספק איסורא לחומרא

They learnt {in a brayta}: If one vowed from oil, in Eretz Yisrael, he is permitted sesame oil and forbidden olive oil. And in Bavel he is forbidden sesame oil and permitted olive oil.
In a place where they are both commonly used, he is forbidden in this and that.

Thus, according to this brayta, what was commonly called "oil," based on what was commonly used, was dependent on locale. In Bavel, shemen shumshemin, or sesame or poppy-seed oil, was commonly used. In Eretz Yisrael, shemen zayit, or olive oil, was commonly used. And this is a brayta, which is Tannaitic.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi was a fairly early Amora, and was based in Eretz Yisrael. His preference was this classic Eretz Yisrael preference. Rabba was later, and was an Amora of Bavel. He initially had the Babylonian preference, but switched based on this dictum, and reanalysis as to the best quality of the oil.

Interesting.

Yonah And The Goldfish

In Daf Yomi Nedarim daf 51b, we just encountered an interesting gemara. It reads as follows:

It was taught: R. Simeon b. Eleazar said: [If he vows] '[Konam. If I taste] fish [day],' he is forbidden large ones but permitted small ones '[Konam] if I taste dagah,' he is forbidden small ones, but permitted large ones. '[Konam,] if I taste dag [and] dagah,' he is forbidden both large and small ones. R. Papa said to Abaye: How do we know that '[Konam, If I taste] dag' implies large ones only? because it is written, Now the Lord had prepared a great fish [dag] to swallow up Jonah? But is it not written, Then Jonah prayed onto the Lord his God out of the fish's [dagah] belly? This is no difficulty: perhaps he was vomited forth by the large fish and swallowed again by a smaller one. But [what of the verse] And the fish [dagah] that was in the river died? did only the small fish die, not the large? — Hence dagah implies both large and small, but in vows human speech is followed.

The nature of Rav Pappa's prooftext is interesting, and should be investigated. But first we shall consider the gemara's question and answer. Rav Pappa's prooftext is Yonah 2:1, which reads:

א וַיְמַן ה דָּג גָּדוֹל, לִבְלֹעַ אֶת-יוֹנָה; וַיְהִי יוֹנָה בִּמְעֵי הַדָּג, שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה לֵילוֹת.

1 And the LORD prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah; and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

and specifically, the first part of the pasuk mentioning the dag -- וַיְמַן ה דָּג גָּדוֹל, לִבְלֹעַ אֶת-יוֹנָה, but the second part of the verse is not explicitly cited, even though it mentions dag.

The gemara counters that the next verse reads:

ב וַיִּתְפַּלֵּל יוֹנָה, אֶל-ה אֱלֹהָיו, מִמְּעֵי, הַדָּגָה.

2 Then Jonah prayed unto the LORD his God out of the fish's belly.

and thus that he was in a daga, such that dag as large fish is not exclusive.

The gemara's response is that "This is no difficulty: perhaps he was vomited forth by the large fish and swallowed again by a smaller one."

There are three difficulties with the gemara's response here. Firstly, it is far-fetched to claim that he was vomited and reswallowed by another fish. Secondly, at the very end of the perek, we see:

יא וַיֹּאמֶר ה, לַדָּג; וַיָּקֵא אֶת-יוֹנָה, אֶל-הַיַּבָּשָׁה. {פ}

11 And the LORD spoke unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.

which means that the fish that vomited him upon dry land was a dag and not a daga. OK, you could once again say that there was a further vomiting out and reswallowing, but this is getting more and more forced. But the third, and most difficult problem is how they define a big fish vs. a big fish.

The brayta, after all, is discussing one who takes a vow not to eat dag, or not to eat daga. Small fish are small fish one would eat. Think herring, or goldfish. Large fish are large fish. Think carp, or think larger fish than that.

By definition, any fish capable of swallowing a man whole is a large fish. So it does not make any sense to say that a large fish first swallowed Yonah, then vomited him out, and then a small fish swallowed him. That "small" fish would have to be large enough to swallow Yonah, and thus would be a large fish. One is forced to say, if one wishes to salvage this answer of the gemara, that the terms are being used in a relative sense. But that does not really work well with the setup of the gemara.

Rather, one need not wait until the disproof from the fish of the Nile dying in the plague of blood for a disproof. The first is quite sufficient, and the setma digmara is perhaps overanalyzing Rav Pappa's proof.

Indeed, as with the conclusion of the gemara, it all goes after lashon benei adam. However, the impression one gets from the conclusion is that Rav Pappa's proof is rejected entirely. This need not be so. Rather, we may read it just as we did earlier in the gemara, where there was an argument about whether bishul encompasses tzli, with an accompanying prooftext from II Divrei Hayamim, where they "cooked" the Pesach, where clearly it meant they roasted it. As the gemara noted there, the basis for the dispute was not whether one follows Biblical or human speech patterns, but rather the verse was a mere asmachta, a hinting support, but not a real basis. We might say a similar thing for Rav Pappa's proof.

Indeed, Rav Pappa's proof is not as ambitious as it seems to have been taken. If we read him closely, he is only bringing a prooftext that dag means a large fish. He says nothing about the meaning / implication of daga. True, they are set up in the brayta as opposite one another, but all Rav Pappa said to Abaye was that he had a proof that dag meant large fish. And especially as it was an asmachta bealma, counterproofs from daga are not relevant.

When discussing this with my father-in-law and with my brother-in-law, both of course knew the pasuk by heart, but both independently came up with a suggestion as to the nature of Rav Pappa's proof. And that was that the pasuk states:

א וַיְמַן ה דָּג גָּדוֹל, לִבְלֹעַ אֶת-יוֹנָה; וַיְהִי יוֹנָה בִּמְעֵי הַדָּג, שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה לֵילוֹת.

1 And the LORD prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah; and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

And the pasuk specifically chose the adjective גָּדוֹל to associate with the noun דָּג. Thus, a support that dag is associated with the large variety. Of course, one can counter that the fact that it was necessary to place the adjective there shows that dag need not refer to large fish, but at any rate, this is likely the basis of Rav Pappa's derasha. And it need not even bother us, if the rules of derash do not allow for this objection, or especially if it was intended as an asmachta bealma. Meanwhile, while the next pasuk does indeed refer to daga, it does not say it is a dagah gedolah. If so, there is no basis for objection. There is often such a chasm between the words of the Amoraim and the words of the setama digmara.

This idea of transfer from large fish to smaller fish is not unique to this possibly rejected explanation in the setama digmara. It also occurs, in different form, in Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer. Instead of focusing on large vs. small fish, it looks as the masculine vs. feminine and interprets it as male fish followed by female fish. Now if this was really from Rabbi Eliezer, then we have pre-Talmudic precedent to bolster the otherwise somewhat forced interpretation. But if it is actually, as dated, a post-Talmudic work, then perhaps this midrash was inspired, in part, by this back-and-forth in our gemara. (But perhaps this idea is mentioned in other midrashim as well? It is at the least inspired by the shift in the words in the pasuk.)

The gemara, and Rav Pappa's proof aside, what are we to make of this shift in language from dag to daga? We might say it is no big deal, and a switch from one to another should not be considered, from a peshat perspective. Alternatively, we might make something of it. Note that we could make a nice transition from the first pasuk of perek 2 to the last pasuk of perek 2:

א וַיְמַן ה דָּג גָּדוֹל, לִבְלֹעַ אֶת-יוֹנָה; וַיְהִי יוֹנָה בִּמְעֵי הַדָּג, שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה לֵילוֹת.

1 And the LORD prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah; and Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.

יא וַיֹּאמֶר ה, לַדָּג; וַיָּקֵא אֶת-יוֹנָה, אֶל-הַיַּבָּשָׁה. {פ}

11 And the LORD spoke unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land. {P}

If we omit everything in between, then even without Yonah's prayers, it was Hashem's plan all along to spare Yonah. Note that in both pasuk 1 and in pasuk 11 the fish is referred to using masculine singular, dag. In pasuk 1, twice, and in pasuk 11, once.

Meanwhile, the middle section reads like a perek of Tehillim. And like many perakim in Tehillim, there is a tenuous, or absent, connection between the designation of mizmor and the situation in which it was authored on the one hand, and the actual content on the other.

This certainly seems to hold true here. Sure, there are aspects that connote being swallowed by a fish, but not exactly. We have מִבֶּטֶן שְׁאוֹל which has mibeten, but Sheol is not exact. Pasuk 4 certainly holds true: וַתַּשְׁלִיכֵנִי מְצוּלָה בִּלְבַב יַמִּים, וְנָהָר יְסֹבְבֵנִי; כָּל-מִשְׁבָּרֶיךָ וְגַלֶּיךָ, עָלַי עָבָרוּ. And so does pasuk 6: אֲפָפוּנִי מַיִם עַד-נֶפֶשׁ, תְּהוֹם יְסֹבְבֵנִי; סוּף, חָבוּשׁ לְרֹאשִׁי. But pasuk 7, not so much: לְקִצְבֵי הָרִים יָרַדְתִּי, הָאָרֶץ בְּרִחֶיהָ בַעֲדִי לְעוֹלָם; וַתַּעַל מִשַּׁחַת חַיַּי, ה אֱלֹהָי. What is the pit? And if it is metaphorical, how do we know the rest is not also metaphorical, just like it is in a number of other perakim which occur in Tehillim? More problematic are the pasukim that suggest he has already been saved. שָׁמַעְתָּ קוֹלִי in pasuk 3 and וַתַּעַל מִשַּׁחַת חַיַּי in pasuk 7. There is midrash, in Talmud Yerushalmi 5:1, that explains that Yonah was the son of the widow of Tzorfat whom Yonah brought back to like, and this deals handily with interpreting these pesukim as Yonah already having been saved. Alternatively, it hooks in quite well with the midrash that there was transference from one fish to the other.

Or alternatively, this is the style of such Biblical poetic prayers. Regardless, this is a poem / prayer attributed to Yonah in such a situation. And so, we might suggest, the author inserted this second (earlier?) source in the narrative, together with the poem's attribution. And that attribution had the slightly different designation for the fish, namely daga, which was of course not modified.

Daf Yomi Nedarim 39b: His Illness Converges Towards Zero

Nedarim 39b, translation from my Rif blog:

ת"ר) ר' אחא ב"ר חנינא אומר כל המבקר את החולה נוטל אחד מששים מצערו
א"ל אביי א"כ לעיילו שתין ולוקמוהו
א"ל כעישורייתא דבי רבי ובבן גילו

(* The Sages learnt {in a brayta} *) R' Acha {our gemara: Abba} son of R' Chanina says: Anyone who visits a sill person takes away 1/60th of his suffering.
Abaye said {our gemara does not attribute this to Abaye}: If so, let 60 people enter and restore him!
He said to him: This is like the tenth of the house of Rabbi, and specifically someone of the same age {or under the same planetary influence}.
{in which each takes 1/60th of the remainder}

With the original assumption, if each took away 1/60th of the total, after 60 people, there would be no more illness, or else no more tzaar, left.

But even if one each one took 1/60th of the remainder, this would seem to be quite effective. With a quick calculation in Excel (put 100 in A1, in cell A2 type the formula =A1-(1/60)*A1, and then drag that formula down), we can see that after 60 visitors, the sick person would have only 36.5% left. After 100 visitors, he would have only 18.6% left. After 137 visitors, he would only have 10% left. After 200 visitors, he would have only 3.4% left. And finally, after 244 visitors, he would have 1.66% left, which is 1/60th of his illness. He would get to 1% of his illness after 274 visitors.

It will never reach 0, but it certainly converges towards that. And thus stands up to this numeric reduction. So why does the gemara not enter this rejoinder?

Perhaps it does, in also adding "and with his ben gilo," thus talking about a difficult situation to engineer. Perhaps that is what compelled it, rather than it being an alternate rejoinder.