NEDARIM 83 (30 Av) - Today's study material has been dedicated by Al and Sophie Ziegler of Har Nof, Yerushalayim, in honor of the Yahrzeit of Al's father, Bernard B. Ziegler - Binyamin Baruch ben Avraham (and Miryam), which occurs on 30 Menachem Av.



WHAT ARE VOWS OF INUY NEFESH? [Nedarim: Inuy Nefesh]




79a (Mishnah): The following vows may be annulled: vows of Inuy Nefesh (affliction), e.g. 'if I will wash, or not'; 'If I will adorn myself, or not'.


R. Yosi says, these are not vows of Inuy.


Question: What is the case of her vow 'if I will wash...'?


Answer: She said 'the pleasure of washing is permanently forbidden to me if I bathe today.'


R. Yosi holds that not washing for one day is not considered becoming so repulsive. It is not grounds to allow annulment.


Question: Do Chachamim really hold that not bathing (for one day) is Inuy?


Contradiction (Beraisa): Even though one must observe all the Inuyim of Yom Kipur, one is Chayav Kares only for eating, drinking, or doing labor.


If not bathing is Inuy, one should be Chayav Kares for bathing! (It says "whoever will not afflict himself will get Kares"!)


Answer (Rava): Not bathing is sometimes considered Inuy, depending on the context. Regarding Yom Kipur, it says "you will afflict your souls." This is Inuy that is felt now (the same day). One who does not bathe does not feel Inuy until later.


Regarding vows, it says "every vow... to afflict the soul." This refers to something that will come to afflict. This includes not bathing.


81a - Question: R. Yosi says that they are not vows of affliction. Does he hold that they may be annulled, for they are between them?


Answer #1 (Rav Ada bar Ahavah): They may be annulled.


Answer #2 (Rav Huna): They may not be annulled. Since her husband is used to her, no damage will result if she does not bathe.


83b: Refraining from becoming Tamei is Inuy. (Since she cannot bury others, no one will bury her.)




The Rif and Rosh (11:1) bring Rav Yehudah's answer (in their text, Rava said it).


Rosh: The Rambam** says that the Halachah follows Chachamim against an individual. Also, the Amora'im hold like them. Rav Huna said that our entire Perek is like R. Yosi, i.e. it is as if he explicitly authored the Mishnayos. They are not considered Stam Mishnayos. Therefore, even a vow not to bathe or adorn for one day is Inuy Nefesh, and he can annul it. The Ramban** says that adornment and Bi'ah are matters between them. Perhaps this is because Rav Ada bar Ahavah and Rav Huna argue according to R. Yosi, and a Beraisa supports Rav Ada. This is not such a proof. Rava asked whether Chachamim consider Bi'ah to be Inuy or matters between them. We tried to settle this from a Mishnah. This was rejected, for our entire Perek is R. Yosi. Therefore, the Halachah follows Chachamim.


Note: The Korban Nesan'el (10, 50), Shach (YD 234:73) and Gra (273:116) all say that the text is mistaken. The first time, the Rosh cites the Ramban. The second time, he cites the Rambam.


Rambam (Hilchos Nedarim 12:1): A husband can annul only vows of Inuy Nefesh, or matters between them, e.g. she vowed or swore not to color her eyes or adorn herself. It says "Bein Ish l'Ishto".


Rambam (4): A husband can annul vows of Inuy, whether it is a big or small Inuy, whether it is for a long or short time.


Mishneh l'Melech: Beis Yakov (152) infers from the Gemara that less than one day is not called Inuy. The Rambam refutes him. He says that even for a short time is Inuy! A vow not to bathe today is called Inuy, even though this forbids only until nightfall (60a)!


Rambam (5): If she vowed or swore not to bathe today, or not to drink wine or eat honey today, or not to color her eyes or wear decorative clothing today, he can annul. The same applies to all similar cases. Even if she vowed not to eat a bad food or a food that she never tasted, he can annul it.




Shulchan Aruch (YD 234:59): The following are Inuy Nefesh: bathing, adorning, coloring the eyes, and dying hair. E.g. if she swore not to bathe or adorn, or she said 'pleasure of bathing or adorning is forbidden to me if I will bathe or adorn.'


Beis Yosef (DH v'Da): The Rosh and Ran rule like Chachamim. The Rosh says that the Ramban rules like R. Yosi. The Rambam (12:1) calls coloring eyes and adornment matters between them, like R. Yosi, but he calls bathing Inuy Nefesh like Chachamim! Perhaps he explains that R. Yosi argues only about adornment. R. Yosi said 'these are not vows of Inuy' because there are many kinds of adornment. Alternatively, he includes vows and oaths.


Shulchan Aruch (ibid.): Even if her vow was contingent on bathing or adorning today, and she could avoid doing so today and not become forbidden, it is Inuy Nefesh. This is even if the vow is only for one day.


Gra (115): The Ran (80b DH Ela) says that in the conclusion, we need not say that the vow was contingent on not bathing today. However, the Gemara never retracted from saying that one day of abstention is Inuy.


Shulchan Aruch (ibid.): Some say that bathing and adorning are matters between them.


Bach (DH u'Mah she'Chosav): All agree that bathing is Inuy Nefesh! The text of the Shulchan Aruch is mistaken. It should say 'some say that coloring eyes and adorning are matters between them.'


Rebuttal #1 (Shach 73 and Taz 49): The Shulchan Aruch cites the Ramban's opinion, brought in the Rosh, who rules like R. Yosi. He did not bring the Rambam's opinion, for it is difficult.


Shach: However, the text of the Rosh, who says that the Ramban rules like R. Yosi, is wrong. Earlier, the Rosh brought the Ramban's proofs that the Halachah follows Chachamim! Rather, the text of the Rosh should say that the Rambam rules like R. Yosi, i.e. and the Rambam holds that bathing is Inuy Nefesh.


Imrei Binah: Even though the Rosh says in the name of the Ramban only that adornment and Bi'ah are matters between them, the Beis Yosef understood that since he rules like R. Yosi, the same applies to bathing. The Shach proves that the text must say Rambam. The Rambam rules like R. Yosi only regarding adornment, but not regarding bathing. The Ramban rules like Chachamim. Both the Shach and Bach hold that all Rishonim rule that bathing is Inuy Nefesh. However, the Bach says that our text of the Shulchan Aruch is mistaken. The Shach says that our text is right; the Shulchan Aruch erred due to his mistaken text of the Rosh.


Rebuttal #2 (Gra 117): Our text of the Shulchan Aruch is correct. The text of the Rambam (12:1) must be changed to say that bathing (in place of coloring eyes) and adorning are Inuy Nefesh. The Gemara (81a) explicitly says that R. Yosi holds that even bathing is not Inuy Nefesh!

Other Halachos relevant to this Daf: