Rabbi Yossi's Reach
Nedarim 89
Way back at the beginning of the eleventh perek of Nedarim, a curious Mishnah had first a Tanna Kamma, then a Rabbi Yossi omer and finally closed with divrei Rabbi Yossi. Thus Nedarim 79a-b:
וְאֵלּוּ נְדָרִים שֶׁהוּא מֵפֵר: דְּבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ: ״אִם אֶרְחַץ״ וְ״אִם לֹא אֶרְחַץ״, ״אִם אֶתְקַשֵּׁט״ וְ״אִם לֹא אֶתְקַשֵּׁט״.
MISHNA:
And these are the vows that he, the husband or father, can nullify: The first category consists of matters that involve affliction for the woman who took the vow. For example, if a woman vowed: If I bathe, or: If I do not bathe; if she vowed: If I adorn myself [etkashet], or: If I do not adorn myself.
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֵין אֵלּוּ נִדְרֵי עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ.
וְאֵלּוּ הֵן נִדְרֵי עִנּוּי נֶפֶשׁ: אָמְרָה ״קוּנָּם פֵּירוֹת הָעוֹלָם עָלַי״ — הֲרֵי זֶה יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. ״פֵּירוֹת מְדִינָה זוֹ עָלַי״ — יָבִיא לָהּ מִמְּדִינָה אַחֶרֶת. ״פֵּירוֹת חֶנְווֹנִי זֶה עָלַי״ — אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר. וְאִם לֹא הָיְתָה פַּרְנָסָתוֹ אֶלָּא מִמֶּנּוּ — הֲרֵי זֶה יָפֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.
Rabbi Yosei said: These are not vows of affliction.
Rather, these are vows of affliction: For example, if she said: The produce of the entire world is konam for me as if it were an offering, he can nullify the vow, as it certainly involves affliction. If, however, she said: The produce of this country is konam for me, he cannot nullify the vow, as it does not involve affliction, since he may still bring her produce from another country. Similarly, if she said: The produce of this storekeeper is konam for me, he cannot nullify her vow, as he may still bring her produce from another storekeeper. But if he can obtain his sustenance only from him, that particular storekeeper, he can nullify the vow. This is the statement of Rabbi Yosei.
Because of the strangeness of a both starting and ending with attribution to Rabbi Yossi, Rav Huna proffered a novel position — that our entire perek of Mishnayot, from here on in, is Rabbi Yossi, and that was the point of the strange construction. Thus, on Nedarim 82a:
דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: כּוּלֵּיהּ פִּירְקִין רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא. מִמַּאי — כֵּיוָן דְּקָתָנֵי: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר אֵין אֵלּוּ נִדְרֵי עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ, לְמָה לֵיהּ תּוּ לְמִיתְנֵא ״הֲרֵי זֶה יָפֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא.
As Rav Huna said: Our entire chapter is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. From where do we know this? Since the mishna teaches: Rabbi Yosei says that these are not vows of affliction, why does it need to teach further, at the end of the mishna: He can nullify the vow; this is the statement of Rabbi Yosei? Learn from this that from this point forward, the rest of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. Accordingly, this mishna teaches us only the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, not that of the Rabbis.
If I might offer an alternative… Look in Ketubot 71a, where a Mishnah or perhaps a brayta, accounts for a different version of what I labelled #1 and #2 above:
וְסָבַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּעֲנִיּוּת שֶׁלֹּא נָתַן קִצְבָה, אַלְמָא בַּעַל מָצֵי מֵיפַר? וּרְמִינְהוּ:
אֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהַבַּעַל מֵיפֵר: דְּבָרִים שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶן עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ, ״אִם אֶרְחַץ״, ״אִם לֹא אֶרְחַץ״. ״אִם אֶתְקַשֵּׁט״, ״אִם לֹא אֶתְקַשֵּׁט״. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: אֵין אֵלּוּ נִדְרֵי עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ, וְאֵלּוּ הֵן נִדְרֵי עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ: ״שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל בָּשָׂר״, וְ״שֶׁלֹּא אֶשְׁתֶּה יַיִן״, וְ״שֶׁלֹּא אֶתְקַשֵּׁט בְּבִגְדֵי צִבְעוֹנִין״!
Since the mishna has been explained as a case where the wife vowed and her husband ratified it, the Gemara asks about a different issue:
And does Rabbi Yosei hold, for poor women, that when he did not establish a set amount of time for the vow he must divorce her? This means that apparently, a husband can nullify a wife’s vow not to adorn herself. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from a different mishna (Nedarim 79a):
These are the cases of a wife’s vow that the husband may nullify: Cases of vows that involve affliction, such as when the woman says: If I bathe, I forbid myself to benefit from it; or if she says: If I do not bathe, i.e., she vows not to bathe at all; or she vows: If I adorn myself; or vows: If I do not adorn myself, all of which cause her to suffer.
Rabbi Yosei said: These are not vows of affliction, which the husband may nullify, but rather, these, i.e., the following, are vows of affliction: Such as when she vows that I will not eat meat, or that I will not drink wine, or even that I will not adorn myself with colored garments, as not wearing colored garments can cause shame to her as well as to her husband. But vows that affect her alone are not considered vows of affliction.
This version has a more expansive version of #2, Rabbi Yossi’s position. He gives other concrete items such as eating meat and wine, and instead of plain adorning, adorning with colored garments. And #3 doesn’t appear here, even though it was seemingly the continuation of Rabbi Yossi’s opinion in the Mishnah.
As an aside, the way the Mishnah in our Yerushalmi is divided, #1 and #2 go together, and #3 is a separate Mishnah.
What likely happened is that these were two separate Tannaitic sources involving Rabbi Yossi, and the Mishnaic redactor, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, spliced these two sources (#1 and #2 as one source, and #3 as another source) together to form the unified Mishnah. As a way of indicating that this splice happened, so as not to obscure the sources or process, he left in both attributions.
There are a few interesting things about these latter attributions that I will note, but some of which I cannot adequately explain.
First is that while second-generation Rav Huna, of Sura, goes with this explanation, third generation, Rav Yosef, of the competing academy of Pumpedita, doesn’t necessarily adopt this. Thus, in the gemara associated with that Mishnah on Nedarim 79, on Nedarim 82a, they pose a contradiction to something Shmuel citing Levi said, and Rav Yosef’s explanation doesn’t rely on it being Rabbi Yossi. Thus, אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: דְּקָאָמְרָה שֶׁתָּבִיא. This is strange since the attribution to Rabbi Yossi is explicit in our Mishnah.
Second is that on 82b, twice the answer is given based on Rav Huna that our Mishnah is Rabbi Yossi, because of the doubled attribution and thus the span begins there. This is incredibly strange to say, because they are discussing לֹא הָיְתָה פַּרְנָסָתוֹ אֶלָּא מִמֶּנּוּ — הֲרֵי זֶה יָפֵר, which is explicitly attributed in our Mishnah to Rabbi Yossi, as divrei Rabbi Yossi. Why in the world would you need Rav Huna to say what is explicit in the Mishnah?
The answer could be that it is transferred, and his statement is necessary on the Mishnah of Nedarim 11:12: נְטוּלָה אֲנִי מִן הַיְּהוּדִים, יָפֵר חֶלְקוֹ, וּתְהֵא מְשַׁמַּשְׁתּוֹ, וּתְהֵא נְטוּלָה מִן הַיְּהוּדִים. That is all the way at the end of the perek, and on 82a, they use Rav Huna to attribute it to Rabbi Yossi. Thus on Nedarim 82a:
לְרַבָּנַן תִּבְּעֵי לָךְ, מִשּׁוּם דִּ״נְטוּלָה אֲנִי מִן הַיְּהוּדִים״ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי קָתָנֵי לַהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב הוּנָא: כּוּלֵּיהּ פִּירְקִין רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא. מִמַּאי — כֵּיוָן דְּקָתָנֵי: רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר אֵין אֵלּוּ נִדְרֵי עִינּוּי נֶפֶשׁ, לְמָה לֵיהּ תּוּ לְמִיתְנֵא ״הֲרֵי זֶה יָפֵר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי״? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: מִכָּאן וְאֵילָךְ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הִיא.
This was the Talmudic Narrator interjecting this. Rava had posed an inquiry to Rav Nachman, and Rav Nachman answered based on this Mishnah. And so the Talmudic Narrator said that this only answers according to Rabbi Yossi, not like the Sages. (And depending if you hold like Rambam or like other Rishonim, we either maintain like Rabbi Yossi, or we maintain like the Sages.) Perhaps Rava and Rav Nachman don’t agree with Rav Huna. And we don’t know where Rav Huna’s span ends. Would he extend it even to this rather late Mishnah in the perek when he said pirkin, or was he just speaking of various intermediate Mishnayot.
The reason I ask is that some analysis in yesterday’s daf (Nedarim 89) demonstrated some of the extent of the Rabbi Yossi span, or at least the perek span. Thus, there were two statements of זה כלל, one in the previous perek and one in this perek.
(I would personally translate zeh haklal as “this is the underlying operating principle”, but the Talmudic trend is to take this as “this is the general rule”, and thus, just as a kelal ufrat, it comes to include some unstated case.)
In referring to the klal of the previous perek and the present one, the Talmudic Narrator uses the perek names. Thus, ״זֶה הַכְּלָל״ דְּקָתָנֵי גַּבֵּי ״נַעֲרָה הַמְאוֹרָסָה״ — לְאֵיתוֹיֵי actually occurs during that Mishnah, the first in the tenth perek, which begins with the words naarah hameorasah. Then, ״זֶה הַכְּלָל״ דְּקָתָנֵי גַּבֵּי ״וְאֵלּוּ נְדָרִים״, לְאֵיתוֹיֵי refers to the Mishnah first Mishnah in the eleventh perek, which begins ve’elu nedarim, even though the present Mishnah in which zeh hakelal occurs does not have that language.
Of course, that assumes that the gemara states גַּבֵּי ״וְאֵלּוּ נְדָרִים״. We have that in our printed texts, and the Ran’s quoted text. But Pseudo-Rashi has it as:
זה הכלל דקתני הכא - גבי ואלו נדרים
so the only words are hacha. And Tosafot has it as:
זה הכלל דקתני גבי נדרים - כלומר הכא
Which is by “nedarim”, by which we mean here. And they don’t have by “Elu Nedarim” which would be the title of the perek.
So that could feed in to the definition of pirkin, and whether this Mishnah with zeh haklal is also Rabbi Yossi.
On to the next Mishnah, on 89a-b which defines nine cases (which are really three) of “naarot” whose vows are established, and cannot be nu. It has a Tanna Kamma, and a closing statement by Rabbi Yehuda.
מַתְנִי׳ תֵּשַׁע נְעָרוֹת נִדְרֵיהֶן קַיָּימִין: בּוֹגֶרֶת וְהִיא יְתוֹמָה. …
רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אַף הַמַּשִּׂיא בִּתּוֹ הַקְּטַנָּה וְנִתְאַלְמְנָה אוֹ נִתְגָּרְשָׁה וְחָזְרָה אֶצְלוֹ — עֲדַיִין הִיא נַעֲרָה.
MISHNA: There are nine young women whose vows are upheld and cannot be nullified: If she took a vow when she was a grown woman and she is an orphan…
Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to even one who married off his minor daughter, and she was widowed or divorced and she returned to him, and according to her age she still is in the category of a young woman, her vows cannot be nullified.
Who is the Tanna Kamma here? If we were to assume a continuation of the Rabbi Yossi span, it should be Rabbi Yossi. Yet, in the gemara, we have:
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אֲבָל חֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, שָׁלֹשׁ נְעָרוֹת נִדְרֵיהֶן קַיָּימִין: בּוֹגֶרֶת, וִיתוֹמָה, וִיתוֹמָה בְּחַיֵּי הָאָב.
GEMARA: Rav Yehuda said that Rav said: This mishna is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda, who spelled out all the cases and listed nine young women whose vows are upheld. But the Rabbis say that it is unnecessary to go into such detail. Instead, they simply said: There are three young women whose vows are upheld and cannot be nullified: A grown woman, and an orphan, and an orphan in her father’s lifetime, i.e., a young woman who was divorced or widowed while her father was still alive and is considered an orphan in that her father no longer has jurisdiction over her.
This is strange that the plain wording of the Mishnah is attributed to Rabbi Yehuda. I think the idea is that Rabbi Yehuda is the one who belabors the point. (Ran quotes the parallel Yerushalmi, that even Rabbi Yehuda only did this to sharpen the students. Looking at the Yerushalmi Matchup, it seems slightly different. That this was being done to sharpen the students, but for the Sages, there are really only two, and according to Rabbi Yehuda, only three. Thus:
גמ' אמר רבי יוחנן שתים הן ולמה תנינן תשע.
(c) (Gemara - R. Yochanan) Question: There are only two cases (a Bogeres, and an orphan, which includes a real orphan and an orphan in her father's lifetime). Why did our Mishnah teach nine?בשביל לחדד את התלמידים.
(d) Answer: It was in order to sharpen the Talmidim.וכר' יודה שלש:
(e) And according to R. Yehudah, there are three. (He holds that an orphan in her father's lifetime is only if she was married in adulthood, therefore she is unlike a real orphan, so this case is counted separately - CHASAM SOFER 89a.)
Are we really saying this stam Mishnah is Rabbi Yehuda? That is what we have in Vilna Shas and in the few manuscripts at Hachi Garsinan. However, in the Venice printing, we have Rabbi Meir:
Regardless, once we attribute this anonymous Mishnah to Rabbi Yehuda or Rabbi Meir, shouldn’t this end the Rabbi Yossi span?! Yet earlier, they used Rav Huna’s statement to refer to an even later Mishnah that appears on Nedarim 90!
Let’s finally briefly address the next Mishnah, also on Nedarim 89b.
מַתְנִי׳ ״קוּנָּם שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לְאַבָּא וּלְאָבִיךָ אִם עוֹשָׂה אֲנִי עַל פִּיךָ״, ״שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֵית לְךָ אִם עוֹשָׂה אֲנִי עַל פִּי אַבָּא וְעַל פִּי אָבִיךָ״ — הֲרֵי זֶה יָפֵר.
MISHNA: If a woman said to her husband: Deriving benefit from my father or from your father is konam for me if I will prepare anything for you; or if she said: Deriving benefit from you is konam for me if I will prepare anything for my father or for your father, the husband can nullify this vow.
In our printing texts, and some manuscripts, we have harei zeh yafer, that he can indeed nullify. However, there is the Marburg fragmentary text which first has that he can nullify, and then has אין יכול להפר, that he cannot nullify.
The gemara follows with a dispute between Rabbi Natan (who says no) and the Sages (who say yes). Perhaps we can fit these variants into whether the stam Mishnah is like Rabbi Natan or the Sages in the brayta.
But more than that, perhaps we can fit this into the question of whether we have ended Rabbi Yossi’s reign. Recall that the way (or one way) we interpreted Rabbi Yossi in the first Mishna of the eleventh perek, when he said that the husband couldn’t nullify, this just meant that he couldn’t nullify based on the principle of innuy nefesh. However, as devarim shebeino leveinah, matters bein ish le’ishto, he could still nullify. (And recall that there is a pragmatic difference, when a divorce subsequently occurs, whether the vow then takes hold.)
Look at the commentators’ explanation of הֲרֵי זֶה יָפֵר in this latest Mishnah. They say that he can nullify it as devarim shebeino leveinah. Yet that seems like a shift in language, for in the terminology of the first Mishnah in the perek, that would be called אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר! So perhaps attribution to Rabbi Yossi or to someone else is what drives the local Mishnah’s language.