Wednesday, 2 September 2015

Nazir 12: Find the Kesher - a Miscarried Fetus, a Betrothed Woman, a Lost Bird, an Androginos

The Gemara begins with a conversation only related to yesterday's daf.  Rabbi Yochanan suggests that one who directs his agent to betroth a woman for him without specifying the woman to betroth, that person is forbidden to all women in the world until he finds the woman who has been promised to him.

Reish Lakish objects to Rabbi Yochanan: if a person is about to become ritually pure and has set aside an unspecified nest - a pair of birds that are brought as burnt and sin offerings when the doves, turtle doves or pigeons have not been designated to their offering yet - and one flew away, or died, or joined other birds not valid for sin-offering, then a new bird can be purchased.  If it flew from a specified nest, it cannot be replaced.  

Reish Lakish then compares these birds, fixed in their nests, to women who is fixed in her home.  Even though she might move to the marketplace where she was betrothed by the agent, she returns to her home.  A bird does not necessarily return to its nest, especially in the case above.  Perhaps she should be permitted to marry, whether or not she has many relatives who might be mistakenly married to the person who sent an agent.  As long as the betrothal was legal at the time that the agent approached this woman, the betrothal is valid.

The rabbis return to their question that opened conversations about clauses within vows.  When a person asserts that s/he is a nazirite and that he vows to pay to shave the head of another nazirite, what is that first person actually offering to do?  Would paying for the offerings of the second nazirite, who says, "me too!", fulfill his/her vow?

In order to appoint an agent, a person must be able to perform the action himself at the time that the agent is appointed. The rabbis talk about the nullification of a wife's vows by her husband's agent.  This case is used to better understand our current conversation regarding one nazirite "shaving" another nazirite.  The rabbis agree that a person's agent is like himself.

Our next Mishna is a variation on our last Mishna:  If a person vows to shave half nazirite and another hears this and says, 'me too', I am obliged to shave half a nazirite, then Rabbi Meir says each must shave a whole nazirite, for there is no such thing as half a nazirite.  The rabbis disagree: each must shave half a nazirite.  To recap, 'shaving a nazirite' is a euphemism for paying for the offerings of a nazirite at the completion of his/her term, when his/her hair is shaved.

The Gemara reasons that one must always bring all offerings, and that a vow of partial nazirut means that one is fulfilling all of the vows of nazirut.  Thus even if a person had half of a nazirite's offerings in mind when s/he made this vow, the vow is nullified because it cannot be fulfilled.

We are introduced to a fascinating new Mishna.  We learn that if a person says, "I will be a nazirite when I have a son" and s/he has a son, s/he is a nazirite.  If s/he has a daughter, a tumtum (one with no identifiable sex), or an androginos (one with both male and female genitalia), s/he is not a nazirite.  However, if s/he says "I will be a nazirite when I have a child", and s/he has a child - any child - s/he is obliged to fulfill his/her vow.

If his wife miscarries he is not a nazirite.  Rabbi Shimon suggests that a person should wonder if the fetus was viable.  One cannot know the answer to this question, he argues, and so one should state that he is a nazirite if the fetus was viable and a voluntary nazirite if the fetus was not viable.  This ensures that he has not broken his vow.

However, if his wife gives birth again, he is a nazirite.  Rabbi Shimon adds that another statement should be added: if the first fetus was viable, then the previous nazirut was obligatory and this nazirut is voluntary.  If the first fetus was not viable, then the previous nazirut was voluntary and this nazirut is obligatory.  The rabbis clarify that miscarriage in this case includes a baby who dies before 30 days of age, possibly because of a problem due to incomplete development.

Today's daf has much to say about views on the consideration of women and animals as property, on the status of a miscarried fetus, and on the validity of multiple biological sexes.


No comments:

Post a Comment