Q&A: Naziriteship
Naziriteship
Question
A. Is there any conceptual logic behind the Jewish law that a husband may annul his wife’s vows of self-affliction? And if so, what is it?
B. The Talmud in Nedarim (80a) defines refraining from washing for life as something that is not considered self-affliction. By contrast, on 82b the Talmud defines Naziriteship from wine for thirty days as a vow of self-affliction. Maybe the Rabbi can explain the logic?
Answer
A. The accepted explanation is that the husband is given a right of control over vows that affect him and his relationship with his wife. However, the Ran writes in Nedarim 82b (in Samuel’s view):
That with vows of self-affliction, he can annul them because of her distress, since it is affliction for her; and therefore it is not fitting that he annul only part of it, because that would afflict her even more. But with matters between him and her, it is because of the husband’s concern; therefore, where he does not mind, he does not mind, and where he does mind, it is prohibited.
In other words, what I wrote above applies only to vows that concern matters between him and her. “Self-affliction” is an authority granted to the husband to rescue his wife from troubles that she brought upon herself. According to Rabbi Yohanan there, who disagrees with Samuel, even self-affliction is for the sake of their relationship. Therefore Rabbi Yohanan limits the ability to annul vows of self-affliction. It seems to me that this will determine the dispute over whether the same applies to a father as well—whether he too may annul vows of self-affliction or not (Maimonides, Laws of Vows 12:1).
B. There is no 80a in tractate Nazir. You mean Nedarim 80a. I did not understand the question. As a practical halakhic ruling, it was ruled that washing, even for a single day, is included in self-affliction (Yoreh De’ah 234:59).
Discussion on Answer
First, that could make sense in their worldview (that washing was not regarded as a necessity the way it is nowadays). Second, for your objection to be difficult, you need to find a single view according to which both things hold. Otherwise, it is entirely possible that these are simply differing opinions.
The question is according to Rabbi Yosei, who holds that washing is never considered self-affliction. Even if we say that the Talmud on 83a is only according to the Rabbis, the same question applies regarding fruit—how does it make sense that refraining from fruit for 30 days is considered self-affliction, while washing is never considered self-affliction?