No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Samson Nazirite Vow in the Sixteenth Century
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 October 2009
Extract
Responsa emanating from the Ottoman lands of the sixteenth century give evidence of the widespread use of an oath which invoked the name of Samson the Nazirite. Someone who undertook a “Samson nazirite vow” generally did so by making it conditional on his performance of or abstention from a certain act, thereby using it as an assurance for his word. Although the Samson nazirite, as a halakhic concept, is discussed in the Talmud, and its laws are codified by Maimonides, the earliest trace of its use as a contitional sanction does not precede the fifteenth century. It appears then in a single genizah document. The language of the vow is Judeo-Spanish, a fact which points to its provenance. It does not appear in the halakhic literature before the sixteenth century, nor does it appear to have been current even then in Christian Europe.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Association for Jewish Studies 1989
References
I would like to acknowledge the help of the Bar-Ilan Responsa Project of the Institute for Computers in Jewish Life in locating some of the sources cited in this study.
1. SeeWeiss, Gershon, “A Testimony from the Cairo Geniza Documents,” Jewish Quarterly Review 68 (1977): 99–103. I would like to thank Professor Gerald D. Blidstein of Ben-Gurion University of the Negev for this reference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. See B.T. Nedarim 2b; Moses Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Shavu′ot [Oaths], 1:1–3, and Ibid., Nedarim [Vows], 1:1; Lieberman, S., Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York, 1942), p. 117. Citations of Mishneh Torah are from The Code of Maimonides, Yale Judaica Series (New Haven and London, 1962), bk. 6, The Book of Asseverations, trans. B. Klien (hereafter cited as Code). Citations of Mishnah and B.T. are based generally on the translation of the Soncino Press, London, though changes in the wording are often introduced without note.Google Scholar
3. Numbers 6:1–6 (Old JPS trans.).
4. Code, Naziriteship 2:20.
5. Mishnah Nazir 1:2, B.T. Nazir 4a.
6. Code, Oaths 6:1–2. “Some new situation” is my translation of she-nolad lo davar replacing Klien's “something.” The Geonim, from Yehudai Gaon (mid-8th cent.) on, discontinued the releasing of oaths except for special cases, those similar to the “four vows which the sages permitted” (see Mishnah Nedarim 3:1–4 and sec. xiii below), and then only when there was a pressing need for the release; seeLewin, B. M., Otsar ha-Geonim, vol. 11 (Jerusalem, 1942), p. 131. However, the practice of releasing vows seems to have been in use everywhere after the classical geonic period. Asher ben Yehiel's attribution of the geonic position to Alfasi, in Pisqei ha-Rosh (printed with B.T.), Nedarim, chap. 2, no. 2, seems to be an error for Hai Gaon; see Lewin, p. 19, note a.Google Scholar
7. Pisqei ha-Rosh, Nedarim, chap. 3, no. 2.
8. Code, Naziriteship 3:14.
9. Meir ofRothenburg, , Sefer She′elot u-Teshuvol Maharam bar Barukh, ed. Prague (Budapest, 1895; reprint ed., Tel Aviv, 1969), nos. 181, 493, 500;Google ScholarIsaac, bar Sheshet, She′elot u-Teshuvoi Bar Sheshet (New York, 1954), no. 395. (Hereafter, She′elot u-Teshuvol will be abbreviated as Sh. u-T.)Google Scholar
10. A variety of responsa by Asher b. Yehiel, Solomon ibn Adret, Nissim Gerondi, Isaac b. Sheshet, Simeon b. Tsemah Duran, and Solomon b. Simeon Duran.
11. Adret, , Sh. u-T. ha-Rashba, III (Bnei Braq, 1965), no. 319,Google Scholar and Teshuvot ha-Rashba ha- Meyuhasot leha-Ramban (Warsaw, 1883) (hereafter cited as Attributed Responsa), no. 255;Duran, Solomon, Sefer ha-Rashbash (Livorno, 1742; reprint ed., Jerusalem, n.d.), no. 176 (second so numbered).Google Scholar
12. Adret, , Sh. u-T. ha-Rashba, VII (Warsaw, 1868; reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1960), no. 497;Google ScholarDuran, Simeon, Sefer ha-Tashbets (Lemberg, 1891; reprint ed., Tel Aviv, n.d.), II, no. 53.Google Scholar The origin of this idea is apparently the oath which was administered to Jews in Moslem courts. SeeStillman, N. A., The Jews of Arab Lands (Philadelphia, 1979), pp. 165 f., and, chronologically and geographically more relevant, pp. 267 f. I thank Professor Stillman for this reference.Google Scholar
13. Isserlein, Israel, Terumat ha-Deshen (Warsaw, 1882; reprint ed., Tel Aviv, n.d.), II (=Pesaqim u-Ketavim), no. 192.Google Scholar
14. Katznellenbogen, Meir, Sh. u-T. Mahari Mintz u-Maharam Padua Zatsal (Cracow, 1882), p. 106a, no. 71.Google Scholar
15. Adret, , Sh. u-T. Ha-Rashba, IV (Pietrikow, 1883; reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1960),Google Scholar no. 68, and Attributed Responsa, no. 270; Gerondi, Nissim, Sh. u-T. ha-Ran, ed. L., Feldman (Jerusalem, 1984),Google Scholar no. 82; Sh. u-T. Bar Sheshet, nos. 375, 444, 511. From the period covered by this study, seeibn, DavidZimra, Abi, Sh. u-T. ha-Radbaz (Warsaw, 1882; reprint ed., New York, 1967) (hereafter cited as Radbaz), no. 575: “Reuben swore an oath, and stipulated that it shall not be released save by Moses our Teacher, at the time of the resurrection.” (References to Radbaz are to the consecutive numbering of the Warsaw edition.)Google Scholar
16. Weil, Jacob, Sh. u-T. (Jerusalem, 1959), no. 172.Google Scholar
17. Tashbets, II, 98.
18. Sh. u-T. ha-Ran, no. 82; Adret, Sh. u-T., Ill, nos. 312 and 319, and Attributed Responsa, no. 270;Colon, Isaac, Sh. u-T. Mahariq (Warsaw, 1884; reprint ed., New York, 1968), no. 177 (= ed. Venice, no. 181; ed. Cremona, no. 180).Google Scholar
19. See Gittin 36a; Pisqei ha-Rosh, Nedarim, chap. 9, no. 2, on Nedarim 65a; Tur Yoreh De′ah, no. 228, s.v. nadar al da′at havero.
20. Abi Zimra, however, citing Adret, gives a narrow interpretation of “the purpose of mitzvah,” thus strengthening the irrevocability of the vow;ibn, DavidZimra, Abi, Sh. u-T. ha- Radbaz mi-Ketav Yad [Responsa of Abi Zimra from MS.], ed. Yitzhaq Tsevi Sofer (Bnei Braq, 1975), no. 153, pp. 119 f. In a similar vein, Abi Zimra, on the basis of his own interpretation of Yeruham b. Meshullam's Sefer Toldot Adam ve-Hava (see n. 145 below), excludes the possibility of release from one who has undertaken a herem in this world and the next; Radbaz, I, no. 36, with reference to Adam ve-Hava, Netiv [Path] 14, pt. 1, p. 108b. However, these stringent positions are not prevalent among the period's respondents.Google Scholar
21. Lev, Joseph ibn, Sh. u-T. (hereafter cited as Ibn Lev), I (Jerusalem, 1959),Google Scholar no. 112;Medina, Samuel de, Sh. u-T. Maharshadam (Lemberg, 1862; reprint ed., New York, 1959), Yoreh De′ah (hereafter cited as Maharshadam, Y.D.), no. 88Google Scholar
22. Mizrahi, Elijah, Sh. u-T. R. Elijah Mizrahi (Jerusalem, 1938)Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Mizrahi), no. 51. The author of this responsum, emanating from the court of the nagid, was Jacob Berav, and the attribution is explicit in the MS copy of the responsum, MS Bodl. 834 (Opp. Add. 4 34), pp. 87a–91b. (I would like to thank Dr. Avraham David, of the Institute for Manuscript Microfilming at the University and National Library, Jerusalem, for this reference, which is referred to also by Benayahu; see below. And I would also like to thank the Jewish Theological Seminary Library for the use of its microfilm of this MS.) Other respondents who refer to this case include Jacob ibn Habib, MS Bodl. 834, pp. 96b–102b;ha-Levi, Elijah, Zeqan Aharon (Constantinople, 1734),Google Scholar no. 65; Joseph Taitazak, whose original responsum on the issue was lost, but who refers to the incident in a later responsum, recently republished by Benayahu, Meir, Pisqei ha-Gaon Maharit (Jerusalem, 1987), p. 90,Google Scholar seeBenayahu's discussion of the issue, pp. 88–90; Habib, Levi ibn, Sh. u-T. Maharalbah (Lemberg, 1865; reprint ed., Brooklyn, 1962) (hereafter cited as Ralbah), no. 56, who refers to it as having occurred ten years previously; Ibn Lev, III (Constantinople, 1573), no. 52, who refers to it as having occurred about sixty years previously. The views expressed by the original respondents reverberate throughout the literature. The terminus ad quern of 1513 is based on the evidence gathered by Benayahu, op. cit., p. 90. Benayahu himself suggests that the event occurred circa 1510, though he brings no evidence for preferring that date over 1513Google Scholar
23. MS Bodl. 834 (see previous note), p. 98a. His subsequent remarks reinforce this understanding and function of the Samson nazirite vow among the populace.
24. See Zeqan Aharon, no. 178, Radbaz, no. 983, and Maharshadam, Y.D., no. 134, which refer to attempts to proscribe its use by communal legislation. The author of Zeqan Aharon, ha-Levi, Elijah, died after 1540, according to the Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem, 1971), Vol. 6 col. 646. In Maharshadam it is ascribed to “the early ones,” referring no doubt to the early part of the century. See also Radbaz, no. 136, and Maharshadam, Y.D., no. 83, where explicit mention is made of its popularity. The most eloquent evidence of this popularity is the large number of responsa referring to the subject throughout the century, the largest concentration being those of Moses Trani, forty-six in number.Google Scholar
25. Qal′i, Samuel, Mishpetai Shemuel (Venice, 1599), no. 7Google Scholar
26. Radbaz, nos. 221, 314, 694.
27. Ibid., no. 694.
28. Maharshadam, Y.D., no. 146.
29. Ibid., no. 77, the second so numberd.
30. Trani, Moses, Sh. u-T. Mabit (Lemberg, 1861; reprint ed., Brooklyn, 1961) (hereafter cited as Mabit), I, no. 174.Google Scholar
31. Nedarim 10a.
32. Code, Naziriteship 2:21.
33. See another example of naziriteship in practice, Yehiel Bassan, Sh. u-T. (Constantinople, 1737), no. 10. See alsoGoitein, S. D., A Mediterranean Society, vol. 3 (Berkeley, 1978) pp. 352 f.Google Scholar
34. Radbaz, no. 2085. The husband had nullified the vow, and Abi Zimra rules that he can do so. But compare Mabit, I, no. 45, who concludes otherwise.
35. Adarbi, Isaac, Divrei Rivot (Venice, 1587; reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1970), no. 160.Google Scholar
36. Tummat Yesharim (Venice, 1722), Oholei Tarn, no. 63. The final phrase is a play on Esther 8:8 and 1:9.
37. Ralbah, no. 105, p. 54a After describing the substance of his argument with Berav, Ibn Habib continues as follows: “The rest of the things the said rabbi did and said, which bear on the desecration of Heaven, and the Samson naziriteship which he took upon himself, I did not see fit to publish, and I trust to God, may He repay the doer of evil according to his evil!”
38. Mishnah Nazir 1:2.
39. Castro, Jacob, Oholei Ya′akov (Livorno, 1783), no. 34.Google Scholar
40. See Mabit, II, no. 103, and I, no. 257. It is worthy of note that I have not come across any Samson nazirite vows which are explicitly directed against gambling, though there are a number of such instances of vows in general. From the period under discussion, see Radbaz, no. 214. On the issue of gambling, seeLandman, L., “Jewish Attitudes Toward Gambling: The Professional and Compulsive Gambler,” Jewish Quarterly Review 57 (1966–67): 298–318; 58 (1967–68): 34–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41. Maharshadam, YD., no. 131.
42. A play on Mishnah Yevamot 15:1.
43. Mabit, II no. 168.
44. Weiss, p. 100. The text of the vow is in Judeo-Spanish, and the translation of it here is taken from that in the article. The author writes in a note, “The last three words are uncertain.”
45. See above, text to n. 29.
46. See Radbaz, no. 436; Ibid., no. 115 (= Mabit, I, no. 152);E., Shochetman, ed., Sh. u-T. Rabbenu Meir Gavizon Zatsal (Jerusalem, 1985),Google Scholar no. 2. Regarding this clause in the marriage contract as it functioned in fourteenth-century Spain, see Asis, Y., “Herem de-Rabbenu Gershom ve-Nisuei Kefel be-Sefarad” [The ban of Rabbenu Gershom and plural marriages in Spain], Tsiyon 46 (1981): 264–266,Google Scholar and the summary of the literature on the issue in general, n. 98 there. Of particular interest is the case dealt with byCaro, Joseph, Avqat Rokhel (Leipzig, 1859), no. 178, and by Moses Trani, Mabit, I, no. 104. Caro's is the fuller account. The situation there implies a custom which allows polygyny with the wife7apos;s consent, but forbids it without her consent, even though there is no clause to that effect in the marriage contract. For other cases in which the Samson nazirite vow is used to elicit consent for a second wife, see Mabit, III, no. 65; Radbaz, no. 436.Google Scholar
47. Avqat Rokhel, no. 184.
48. Adarbi, Isaac, Divrei Rivot (Venice, 1587; reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1970), no. 408.Google Scholar
49. Mabit, I, no. 320.
50. ve-nitlahev ′imah kol kakh be-divrei peritsut.
51. Text: she-me-′olam, should read: she-le-′olam.
52. This is the only time I have come across this phrase in the sixteenth-century Samson nazirite responsa.
53. The text is in Judeo-Spanish. I am grateful to my colleague, Dr. Sandra Cypess, for her assistance in the translation.
54. Threefold repetition occurs also inAlsheikh, Moses, Sefer Sh. u-T. Maharam Alsheikh (Bnei Braq, 1982) (hereafter cited as Alsheikh), no. 103, and perhaps also in Sh. u-T. R. Meir Gavizon, no. 1: pa′am u-shtayim.Google Scholar
55. Alsheikh, no. 47.
56. E.g., the responsum ofTaitazak, Joseph, in Meir Benayahu, Pisqei ha-Gaon Mahaht (Jerusalem, 1987), p. 93.Google Scholar
57. E.g., Maharshadam, Y.D., no. 80.
58. Ibn Lev, I, no. 43, p. 118b.
59. Such a clause was current in this period. Among Ashkenazic Jews, of course, the need for the wife's consent was automatic, deriving from another enactment of Rabbenu Gershom.
60. Avqal Rokhel, no. 185.
61. Divrei Rivot, no. 371. Similarly, in a different context, Avqat Rokhel, no. 191, end
62. Mabit, III, no. 14.
63. Ibid., no. 139.
64. Mishpetei Shemuel, no. 19.
65. Mabit, III, no. 32.
66. Maharshakh, III (Salonica, 1594), no. 72. See a similar use of the vow inAshkenazi, Betsalel, Sh. u-T. (Lemberg, 1904; reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1968), no. 15, p. 31c.Google Scholar
67. Maharshakh, I (Salonica, 1586), no. 123.
68. Avqat Rokhel, no. 177.
69. See text to n. 21. For a fine example of a Samson nazirite vow incorporated in another kind of detailed agreement, see Alsheikh, no. 13 (see below, text to n. 76).
70. Ibn Lev, I, no. 36; Maharshadam, Y.D., nos. 135 and 154; Betsalel Ashkenazi, Sh. u-T., no. 24.
72. Moses Galanti, Sh. u-T. (Jerusalem, 1942), no. 75. Ibid., no. 87, is a similar case, but there the divorce and remarriage are apparently not a legal fiction.
73. Maharshadam, Y.D., no. 103; Divrei Rivot, no. 105; Ibid., no. 66; Avqat Rokhel, no. 197. The latter two deal with the same case, in which two rabbis vied for control over the same congregation. Also, in the generation following the period under review,Trani, Joseph, Sh. u-T. Maharit (Lemberg, 1861; reprint ed., Israel, n.d.); II, no. 21.Google Scholar
74. Avqat Rokhel, no. 183. See a similar case in a responsum of Samuel Taitazak, in Benayahu, Pisqei ha-Gaon Maharit, p. 292.
75. Mabil, I, n. 101.
76. Alsheikh, no. 13. The same question, but with a more abbreviated presentation of the document, occurs in Mabit, III, no. 119.
77. See above, text to n. 62.
78. See n. 46. See also Mabit, III, no. 65, where a man vowed to be a Samson nazirite if he did not divorce his wife, unless she consented to a rival.
79. Radbaz, no. 133; Ibn Lev, I, no. 42; Maharshadam, YD., no. 104, in a formal match agreement. Also, Radbaz, no. 314, with regard to a levirate marriage.
80. In addition to those cited in the sequel, see Radbaz, nos. 161, 221, 1196; Mabit, II, no. 15; Avqat Rokhel, no. 177, was referred to above, text to n. 68.
81. Alsheikh, no. 103.
82. Mabit, III, 102.
83. Radbaz, no. 982.
84. Zeqan Aharon, no. 182
85. Divrei Rivot, no. 160, Oholei Tarn, no. 64, three years; Samuel ′Atya, quoted below, “until such-and-such a time”; Sh. u-T. R. Meir Gavizon, in an incident from the year 1615, for twenty years.
86. u-ledabber ′al libo.
87. The window? A door in the wall?
88. u-le-miqtsat yamim.
89. A responsum by Samuel ′Atya, published by L. Feldman, “Teshuvat Rabbenu Shemuel b.r. Shem Tov ′Atya be-Inyan Nezirut Shimshon” [A responsum by Samuel son of Shem Tov ′Atya concerning the Samson naziriteship], Sinai 84, nos. 1–2 (1979): 12. The question also occurs in Zeqan Aharon, no. 65, which is a reaction to Samuel ′Atya's responsum. See also Oholei Tarn, no. 63, which seems to refer to the same incident. For other instances of Samson nazirite vows enforcing separation, see Mabit, II, nos. 90 and 217; Sh.u-T. R. Mosheh Gatanti, no. 18; Mayim ′Amuqqim (Berlin, 1778; reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1970), pt. II (Responsa of Elijah ibn Hayyim), no. 60; and Ibn Lev, I, no. 44, where the naziriteship is conditional on his taking a second wife, and was apparently a result of his wife's insistence.
90. Mabit, 1, no. 98; II, no. 75; HI, nos. 95 and 117. In other cases an aggrieving party is not mentioned, e.g., Mabit, I, no. 92. Also Maharshadam, Y.D., no. 99, as a result of a quarrel with the rabbi. See also Maharshadam, Orah Hayyim, no. 36
91. Maharshadam, YD., no. 78.
92. See above, n. 67.
93. See nn. 57–58. See also Maharshakh, II, no. 143.
94. Maharshadam, Y.D., no. 77; Avqat Rokhel, no. 192; Divrei Rivot, no. 67; Radbaz, no. 2145. The principals were Jacob Samut and the Kiana Congregation in Salonica. SeeGoodblatt, M. S., Jewish Life in Turkey in the XVl-th Century (New York, 1952), pp. 33–35;Google ScholarBenayahu, M., Marbits Torah [Propagator of Torah] (Jerusalem, 1953), pp. 86–87.Google Scholar
95. Zeqan Aharon, no. 36.
96. Included among the responsa of Moses Trani, Mabit, I, no. 44. See the signature at the end of no. 46.
97. This suggestion was made to me by my colleague, Dr. Norman Stillman.
98. u-be-lokh ha-shanah kibbel hitpa′alut mi-davar mah ve-nishba′.
99. Benayahu (n. 22 above), p. 93, possibly the same case as Elijah ha-Levi's. Benayahu states that Taitazak's responsum “was written while he was still in Salonica, that is, before 1535”; op. cit., p. 90.
100. Ibn Lev, III, no. 52.
101. See text to n. 34.
102. Radbaz. no. 954. Similarly Ibid., no. 1350 (vol. IV, p. 74b).
103. Ibn Lev, III, no. 81. The fact that this religiously motivated questioner was apparently clean-shaven is worthy of note
104. The genizah fragment exhibits a similar dichotomy. The writer says that he had originally undertaken a standard naziriteship in connection with his son's illness, apparently as part of a prayer for his recuperation. The second naziriteship, reflected in the text quoted above, is a Samson naziriteship, and serves a rather different purpose, as we have seen. Goitein's merging of the two in Mediterranean Society, vol. 5, p. 110, needs to be corrected.
105. Zeqan Aharon, no. 182; similarly Ibid., no. 36.
106. meqabbel u-meyahes.
107. Ibn Lev, III, no. 52. Similarly, Divrei Rivot, no. 160; Oholei Tarn, no. 64.
108. Mabit, II, no. 90; Ibid., HI, no. 168; Ibn Lev, I, no. 45; MishpeteiShamuel, no. 7. In the last instance, the vower corrected himself. There is also an instance of ba′al manoah instead of barmanoah, though there the man was allegedly under the influence of alcohol; Radbaz MS, no.161
109. Yevamot 3a and parallels.
110. Radbaz, no. 314.
111. See the same approach on the part of a local rabbi, whom Abi Zimra overruled; Radbaz, no. 583.
112. See above, text to nn. 26–27. For a similar stance, see Ralbah, no. 124. For another example of the halakhic implications of the popular conception of the Samson nazirite vow, with regard to the principle of ‘einshevu’ah halah ‘alshevu’ah, see Berav's responsum, Mabit, I, no. 44.
113. Avqat Rokhel, no. 197; parallels in Radbaz, no. 553, and Divrei Rivot, no. 66. For the story of Achan son of Carmi, see Joshua 6 and 7. The Bar Ilan Responsa Project does not record any parallel use of the herem of Achan up to and including the period under study. The term herem, as it is used here, reflects its rabbinic usage, not its biblical usage, as in the Achan story. Regarding the borrowing of stock phrases which are then used in a different sense, seeHeinemann, Y., Ha-Tefitta be-Tequfat ha-Tanna′im ve-Amora′im [Prayer in the period of the tannaim and amoraim] (Jerusalem, 1964), p. 39, n. 28.Google Scholar
114. See some exceptions to this above, text to nn. 26–29.
115. For the sources for Berav's view, see n. 22 above.
116. Mishnah Nazir 1:2; B.T. Nazir 4a.
117. Compare Mishnah Nedarim 2:5, where this type of deviousness is posited.
118. So our version, hareini ke-shimshon. But in the text presented in the responsum by Samuel ′Atya, Feldman, p. 13, the word “nazirite” is included: hareini nazir ke-shimshon.
119. Caro, in Kesef Mishneh to Code, Naziriteship 3:15, however, maintains that Berav refrained from issuing a practical ruling on the basis of his own lenient stand.
120. Kesef Mishneh, loc. cit.; Ralbah, no. 56. A similar position is held by Mizrahi, no. 50.
121. Feldman, p. 17.
122. Benayahu, pp. 88–96. Cited in part by his student, De Medina, Maharshadam, YD., no. 76.
123. Benayahu, p. 96, cited by De Medina, loc. cit., who takes strong issue with his teacher on this score.
124. Mabit, I, no. 134.
125. Divrei Rivot, nos. 160 and 392; Alsheikh, no. 47.
126. Ralbah, no. 56.
127. Kesef Mishneh to Code, Naziriteship 3:15.
128. Ibn Lev., I, no. 44.
129. Mizrahi, no. 50, p. 133a. His view is summarized by Caro in Kesef Mishneh to Code, Nezirut 3:15.
130. Zeqan Aharon, no. 65. Elijah ha-Levi was a student of Mizrahi's
131. Oholei Tarn, no. 64.
132. Mishpelei Shemuel, no. 7.
133. See his commentary to Code, Naziriteship 3:15.
134. See text to n. 2.
135. See Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, p. 117.
136. Ibid., pp. 117 f.
137. Nahmanides, Hilkhot Nedarim [Laws of vows], appended to Alfasi on Nedarim, parallel to Nedarim 16b (in current editions on p. 4b); also cited in Nissim Gerondi's commentary to Nedarim 2b, s.v. eidei.
138. Gerondi, loc. cit.
139. On the other hand, one may argue that it is the latter part of the sentence which is problematic, while the first part of the sentence, the acceptance of naziriteship, remains intact. Such a view is expressed by Elijah ha-Levi, Zeqan Aharon, no. 65, p. 49d bottom; and by Moses Trani, Mabil, II, no. 15, p. 6c, who would simply reinterpret the latter phrase as a conditional statement.
140. Oholei Tarn, no. 64; Maharshadam, Y.D., nos. 76 and 131 and De Medina cited in Alsheikh, no. 103; Mabit, I, nos. 92 and 98; II, nos. 15 and 72; III, no. 65.
141. Asher b. Yehiel's commentary to Nedarim 2a.
142. With attribution: Radbaz, no. 914. Without attribution: Ibid., nos. 133, 982, 1196, 1350, 2244.
143. Elijah ha-Levi, Zeqan Aharon, no. 65; Jacob b. Issachar Ta′us, whose responsum is brought in Alsheikh, no. 103.
144. Ibn Lev, I, nos. 42,43,44,45; Ibid., II (Jerusalem, 1960), no. 87; Divrei Rivot, nos. 160 and 392; Alsheikh, no. 47 (compare no. 103)
145. Mishnah Nedarim 3:1, B.T. Nedarim 20b.
146. Nedarim 23a. Another example of a vow of incentive is brought in the Mishnah there, but it is not relevant to this discussion.
147. Yeruham b. Meshullam, Sefer Toldot Adam ve-Hava (Venice, 1553; reprint ed., Israel, n.d.), Netiv [Path] 14, sec. 3, p. 109c.
148. Oholei Tarn, no. 63.
149. Ibid., no. 64.
151. Radbaz, no. 42.
152. Avqat Rokhel, no. 178, final paragraph.
153. Maharshadam, Y.D., no. 77, the second so numbered, p. 27d bottom.
154. Mishnah Nedarim 3:2, B.T. Nedarim 25b.
155. See also Mishnah Nedarim 9:10, B.T. Nedarim 66a. The term for “error” here (ta′ut) is different than the one used in the previous passage (shegagah), but the two are used interchangeably by the respondents.
156. Maharshadam. Y.D., no. 135.
157. Mabit, II, the latter part of no. 7, which belongs to the responsum in II, no. 72.
158. Radbaz, no. 2244.
159. Zeqan Aharon, no. 36.
160. Radbaz, nos. 42 and 133.
161. See above, n. 84.
162. Zeqan Aharon, no. 182, p. 98b.
163. Radbaz, no. 694.
164. Maharshadam, Y.D., no. 110. Meir Gavizon, in the generation following the period under survey, characterizes a vow as a vow of error because it did not have its desired effect; Sh. u-T. R. Meir Gavizon, no. 2, p. 17a.
165. Maharshadam, Y.D., no. 104. See a parallel use of vows of error by De Medina, Ibid., no. 136.
166. Mishnah Nedarim 3:4, B.T. Nedarim 27b. This is not part of the “four vows” passage, but follows it immediately. The example used in the "four vows" passage itself deals with failure to fulfill the vow, and is not relevant here.
167. Nazir lib, s.v. iba′it eima be-nidrei onsin qa mipalgei.
168. See Maharshadam, Y.D., no. 157, in which the questioner refers to the case in hand as a vow of compulsion, along these lines, and De Medina, in reviewing the questioner's argument, calls it a vow of error.
169. Mabit, III, no. 139; cited above, n. 63.
170. Zeqan Aharon, no. 182, cited above, n. 84.
171. Mayim 'Amuqqim, pt. 2 (Responsa of Elijah ibn Hayyim), no. 60.
172. Maharshakh, I, no. 123; cited above, n. 67.
173. Ahheikh, no. 13.
174. Radbaz, no. 136.
175. Ibid., no. 694.
176. Zeqan Aharon, no. 36; see also Joseph Castro, Oholei Ya′akov, no. 34.
177. Radbaz, nos. 42, 133, 2085.
178. Ibn Lev, III, no. 52.
179. Alsheikh, no. 103.
180. Nedarim 23b.
181. See Encyclopaedia Judaica, vol. 10, cols. 1166–1167.
182. Radbaz, no. 1350.
183. See Joseph Caro, Avqat Rokhel, no. 176; Jacob Ta′us, whose responsum is brought in Alsheikh, no. 103; Sh. u-T. R. Mosheh Galanti, no. 17; Yom Tov Tsahalon, Sh. u-T. (Venice, 1694; reprint ed., Jerusalem, 1985), nos. 101 and 194. In the case of Ta′us and Tsahalon, reference is made to the eve of Rosh ha-Shanah. The others refer simply to Rosh ha-Shanah, but it is reasonable to assume that the intention is to the eve of the festival.
184. Tsahalon, Sh. u-T., no. 101.
185. Shenei Luhot ha-Berit (Füurth, 1764), Massekhet Yoma, ′Amud ha-Teshuvah, p. 227a.
186. Yehiel Bassan refuses to entertain this argument, asserting that it is a matter of controversy; Yehiel Bassan, Sh. u-T. (Constantinople, 1737; reprint ed., n.p., n.d.), no. 10. Perhaps he was referring to the controversy over whether the nullification applied only if the vow-taker did not remember the vow at the time, or only if he did remember it. However, the respondents discussed in this study universally held the former view. Joseph Trani hesitates to rely on the Ashkenazic version of Kol Nidrei, since the Ashkenazim themselves do not utilize it for this purpose; Sh. u-T. Maharit, I, no. 53.
187. See above, n. 124.
188. See above, n. 140. Compare, however, Mabit, II, no. 15.
189. See text to n. 157. In the generation following the period under survey, Meir Gavizon continues this tradition in the face of considerable opposition. See his Sh. u-T., nos. I and 2.
190. See above, nn. 26–29.
191. See above, n. 108. Especially telling is Mabit, II, no. 90, which is a vow apparently undertaken in spontaneous anger, which incorporates the term bar delilah.
192. Alsheikh, no. 103.
193. Sh. u-T. R. Meir Gavizon, no. 3, p. 24.
194. See above, n. 24.
195. Maharshadam, Y.D., no. 80.