There are four kinds of vows listed in the Mishna that are not considered valid vows and therefore one would not need to go to a chacham to dissolve them. The next few mishnayot will bring examples of each of the four types. The first type is zeiruzin, vows used in negotiation, such as a vow that I will not sell/buy for less/more than a certain amount. First, the Gemara suggests that the Mishna follows Rabbi Tarfon’s position as quoted by Rabbi Yehuda that a nazir vow will not be effective unless one makes a definitive statement. Rava, however, proves from the language of the Mishna that it could fit with the opposing position as well, as the language indicates that they never really meant what they said as, from the start, they intended to compromise. This would make the vow invalid as his intent does not match his words. Ravina asked about a case where one took a vow that he won’t sell for less than 5 dinarim and the other won’t buy for more than 1 dinar. Are these valid vows or not? Rav Ashi answered from a Mishna (Nedarim 63) where one said to a friend who was pushing an invitation to eat at their house, “I won’t even drink a drop of water in your house,” and the ruling is that one can drink a drop of water, as the intent was clearly not to eat a meal. People often exaggerate in these ways and don’t really mean exactly what they say. Ravina rejects the proof and we are left with his question. Two different versions of a statement of Rav Asi are brought which either say the four types of vows mentioned in the Mishna need to be dissolved by a chacham or that other vows need to be dissolved in the manner that these four vows don’t apply, meaning with a petach (the chacham suggests that if the person has realized at the time of the vow that ____, the person would never have made the vow) and not with regret. Several cases show different approaches to dissolving vows – can one use regret or only a petach? Does one need a more tangible form of regret, such as, “Where there ten people there who would have appeased you, would you have made the vow?” This is a tannaitic debate as well. Four cases are brought of rabbis who permitted vows based on regret or based on a petach.
Nedarim 21
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Nedarim 21
שְׁנֵיהֶם רוֹצִין בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה דִּינָרִין.
In this case, one may assume that both want to complete the deal at three dinars, and they did not intend to vow but only exaggerated for purposes of bargaining.
גְּמָ׳ אַרְבָּעָה נְדָרִים הִתִּירוּ חֲכָמִים כּוּ׳. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל לְרַבִּי אַמֵּי: אֲמַרְתְּ לַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה: מַאן תְּנָא אַרְבָּעָה נְדָרִים — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: לְעוֹלָם אֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶן נָזִיר, לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִיתְּנָה נְזִירוּת אֶלָּא לְהַפְלָאָה.
GEMARA: The mishna states: The Sages dissolved four types of vows. Rabbi Abba bar Memel said to Rabbi Ami: You said to us in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: Who is the tanna who taught this mishna of four vows? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said in the name of Rabbi Tarfon: With regard to two people who entered into a wager, and each declared that he would become a nazirite if the other was right, then actually neither of them becomes a nazirite, because naziriteship is determined only by explicitness of intent. One cannot become a nazirite unless he vows clearly and with certitude. Here too, since the intent of the wagering parties was not actually to vow, the halakha is that the vow is invalid.
רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, מִי קָתָנֵי ״שְׁנֵיהֶן רָצוּ״? ״שְׁנֵיהֶן רוֹצִין״ קָתָנֵי.
Rava said: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda. Does the mishna teach: Both wanted the price to be three dinars? It teaches: Both want, in the present tense, demonstrating that they would have been satisfied with that price from the outset and never intended to vow, so the vow is not binding.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אָמַר לוֹ טְפֵי מִסֶּלַע, וְהַלָּה אֹמֵר בְּצִיר מִשֶּׁקֶל, נִדְרָא הָוֵי, אוֹ זֵרוּזִין הָוֵי?
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: If the seller said to the buyer in the form of a vow that the price must remain more than a sela, and the other declared in the form of a vow that the price must remain less than a shekel, what is the halakha? Is this a vow, where each stands firmly in his position? Or perhaps this is also merely for encouragement?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵינָא: הָיָה מְסָרֵב בַּחֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁיֹּאכַל אֶצְלוֹ, וְאָמַר לוֹ ״קֻוֽנָּם בֵּיתְךָ שֶׁאֲנִי נִכְנָס״, ״טִיפַּת צוֹנֵן שֶׁאֲנִי טוֹעֵם״ — מוּתָּר לִיכָּנֵס לְבֵיתוֹ וְלִשְׁתּוֹת הֵימֶנּוּ צוֹנֵן, שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵּון זֶה אֶלָּא לְשׁוּם אֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָּה.
Rav Ashi said to him: We already learned about a similar case: If one was importuning another that he should eat with him and the other refused and said to him: Entering your house is konam for me, or: A drop of cold water is konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste it with you, it is permitted for him to enter his house and drink cold water since he intended it as a vow only for the purpose of eating and drinking a large amount but did not mean literally that he would not drink anything.
וְאַמַּאי? וְהָא ״טִיפַּת צוֹנֵן״ קָאָמַר! אֶלָּא מִשְׁתַּעֵי אִינִישׁ הָכִי. הָכָא נָמֵי מִשְׁתַּעֵי אִינִישׁ הָכִי.
The Gemara asks: And why is this permitted? But he said: A drop of cold water, so how can you say that the vow is only with regard to drinking a large amount? Rather, it must be that a person speaks this way in exaggerated terms but does not mean literally what he says. Here also, in the case of the buyer and seller, a person speaks this way. He exaggerates and does not intend the literal meaning of his words, even though he was quite precise in his wording.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ:
Ravina said to him:
מִי דָּמֵי? גַּבֵּי צוֹנֵן, צַדִּיקִים אוֹמְרִים מְעַט וְעוֹשִׂין הַרְבֵּה —
Are these cases comparable? Concerning the case of cold water, the righteous say little and do much. Therefore, when the host says to the other: Enter my house and drink a drop of cold water, he intended to offer him an entire meal. So too, the one who vows is referring to an entire meal and not literally to a drop of water. Therefore, he may drink a bit of cold water in the host’s house.
הָכָא סְפֵיקָא הוּא, דִּלְמָא פָּחוֹת מִסֶּלַע וְיוֹתֵר עַל שֶׁקֶל קָאָמַר, וְזֵירוּזִין הָוֵי, אוֹ דִּלְמָא דַּוְקָא קָאָמַר, וְנִידְרָא הָוֵי. תִּבְּעֵי.
But here it is uncertain. Perhaps when the seller says he will only accept more than a sela, he really intends to accept less than a sela, and when the buyer says he will not pay more than a shekel, he really intends to pay more than a shekel; and this is also an exhortation vow. Or, perhaps he meant specifically what he said, and it is a vow, because he did not intend to compromise on the price. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma remains unresolved.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: אַרְבָּעָה נְדָרִים הַלָּלוּ צְרִיכִין שְׁאֵלָה לְחָכָם. כִּי אַמְרִיתָא קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר: תַּנָּא תָּנֵי ״אַרְבָּעָה נְדָרִים הִתִּירוּ חֲכָמִים״, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ צְרִיכִין שְׁאֵלָה לְחָכָם?!
§ Rav Yehuda said that Rav Asi said: These four vows that are taught in the mishna still require a request made to a halakhic authority to dissolve them. Rav Yehuda continues: When I said this halakha before Shmuel, he said: The tanna teaches that the Sages dissolved four vows, and you say they require a request made to a halakhic authority?
רַב יוֹסֵף מַתְנִי לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא בְּהַאי לִישָּׁנָא: אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: אֵין חָכָם רַשַּׁאי לְהַתִּיר אֶלָּא כְּעֵין אַרְבָּעָה נְדָרִים הַלָּלוּ. קָסָבַר אֵין פּוֹתְחִין בַּחֲרָטָה.
Rav Yosef taught this halakha in this manner: Rav Yehuda said that Rav Asi said: A halakhic authority is able to dissolve only a vow that is similar to these four vows in that it was not intended to be a vow at all but was simply expressed in the language of a vow. In addition, he can dissolve a vow taken by mistake. The Gemara comments: It can be derived from here that he holds that a halakhic authority does not broach dissolution based on regret. A halakhic authority must search for a factor that, had the one making the vow been aware of it at the time of the vow, he would not have vowed. Simply expressing regret about the vow is an insufficient basis on which to dissolve it.
הַהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, אָמַר לֵיהּ: לִבָּךְ עֲלָךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא, וְשַׁרְיֵיהּ.
The Gemara relates an incident that illustrates a different opinion concerning broaching dissolution based on regret. There was a certain person who came before Rav Huna to request dissolution of a vow. Rav Huna said to him: Is your heart upon you? Do you still have the same desire that you had when you made the vow? He said to him: No. And Rav Huna dissolved the vow for him. Since Rav Huna dissolved the vow based on regret alone, he evidently holds that one may broach dissolution based on regret.
הָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִילּוּ הָיוּ עֲשָׂרָה בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁיְּפַיְּיסוּךְ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה מִי נָדַרְתָּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֹא, וְהִתִּירוֹ.
Similarly, there was a certain person who came before Rabba bar Rav Huna to dissolve his vow. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to him: Had there been ten people who could have appeased you at the time you vowed, would you have made the vow? He said to him: No. And he dissolved the vow for him.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אוֹמְרִים לוֹ לָאָדָם: לֵב זֶה עָלֶיךָ? אִם אָמַר ״לָאו״ — מַתִּירִין אוֹתוֹ. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם אָבִיו: אוֹמְרִים לוֹ לָאָדָם: אִילּוּ הָיוּ עֲשָׂרָה בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁיְּפַיְּיסוּךְ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה מִי נָדַרְתָּ? אִם אָמַר ״לָאו״ — מַתִּירִין אוֹתוֹ.
It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The halakhic authorities who dissolve the vow say to the person who vowed: Is this heart, i.e., this desire, still upon you? If he says no, they dissolve it. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, says in the name of his father: They say to the person who vowed: Had there been ten people who could have appeased you at the time, would you have made the vow? If he says no, they dissolve it.
(סִימָן: אַסִּי וְאֶלְעָזָר, יוֹחָנָן וְיַנַּאי).
The Gemara prefaces the next discussion with a mnemonic device: Asi and Elazar, Yoḥanan and Yannai.
הַהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַסִּי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּדוּ תָּהֵית? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא, וְשַׁרְיֵיהּ. הָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בָּעֵית נָדוּר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִילּוּ לָא מַרְגְּזִין לִי לָא בָּעֵינַן כְּלוּם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּהֵא כְּבָעֵית. הָהִיא אִיתְּתָא דְּאַדַּרְתַּהּ לִבְרַתַּהּ, אֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אָמַר לַהּ: אִילּוּ הֲוָה יָדְעַתְּ דְּאָמְרָן מְגֵירָתִיךְ עֲלַהּ דִּבְרַתִּךְ:
The Gemara relates that there was a certain person who came before Rabbi Asi to request dissolution of a vow. Rabbi Asi said to him: Do you have regret? He said to him rhetorically: No, do I not have regret? In other words, certainly I have regret. And he dissolved the vow for him. Similarly, there was a certain person who came before Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Elazar said to him: Did you want to vow? Was this really your desire? He said to Rabbi Elazar: If they had not angered me, I would not have wanted anything. He said to him: Let it be like you want, and the vow is dissolved. In another instance, there was a certain woman who took a vow with regard to her daughter that the daughter may not benefit from her, and she came before Rabbi Yoḥanan to dissolve the vow. He said to her: Had you known that your neighbors would say about your daughter:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Nedarim 21: If It Walks Like a Duck, and Quacks Like a Duck, It’s Still Not Always a Duck
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
I started learning Daf Yomi inspired by תָּפַסְתָּ מְרוּבֶּה לֹא תָּפַסְתָּ, תָּפַסְתָּ מוּעָט תָּפַסְתָּ. I thought I’d start the first page, and then see. I was swept up into the enthusiasm of the Hadran Siyum, and from there the momentum kept building. Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur gives me an anchor, a connection to an incredible virtual community, and an energy to face whatever the day brings.
בית שמש, Israel
I began to learn this cycle of Daf Yomi after my husband passed away 2 1/2 years ago. It seemed a good way to connect to him. Even though I don’t know whether he would have encouraged women learning Gemara, it would have opened wonderful conversations. It also gives me more depth for understanding my frum children and grandchildren. Thank you Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle Farber!!
Tzur Hadassah, Israel
Minneapolis, MN, United States
Ontario, Canada
I started learning Daf Yomi in January 2020 after watching my grandfather, Mayer Penstein z”l, finish shas with the previous cycle. My grandfather made learning so much fun was so proud that his grandchildren wanted to join him. I was also inspired by Ilana Kurshan’s book, If All the Seas Were Ink. Two years in, I can say that it has enriched my life in so many ways.
New York, United States
I began my journey with Rabbanit Michelle more than five years ago. My friend came up with a great idea for about 15 of us to learn the daf and one of us would summarize weekly what we learned.
It was fun but after 2-3 months people began to leave. I have continued. Since the cycle began Again I have joined the Teaneck women.. I find it most rewarding in so many ways. Thank you
New Jersey, United States
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
As Jewish educator and as a woman, I’m mindful that Talmud has been kept from women for many centuries. Now that we are privileged to learn, and learning is so accessible, it’s my intent to complete Daf Yomi. I am so excited to keep learning with my Hadran community.
Denver, United States
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
My curiosity was peaked after seeing posts about the end of the last cycle. I am always looking for opportunities to increase my Jewish literacy & I am someone that is drawn to habit and consistency. Dinnertime includes a “Guess what I learned on the daf” segment for my husband and 18 year old twins. I also love the feelings of connection with my colleagues who are also learning.
Tampa, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, United States
Retirement and Covid converged to provide me with the opportunity to commit to daily Talmud study in October 2020. I dove into the middle of Eruvin and continued to navigate Seder Moed, with Rabannit Michelle as my guide. I have developed more confidence in my learning as I completed each masechet and look forward to completing the Daf Yomi cycle so that I can begin again!
San Diego, United States
I started the daf at the beginning of this cycle in January 2020. My husband, my children, grandchildren and siblings have been very supportive. As someone who learned and taught Tanach and mefarshim for many years, it has been an amazing adventure to complete the six sedarim of Mishnah, and now to study Talmud on a daily basis along with Rabbanit Michelle and the wonderful women of Hadran.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
Nedarim 21
שְׁנֵיהֶם רוֹצִין בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה דִּינָרִין.
In this case, one may assume that both want to complete the deal at three dinars, and they did not intend to vow but only exaggerated for purposes of bargaining.
גְּמָ׳ אַרְבָּעָה נְדָרִים הִתִּירוּ חֲכָמִים כּוּ׳. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר מֶמֶל לְרַבִּי אַמֵּי: אֲמַרְתְּ לַן מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה: מַאן תְּנָא אַרְבָּעָה נְדָרִים — רַבִּי יְהוּדָה הִיא, דְּאָמַר מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן: לְעוֹלָם אֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶן נָזִיר, לְפִי שֶׁלֹּא נִיתְּנָה נְזִירוּת אֶלָּא לְהַפְלָאָה.
GEMARA: The mishna states: The Sages dissolved four types of vows. Rabbi Abba bar Memel said to Rabbi Ami: You said to us in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesia: Who is the tanna who taught this mishna of four vows? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said in the name of Rabbi Tarfon: With regard to two people who entered into a wager, and each declared that he would become a nazirite if the other was right, then actually neither of them becomes a nazirite, because naziriteship is determined only by explicitness of intent. One cannot become a nazirite unless he vows clearly and with certitude. Here too, since the intent of the wagering parties was not actually to vow, the halakha is that the vow is invalid.
רָבָא אָמַר: אֲפִילּוּ תֵּימָא רַבָּנַן, מִי קָתָנֵי ״שְׁנֵיהֶן רָצוּ״? ״שְׁנֵיהֶן רוֹצִין״ קָתָנֵי.
Rava said: You can even say that the mishna is in accordance with the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda. Does the mishna teach: Both wanted the price to be three dinars? It teaches: Both want, in the present tense, demonstrating that they would have been satisfied with that price from the outset and never intended to vow, so the vow is not binding.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבִינָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אָמַר לוֹ טְפֵי מִסֶּלַע, וְהַלָּה אֹמֵר בְּצִיר מִשֶּׁקֶל, נִדְרָא הָוֵי, אוֹ זֵרוּזִין הָוֵי?
Ravina said to Rav Ashi: If the seller said to the buyer in the form of a vow that the price must remain more than a sela, and the other declared in the form of a vow that the price must remain less than a shekel, what is the halakha? Is this a vow, where each stands firmly in his position? Or perhaps this is also merely for encouragement?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ, תְּנֵינָא: הָיָה מְסָרֵב בַּחֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁיֹּאכַל אֶצְלוֹ, וְאָמַר לוֹ ״קֻוֽנָּם בֵּיתְךָ שֶׁאֲנִי נִכְנָס״, ״טִיפַּת צוֹנֵן שֶׁאֲנִי טוֹעֵם״ — מוּתָּר לִיכָּנֵס לְבֵיתוֹ וְלִשְׁתּוֹת הֵימֶנּוּ צוֹנֵן, שֶׁלֹּא נִתְכַּוֵּון זֶה אֶלָּא לְשׁוּם אֲכִילָה וּשְׁתִיָּה.
Rav Ashi said to him: We already learned about a similar case: If one was importuning another that he should eat with him and the other refused and said to him: Entering your house is konam for me, or: A drop of cold water is konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste it with you, it is permitted for him to enter his house and drink cold water since he intended it as a vow only for the purpose of eating and drinking a large amount but did not mean literally that he would not drink anything.
וְאַמַּאי? וְהָא ״טִיפַּת צוֹנֵן״ קָאָמַר! אֶלָּא מִשְׁתַּעֵי אִינִישׁ הָכִי. הָכָא נָמֵי מִשְׁתַּעֵי אִינִישׁ הָכִי.
The Gemara asks: And why is this permitted? But he said: A drop of cold water, so how can you say that the vow is only with regard to drinking a large amount? Rather, it must be that a person speaks this way in exaggerated terms but does not mean literally what he says. Here also, in the case of the buyer and seller, a person speaks this way. He exaggerates and does not intend the literal meaning of his words, even though he was quite precise in his wording.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ:
Ravina said to him:
מִי דָּמֵי? גַּבֵּי צוֹנֵן, צַדִּיקִים אוֹמְרִים מְעַט וְעוֹשִׂין הַרְבֵּה —
Are these cases comparable? Concerning the case of cold water, the righteous say little and do much. Therefore, when the host says to the other: Enter my house and drink a drop of cold water, he intended to offer him an entire meal. So too, the one who vows is referring to an entire meal and not literally to a drop of water. Therefore, he may drink a bit of cold water in the host’s house.
הָכָא סְפֵיקָא הוּא, דִּלְמָא פָּחוֹת מִסֶּלַע וְיוֹתֵר עַל שֶׁקֶל קָאָמַר, וְזֵירוּזִין הָוֵי, אוֹ דִּלְמָא דַּוְקָא קָאָמַר, וְנִידְרָא הָוֵי. תִּבְּעֵי.
But here it is uncertain. Perhaps when the seller says he will only accept more than a sela, he really intends to accept less than a sela, and when the buyer says he will not pay more than a shekel, he really intends to pay more than a shekel; and this is also an exhortation vow. Or, perhaps he meant specifically what he said, and it is a vow, because he did not intend to compromise on the price. The Gemara concludes: The dilemma remains unresolved.
אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: אַרְבָּעָה נְדָרִים הַלָּלוּ צְרִיכִין שְׁאֵלָה לְחָכָם. כִּי אַמְרִיתָא קַמֵּיהּ דִּשְׁמוּאֵל, אָמַר: תַּנָּא תָּנֵי ״אַרְבָּעָה נְדָרִים הִתִּירוּ חֲכָמִים״, וְאַתְּ אָמְרַתְּ צְרִיכִין שְׁאֵלָה לְחָכָם?!
§ Rav Yehuda said that Rav Asi said: These four vows that are taught in the mishna still require a request made to a halakhic authority to dissolve them. Rav Yehuda continues: When I said this halakha before Shmuel, he said: The tanna teaches that the Sages dissolved four vows, and you say they require a request made to a halakhic authority?
רַב יוֹסֵף מַתְנִי לַהּ לְהָא שְׁמַעְתָּא בְּהַאי לִישָּׁנָא: אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב אַסִּי: אֵין חָכָם רַשַּׁאי לְהַתִּיר אֶלָּא כְּעֵין אַרְבָּעָה נְדָרִים הַלָּלוּ. קָסָבַר אֵין פּוֹתְחִין בַּחֲרָטָה.
Rav Yosef taught this halakha in this manner: Rav Yehuda said that Rav Asi said: A halakhic authority is able to dissolve only a vow that is similar to these four vows in that it was not intended to be a vow at all but was simply expressed in the language of a vow. In addition, he can dissolve a vow taken by mistake. The Gemara comments: It can be derived from here that he holds that a halakhic authority does not broach dissolution based on regret. A halakhic authority must search for a factor that, had the one making the vow been aware of it at the time of the vow, he would not have vowed. Simply expressing regret about the vow is an insufficient basis on which to dissolve it.
הַהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא, אָמַר לֵיהּ: לִבָּךְ עֲלָךְ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא, וְשַׁרְיֵיהּ.
The Gemara relates an incident that illustrates a different opinion concerning broaching dissolution based on regret. There was a certain person who came before Rav Huna to request dissolution of a vow. Rav Huna said to him: Is your heart upon you? Do you still have the same desire that you had when you made the vow? He said to him: No. And Rav Huna dissolved the vow for him. Since Rav Huna dissolved the vow based on regret alone, he evidently holds that one may broach dissolution based on regret.
הָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבָּה בַּר רַב הוּנָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִילּוּ הָיוּ עֲשָׂרָה בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁיְּפַיְּיסוּךְ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה מִי נָדַרְתָּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לֹא, וְהִתִּירוֹ.
Similarly, there was a certain person who came before Rabba bar Rav Huna to dissolve his vow. Rabba bar Rav Huna said to him: Had there been ten people who could have appeased you at the time you vowed, would you have made the vow? He said to him: No. And he dissolved the vow for him.
תַּנְיָא, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אוֹמְרִים לוֹ לָאָדָם: לֵב זֶה עָלֶיךָ? אִם אָמַר ״לָאו״ — מַתִּירִין אוֹתוֹ. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בְּרַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר מִשּׁוּם אָבִיו: אוֹמְרִים לוֹ לָאָדָם: אִילּוּ הָיוּ עֲשָׂרָה בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁיְּפַיְּיסוּךְ בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה מִי נָדַרְתָּ? אִם אָמַר ״לָאו״ — מַתִּירִין אוֹתוֹ.
It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: The halakhic authorities who dissolve the vow say to the person who vowed: Is this heart, i.e., this desire, still upon you? If he says no, they dissolve it. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, says in the name of his father: They say to the person who vowed: Had there been ten people who could have appeased you at the time, would you have made the vow? If he says no, they dissolve it.
(סִימָן: אַסִּי וְאֶלְעָזָר, יוֹחָנָן וְיַנַּאי).
The Gemara prefaces the next discussion with a mnemonic device: Asi and Elazar, Yoḥanan and Yannai.
הַהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אַסִּי אֲמַר לֵיהּ: כְּדוּ תָּהֵית? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: לָא, וְשַׁרְיֵיהּ. הָהוּא דַּאֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, אֲמַר לֵיהּ: בָּעֵית נָדוּר? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִילּוּ לָא מַרְגְּזִין לִי לָא בָּעֵינַן כְּלוּם. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תְּהֵא כְּבָעֵית. הָהִיא אִיתְּתָא דְּאַדַּרְתַּהּ לִבְרַתַּהּ, אֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, אָמַר לַהּ: אִילּוּ הֲוָה יָדְעַתְּ דְּאָמְרָן מְגֵירָתִיךְ עֲלַהּ דִּבְרַתִּךְ:
The Gemara relates that there was a certain person who came before Rabbi Asi to request dissolution of a vow. Rabbi Asi said to him: Do you have regret? He said to him rhetorically: No, do I not have regret? In other words, certainly I have regret. And he dissolved the vow for him. Similarly, there was a certain person who came before Rabbi Elazar, and Rabbi Elazar said to him: Did you want to vow? Was this really your desire? He said to Rabbi Elazar: If they had not angered me, I would not have wanted anything. He said to him: Let it be like you want, and the vow is dissolved. In another instance, there was a certain woman who took a vow with regard to her daughter that the daughter may not benefit from her, and she came before Rabbi Yoḥanan to dissolve the vow. He said to her: Had you known that your neighbors would say about your daughter:
