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:
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is dedicated for a refuah shleima for Pesha Etel bat Sarah
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 learning daf in January, 2020, being inspired by watching the Siyyum Hashas in Binyanei Haumah. I wasn’t sure I would be able to keep up with the task. When I went to school, Gemara was not an option. Fast forward to March, 2022, and each day starts with the daf. The challenge is now learning the intricacies of delving into the actual learning. Hadran community, thank you!
Riverdale, NY, United States
I have joined the community of daf yomi learners at the start of this cycle. I have studied in different ways – by reading the page, translating the page, attending a local shiur and listening to Rabbanit Farber’s podcasts, depending on circumstances and where I was at the time. The reactions have been positive throughout – with no exception!
Guildford, United Kingdom
I learned daf more off than on 40 years ago. At the beginning of the current cycle, I decided to commit to learning daf regularly. Having Rabanit Michelle available as a learning partner has been amazing. Sometimes I learn with Hadran, sometimes with my husband, and sometimes on my own. It’s been fun to be part of an extended learning community.
Honolulu, Hawaii, United States
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
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, 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
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
Ontario, Canada
Richmond, CA, United States
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
New York, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Palo Alto, CA, United States
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, 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:
