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.
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Marci Glazer in loving memory of her teacher and chevruta, Rachel Brodie, Rachel Aviva bat Devora Chana, on her 4th yahrzeit. “She brought her love of Torah to thousands of people in her all-too-short life. A lover of Midrash, she still invited me on this Daf Yomi journey.”
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.
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
I started learning with rabbis. I needed to know more than the stories. My first teacher to show me “the way of the Talmud” as well as the stories was Samara Schwartz.
Michelle Farber started the new cycle 2 yrs ago and I jumped on for the ride.
I do not look back.
Houston, United States
Berlin, Germany
Raanana, Israel
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
It’s hard to believe it has been over two years. Daf yomi has changed my life in so many ways and has been sustaining during this global sea change. Each day means learning something new, digging a little deeper, adding another lens, seeing worlds with new eyes. Daf has also fostered new friendships and deepened childhood connections, as long time friends have unexpectedly become havruta.
Northwest Washington, United States
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
I started learning after the siyum hashas for women and my daily learning has been a constant over the last two years. It grounded me during the chaos of Corona while providing me with a community of fellow learners. The Daf can be challenging but it’s filled with life’s lessons, struggles and hope for a better world. It’s not about the destination but rather about the journey. Thank you Hadran!
אפרת, Israel
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, 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
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 learning with Rabbanit Michelle’s wonderful Talmud Skills class on Pesachim, which really enriched my Pesach seder, and I have been learning Daf Yomi off and on over the past year. Because I’m relatively new at this, there is a “chiddush” for me every time I learn, and the knowledge and insights of the group members add so much to my experience. I feel very lucky to be a part of this.
Karmiel, Israel
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Jerusalem, Israel
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, 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
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
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:
