Today's Daf Yomi
November 16, 2022 | כ״ב במרחשוון תשפ״ג
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
-
Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.
Nedarim 22
A certain style of petach was used by a number of rabbis and yet, was discouraged by the Gemara for concern that people would not tell the truth. This petach took on different forms but the idea was that the chacham would say something like: “Had you known how terrible a sin it is to God to vow, would you have taken this vow?” Since it is unlikely someone would have the audacity to answer ‘yes’ to this question in front of a chacham, they ruled one cannot use it. There is a debate between Rava and Abaye regarding whether or not one can use this petach: “Had you known it was like building a bama and sacrificing a sacrifice, would you have vowed?” There is a debate regarding what part of that sentence they disagree about – the bama or the sacrifice. The Gemara brings several statements about the dangers of anger since the assumption is that most people vow in a moment of anger. A story is told of Ulla who witnessed a murder on his travels from Babylonia to Israel. Rabbi Yochanan questions a detail of the story – how one could have gotten angry in Israel and murdered another, as the verse says that God will bring anger outside of Israel. Anger causes one to dismiss the divine presence, causes folly and sin. Is it possible to dissolve a vow/oath if one vowed/swore in the name of God? Most of the amoraim say that it is not, but Rav Nachman rules at the end of the sugya that it is allowed. It is told about Rav Sechora who came to Rabbi Nachman to permit a vow and after Rav Nachman tried all kinds of openings without success, he became angry with Rav Sechora. When Rabbi Sechora left there, he came up with a petach himself that if he had known that it would make Rabbi Nachman angry with him, he would not have made a vow. Another similar story is told about the breaking of a vow of Rabbi Shimon the son of Rebbi.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Podcast (דף-יומי-לנשים): Play in new window | Download
אילו לא חמאת בה אימה מילין דעזיבה בכדי לא אדרתה מי אדרתה אמרה ליה לא ושרייה
Had her mother not seen inappropriate [aziva] matters or behavior in her that should be stopped, she would not have taken a vow with regard to her for nothing; had you known that the neighbors would say that, would you have taken a vow with regard to her? She said to him: No, and he dissolved the vow for her.
בר ברתיה דרבי ינאי סבא אתא לקמיה דרבי ינאי סבא אמר ליה אילו הוה ידעת דפתחין פינקסך וממשמשין בעובדך מי נדרת אמר ליה לא ושרייה
The Gemara relates: The son of the daughter of Rabbi Yannai the Elder came before Rabbi Yannai the Elder to dissolve a vow. He said to him: Had you known that when you make a vow they open your record book [pinekas] in heaven and examine your actions, would you have vowed? He said to him: No, and he dissolved the vow for him.
אמר רבי אבא מאי קראה ואחר נדרים לבקר ואף על גב דפתח רבי ינאי ליה אנן לא פתחינן ליה בהא
Rabbi Abba said: What is the verse from which it is derived that taking a vow leads to one’s deeds being examined? It is “And after vows to make inquiry” (Proverbs 20:25). This is interpreted to mean that after one takes a vow, his actions are reviewed in heaven. The Gemara comments: And although Rabbi Yannai broached dissolution with him in this way, we do not broach dissolution in this manner for one who vows, by asking if he regrets it because his actions will be examined in heaven. This is because one might be embarrassed, upon hearing such a question, to say that he does not have regret, and he will claim untruthfully that he is regretful.
ולא פתחינן בהדא אחרנייתא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מאי פתח ליה רבן גמליאל לההוא סבא יש בוטה כמדקרות חרב ולשון חכמים מרפא כל הבוטה ראוי לדוקרו בחרב אלא לשון חכמים מרפא
And we also do not broach dissolution in this other way, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What type of dissolution did Rabban Gamliel broach for a certain elderly man who had taken a vow and came before him for dissolution? He informed him that it is written: “There is one who speaks like the piercing of a sword, but the tongue of the wise is health” (Proverbs 12:18), which is interpreted to mean: Anyone who verbally expresses the language of a vow, it is appropriate to pierce him with a sword, but he has another option: “The tongue of the wise is health,” since the Sages can release him from his vow. Quoting this verse with its interpretation is also not an acceptable method of broaching dissolution.
ולא פתחינן בהדא אחרנייתא דתניא רבי נתן אומר הנודר כאילו בנה במה והמקיימו כאילו מקריב עליו קרבן ברישא פתחינן בסיפא אביי אמר פתחינן רבא אמר לא פתחינן
We also do not broach dissolution using this other method, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says: One who vows is considered as if he built a personal altar outside the Temple, which is prohibited, and one who fulfills this vow is considered as if he sacrifices an offering on it. With the first clause, we may broach dissolution by informing the one who vowed that vowing is akin to building an altar outside the Temple, but with regard to the latter clause there is a dispute among the Sages. Abaye said: We do broach dissolution by telling someone that fulfilling a vow is like sacrificing an offering on a forbidden altar, while Rava said: We do not broach dissolution with it.
רב כהנא מתני לה להא שמעתא בהדין לישנא רב טביומי מתני הכי בסיפא לא פתחינן ברישא אביי אמר פתחינן רבא אמר לא פתחינן והלכתא לא פתחינן לא ברישא ולא בסיפא
Rav Kahana taught this halakha in this wording, i.e., the wording that was just cited. However, Rav Tavyumei taught this halakha in this way: With regard to what is written in the last clause, all agree that we do not broach dissolution in this way. With regard to what is written in the first clause, there is a dispute among the Sages. Abaye said: We do broach dissolution in this manner, while Rava said: We do not broach dissolution in this manner either. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that we do not broach dissolution using either the language in the first clause or the language in the latter clause.
ולא פתחינן בהא נמי דשמואל דאמר שמואל אף על פי שמקיימו נקרא רשע אמר רבי אבהו מאי קרא וכי תחדל לנדר לא יהיה בך חטא ויליף חדלה חדלה כתיב הכא וכי תחדל לנדר וכתיב התם שם רשעים חדלו רגז
And furthermore, we also do not broach dissolution with this statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: With regard to one who vows, although he fulfills it, he is called wicked. Rabbi Abbahu said: What is the verse from which this is derived? It is “But if you refrain [teḥdal] from vowing there will be no sin in you” (Deuteronomy 23:23), and he derives the word ḥadala here from the word ḥadala elsewhere. It is written here: “But if you refrain [teḥdal] from vowing,” and it is written there: “There the wicked cease [ḥadlu] from troubling” (Job 3:17). The parallel language demonstrates that vowing is an act of the wicked.
אמר רב יוסף אף אנן נמי תנינא כנדרי כשרים לא אמר כלום כנדרי רשעים נדר בנזיר ובקרבן ובשבועה
Rav Yosef said: We, too, learn in the mishna (9a): If one says he vows like the vows of the virtuous, he has not said anything. If he says: Like the vows of the wicked, he has vowed with regard to becoming a nazirite, or with regard to obligating himself in an offering, or with regard to taking an oath. From here it is also apparent that vowing is an act of the wicked.
אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן כל הכועס כל מיני גיהנם שולטין בו שנאמר והסר כעס מלבך והעבר רעה מבשרך ואין רעה אלא גיהנם שנאמר כל פעל ה׳ למענהו וגם רשע ליום רעה
§ Apropos the verse “There the wicked cease from troubling,” the Gemara cites a related statement: Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who gets angry, all kinds of Gehenna rule over him, because anger causes him to transgress all kinds of severe sins, as it is stated: “Therefore remove vexation from your heart and put away evil from your flesh” (Ecclesiastes 11:10), and the evil mentioned is nothing other than Gehenna, as it is stated: “The Lord has made everything for His own purpose and even the wicked for the day of evil” (Proverbs 16:4), which is interpreted to mean that ultimately the day of the evildoer in Gehenna will arrive.
ולא עוד אלא שהתחתוניות שולטות בו שנאמר ונתן ה׳ לך שם לב רגז וכליון עינים ודאבון נפש איזהו דבר שמכלה את העינים ומדאיב את הנפש הוי אומר אלו התחתוניות
And not only that, but also hemorrhoids will control him, as it is stated: “But the Lord shall give you there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and languishing of soul” (Deuteronomy 28:65). Which is the matter of sickness that causes failing of the eyes in pain and causes languishing of the soul? You must say this is referring to hemorrhoids.
עולא במיסקיה לארעא דישראל איתלוו ליה תרין בני חוזאי בהדיה קם חד שחטיה לחבריה אמר ליה לעולא יאות עבדי אמר ליה אין ופרע ליה בית השחיטה כי אתא לקמיה דרבי יוחנן אמר ליה דלמא חס ושלום אחזיקי ידי עוברי עבירה אמר ליה נפשך הצלת
The Gemara relates: Ulla, on his ascent to Eretz Yisrael, had two residents of Ḥozai join him. Because of a brawl between them, one arose and slaughtered the other. The assailant said to Ulla: Did I act properly? He said to him: Yes, and open the place of the slaughter, i.e., cut it more so that he will die faster. When Ulla came before Rabbi Yoḥanan, Ulla said to him: Perhaps, Heaven forbid, I strengthened the hands of sinners by commending him, although I did so merely because I was afraid that he would kill me. He said to him: You saved yourself by doing so, as it is permitted for one to say words like this in order to save his own life.
קא תמה רבי יוחנן מכדי כתיב ונתן ה׳ לך שם לב רגז בבבל כתיב אמר ליה ההוא שעתא
With regard to the narrative itself, Rabbi Yoḥanan wondered: Now, it is written in the passage of curses: “But the Lord shall give you there a trembling heart” (Deuteronomy 28:65) and this is written with regard to Babylonia, because in the exile an individual possesses a trembling and angry heart. How is it possible that in Eretz Yisrael a person can get so angry as to murder another? Ulla said to him: At that moment when the incident occurred
לא עברינן ירדנא
we had not yet crossed the Jordan River, and we were still outside of Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, the curse of a heart of anger was relevant.
אמר רבה בר רב הונא כל הכועס אפילו שכינה אינה חשובה כנגדו שנאמר רשע כגבה אפו בל ידרש אין אלהים כל מזמותיו רבי ירמיה מדיפתי אמר משכח תלמודו ומוסיף טיפשות שנאמר כי כעס בחיק כסילים ינוח וכתיב וכסיל יפרש אולת רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר בידוע שעונותיו מרובין מזכיותיו שנאמר ובעל חמה רב פשע
Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Anyone who gets angry, at that moment even the Divine Presence is not important to him, as it is stated: “The wicked, in the height of his anger says: He will not require; all his thoughts are: There is no God” (Psalms 10:4). Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said: Anyone who gets angry forgets his learning and increases foolishness, as it is stated: “For anger rests in the bosom of fools” (Ecclesiastes 7:9), and it is written: “But a fool unfolds folly” (Proverbs 13:16). Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: With regard to one who gets angry, it is acknowledged that his sins are more numerous than his merits, as it is stated: “And a wrathful man abounds in transgression” (Proverbs 29:22).
אמר רב אדא ברבי חנינא אלמלא (לא) חטאו ישראל לא ניתן להם אלא חמשה חומשי תורה וספר יהושע בלבד שערכה של ארץ ישראל הוא מאי טעמא כי ברב חכמה רב כעס
Rav Adda, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: Had Israel not sinned in earlier times they would have been given the five books of the Torah and the book of Joshua alone. They needed the book of Joshua because it includes the arrangement of Eretz Yisrael. Since it contains the division of Eretz Yisrael among the tribes, it was required for all generations, but the other books of the prophets primarily detail the history of how Israel angered God and He sent prophets to admonish them. What is the reason, i.e., what is the allusion to this idea? It is stated: “For in much wisdom is much vexation” (Ecclesiastes 1:18). All the wisdom that the Jews possess from the books of the Bible is the result of their angering God.
אמר רבי אסי אין נזקקין לאלהי ישראל חוץ מקונם אשתי נהנית לי שגנבה את כיסי ושהכתה את בני ונודע שלא גנבה ושלא הכתו
§ Rabbi Asi said: One does not attend to a request to dissolve a vow in which the name of the God of Israel is invoked because such a declaration is especially stringent, except for a case where one swears by the God of Israel and adds: Benefiting from me is konam for my wife because she stole my purse or she hit my son, and then it became known that she did not steal or did not hit his son. In such a case, the vow can be dissolved because the vow was made in error, but in other cases such a vow is not dissolved.
ההיא דאתאי לקמיה דרב אסי אמר לה במאי נדרת באלהי ישראל אמר לה אי נדרת במוהי שהיא כינוי בעלמא מזדקיקנא לך השתא דלא נדרת במוהי אלא באלהי ישראל לא מזדקיקנא לך
The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who came before Rav Asi. He said to her: With what language did you vow? She said to him: By the God of Israel. He said to her: If you would have vowed and said: By mohi, which is merely a substitute name, I would have attended to your request and dissolved the vow, but now that you did not vow by mohi but rather, by the God of Israel, I will not attend to your request and dissolve the vow.
רב כהנא איקלע לבי רב יוסף אמר ליה לטעום מר מידי אמר ליה לא מרי כולא לא טעימנא ליה אמר ליה לא מרי כולא לא טעימת ליה הניחא לרב כהנא דאמר לא מרי כולא אלא לרב יוסף אמאי אמר לא מרי כולא הכי הוא דקאמר ליה לא מרי כולא הוא דקאמרת הלכך לא טעימת ליה
The Gemara relates another incident: Rav Kahana happened to come to the home of Rav Yosef. Rav Yosef said to him: Let the Master eat something. He said to him: No, by the Master of all I will not eat it. Rav Yosef said to him: No, by the Master of all you will not eat it. The Gemara comments: Rav Kahana’s statement: No, by the Master of all I will not eat it, is well understood. But for Rav Yosef, why did he say: No, by the Master of all you will not eat it? What was the purpose of his vow? The Gemara answers: This is what he said to him: No, by the Master of all you will not eat it is what you said; therefore, you may not eat it, since a vow taken in such solemn fashion may not be dissolved.
אמר רבא אמר רב נחמן הלכתא פותחין בחרטה ונזקקין לאלהי ישראל
Rava said that Rav Naḥman said: The halakha is that it is permitted for a halakhic authority to broach dissolution based on regret, and that one also attends to a request to dissolve a vow in which the name of the God of Israel is invoked.
משתבח ליה רבא לרב נחמן ברב סחורה דאדם גדול הוא אמר לו כשיבא לידך הביאהו לידי הוה ליה נדרא למישרא אתא לקמיה דרב נחמן
§ Rava praised his student Rav Seḥora to Rav Naḥman by saying that he is a great man. Rav Naḥman said to him: When Rav Seḥora comes to you, bring him to me. Rav Seḥora had a vow that he wanted to dissolve, so Rava sent Rav Seḥora to Rav Naḥman. He came before Rav Naḥman.
אמר ליה נדרת אדעתא דהכי אמר ליה אין אדעתא דהכי אין כמה זימנין איקפד רב נחמן אמר ליה זיל לקילעך
Rav Naḥman, who wanted to dissolve the vow, said to him: Did you vow with such a matter in mind? He said to him: Yes, so Rav Naḥman did not dissolve the vow. He then asked again: Did you vow with such a matter in mind, and suggested another possibility. He said to him: Yes. This happened several times, and every time Rav Naḥman attempted to broach an opening, Rav Seḥora replied that he had that in mind when he made the vow. Rav Naḥman became upset with him because it appeared that Rav Seḥora was making it unnecessarily difficult for him to dissolve the vow. Rav Naḥman said to him: Go to your tent [kilakh] because I do not want to talk to you.
נפק רב סחורה ופתח פיתחא לנפשיה רבי אומר איזה היא דרך ישרה שיבור לו האדם כל שהיא תפארת לעושיה ותפארת לו מן האדם והשתא דאיקפד רב נחמן אדעתא דהכי לא נדרי ושרא לנפשיה
Rav Seḥora went out and made the following opening for himself that would enable the dissolution of his vow, based on a mishna in tractate Avot (2:1): Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: What is the proper path that a person should choose? He should choose any path that is considered a glory to the one who does it and a glory from his fellow men. Rav Seḥora then reasoned that now that Rav Naḥman became upset at him, he would not have made the vow with knowledge of this fact, since he would not receive glory from his fellow men, and based on this he dissolved the vow for himself.
רבי שמעון ברבי הוה ליה נדרא למישרא אתא לקמייהו דרבנן אמרי ליה נדרת אדעתא דהכי אמר אין אדעתא דהכי אין כמה זימנין
The Gemara relates a similar incident: Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, had a vow to dissolve. He came before the Sages for dissolution. They said to him: Did you vow with the knowledge of this particular fact? He said: Yes. They proposed another possibility: Did you vow with the knowledge of this other particular fact? He said to them: Yes. This happened several times,
-
This month's learning is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory of her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Bat Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.
-
Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.
Subscribe to Hadran's Daf Yomi
Want to explore more about the Daf?
See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners
Nedarim 22
The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria
אילו לא חמאת בה אימה מילין דעזיבה בכדי לא אדרתה מי אדרתה אמרה ליה לא ושרייה
Had her mother not seen inappropriate [aziva] matters or behavior in her that should be stopped, she would not have taken a vow with regard to her for nothing; had you known that the neighbors would say that, would you have taken a vow with regard to her? She said to him: No, and he dissolved the vow for her.
בר ברתיה דרבי ינאי סבא אתא לקמיה דרבי ינאי סבא אמר ליה אילו הוה ידעת דפתחין פינקסך וממשמשין בעובדך מי נדרת אמר ליה לא ושרייה
The Gemara relates: The son of the daughter of Rabbi Yannai the Elder came before Rabbi Yannai the Elder to dissolve a vow. He said to him: Had you known that when you make a vow they open your record book [pinekas] in heaven and examine your actions, would you have vowed? He said to him: No, and he dissolved the vow for him.
אמר רבי אבא מאי קראה ואחר נדרים לבקר ואף על גב דפתח רבי ינאי ליה אנן לא פתחינן ליה בהא
Rabbi Abba said: What is the verse from which it is derived that taking a vow leads to one’s deeds being examined? It is “And after vows to make inquiry” (Proverbs 20:25). This is interpreted to mean that after one takes a vow, his actions are reviewed in heaven. The Gemara comments: And although Rabbi Yannai broached dissolution with him in this way, we do not broach dissolution in this manner for one who vows, by asking if he regrets it because his actions will be examined in heaven. This is because one might be embarrassed, upon hearing such a question, to say that he does not have regret, and he will claim untruthfully that he is regretful.
ולא פתחינן בהדא אחרנייתא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן מאי פתח ליה רבן גמליאל לההוא סבא יש בוטה כמדקרות חרב ולשון חכמים מרפא כל הבוטה ראוי לדוקרו בחרב אלא לשון חכמים מרפא
And we also do not broach dissolution in this other way, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What type of dissolution did Rabban Gamliel broach for a certain elderly man who had taken a vow and came before him for dissolution? He informed him that it is written: “There is one who speaks like the piercing of a sword, but the tongue of the wise is health” (Proverbs 12:18), which is interpreted to mean: Anyone who verbally expresses the language of a vow, it is appropriate to pierce him with a sword, but he has another option: “The tongue of the wise is health,” since the Sages can release him from his vow. Quoting this verse with its interpretation is also not an acceptable method of broaching dissolution.
ולא פתחינן בהדא אחרנייתא דתניא רבי נתן אומר הנודר כאילו בנה במה והמקיימו כאילו מקריב עליו קרבן ברישא פתחינן בסיפא אביי אמר פתחינן רבא אמר לא פתחינן
We also do not broach dissolution using this other method, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says: One who vows is considered as if he built a personal altar outside the Temple, which is prohibited, and one who fulfills this vow is considered as if he sacrifices an offering on it. With the first clause, we may broach dissolution by informing the one who vowed that vowing is akin to building an altar outside the Temple, but with regard to the latter clause there is a dispute among the Sages. Abaye said: We do broach dissolution by telling someone that fulfilling a vow is like sacrificing an offering on a forbidden altar, while Rava said: We do not broach dissolution with it.
רב כהנא מתני לה להא שמעתא בהדין לישנא רב טביומי מתני הכי בסיפא לא פתחינן ברישא אביי אמר פתחינן רבא אמר לא פתחינן והלכתא לא פתחינן לא ברישא ולא בסיפא
Rav Kahana taught this halakha in this wording, i.e., the wording that was just cited. However, Rav Tavyumei taught this halakha in this way: With regard to what is written in the last clause, all agree that we do not broach dissolution in this way. With regard to what is written in the first clause, there is a dispute among the Sages. Abaye said: We do broach dissolution in this manner, while Rava said: We do not broach dissolution in this manner either. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that we do not broach dissolution using either the language in the first clause or the language in the latter clause.
ולא פתחינן בהא נמי דשמואל דאמר שמואל אף על פי שמקיימו נקרא רשע אמר רבי אבהו מאי קרא וכי תחדל לנדר לא יהיה בך חטא ויליף חדלה חדלה כתיב הכא וכי תחדל לנדר וכתיב התם שם רשעים חדלו רגז
And furthermore, we also do not broach dissolution with this statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: With regard to one who vows, although he fulfills it, he is called wicked. Rabbi Abbahu said: What is the verse from which this is derived? It is “But if you refrain [teḥdal] from vowing there will be no sin in you” (Deuteronomy 23:23), and he derives the word ḥadala here from the word ḥadala elsewhere. It is written here: “But if you refrain [teḥdal] from vowing,” and it is written there: “There the wicked cease [ḥadlu] from troubling” (Job 3:17). The parallel language demonstrates that vowing is an act of the wicked.
אמר רב יוסף אף אנן נמי תנינא כנדרי כשרים לא אמר כלום כנדרי רשעים נדר בנזיר ובקרבן ובשבועה
Rav Yosef said: We, too, learn in the mishna (9a): If one says he vows like the vows of the virtuous, he has not said anything. If he says: Like the vows of the wicked, he has vowed with regard to becoming a nazirite, or with regard to obligating himself in an offering, or with regard to taking an oath. From here it is also apparent that vowing is an act of the wicked.
אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן כל הכועס כל מיני גיהנם שולטין בו שנאמר והסר כעס מלבך והעבר רעה מבשרך ואין רעה אלא גיהנם שנאמר כל פעל ה׳ למענהו וגם רשע ליום רעה
§ Apropos the verse “There the wicked cease from troubling,” the Gemara cites a related statement: Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who gets angry, all kinds of Gehenna rule over him, because anger causes him to transgress all kinds of severe sins, as it is stated: “Therefore remove vexation from your heart and put away evil from your flesh” (Ecclesiastes 11:10), and the evil mentioned is nothing other than Gehenna, as it is stated: “The Lord has made everything for His own purpose and even the wicked for the day of evil” (Proverbs 16:4), which is interpreted to mean that ultimately the day of the evildoer in Gehenna will arrive.
ולא עוד אלא שהתחתוניות שולטות בו שנאמר ונתן ה׳ לך שם לב רגז וכליון עינים ודאבון נפש איזהו דבר שמכלה את העינים ומדאיב את הנפש הוי אומר אלו התחתוניות
And not only that, but also hemorrhoids will control him, as it is stated: “But the Lord shall give you there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and languishing of soul” (Deuteronomy 28:65). Which is the matter of sickness that causes failing of the eyes in pain and causes languishing of the soul? You must say this is referring to hemorrhoids.
עולא במיסקיה לארעא דישראל איתלוו ליה תרין בני חוזאי בהדיה קם חד שחטיה לחבריה אמר ליה לעולא יאות עבדי אמר ליה אין ופרע ליה בית השחיטה כי אתא לקמיה דרבי יוחנן אמר ליה דלמא חס ושלום אחזיקי ידי עוברי עבירה אמר ליה נפשך הצלת
The Gemara relates: Ulla, on his ascent to Eretz Yisrael, had two residents of Ḥozai join him. Because of a brawl between them, one arose and slaughtered the other. The assailant said to Ulla: Did I act properly? He said to him: Yes, and open the place of the slaughter, i.e., cut it more so that he will die faster. When Ulla came before Rabbi Yoḥanan, Ulla said to him: Perhaps, Heaven forbid, I strengthened the hands of sinners by commending him, although I did so merely because I was afraid that he would kill me. He said to him: You saved yourself by doing so, as it is permitted for one to say words like this in order to save his own life.
קא תמה רבי יוחנן מכדי כתיב ונתן ה׳ לך שם לב רגז בבבל כתיב אמר ליה ההוא שעתא
With regard to the narrative itself, Rabbi Yoḥanan wondered: Now, it is written in the passage of curses: “But the Lord shall give you there a trembling heart” (Deuteronomy 28:65) and this is written with regard to Babylonia, because in the exile an individual possesses a trembling and angry heart. How is it possible that in Eretz Yisrael a person can get so angry as to murder another? Ulla said to him: At that moment when the incident occurred
לא עברינן ירדנא
we had not yet crossed the Jordan River, and we were still outside of Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, the curse of a heart of anger was relevant.
אמר רבה בר רב הונא כל הכועס אפילו שכינה אינה חשובה כנגדו שנאמר רשע כגבה אפו בל ידרש אין אלהים כל מזמותיו רבי ירמיה מדיפתי אמר משכח תלמודו ומוסיף טיפשות שנאמר כי כעס בחיק כסילים ינוח וכתיב וכסיל יפרש אולת רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר בידוע שעונותיו מרובין מזכיותיו שנאמר ובעל חמה רב פשע
Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Anyone who gets angry, at that moment even the Divine Presence is not important to him, as it is stated: “The wicked, in the height of his anger says: He will not require; all his thoughts are: There is no God” (Psalms 10:4). Rabbi Yirmeya of Difti said: Anyone who gets angry forgets his learning and increases foolishness, as it is stated: “For anger rests in the bosom of fools” (Ecclesiastes 7:9), and it is written: “But a fool unfolds folly” (Proverbs 13:16). Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: With regard to one who gets angry, it is acknowledged that his sins are more numerous than his merits, as it is stated: “And a wrathful man abounds in transgression” (Proverbs 29:22).
אמר רב אדא ברבי חנינא אלמלא (לא) חטאו ישראל לא ניתן להם אלא חמשה חומשי תורה וספר יהושע בלבד שערכה של ארץ ישראל הוא מאי טעמא כי ברב חכמה רב כעס
Rav Adda, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: Had Israel not sinned in earlier times they would have been given the five books of the Torah and the book of Joshua alone. They needed the book of Joshua because it includes the arrangement of Eretz Yisrael. Since it contains the division of Eretz Yisrael among the tribes, it was required for all generations, but the other books of the prophets primarily detail the history of how Israel angered God and He sent prophets to admonish them. What is the reason, i.e., what is the allusion to this idea? It is stated: “For in much wisdom is much vexation” (Ecclesiastes 1:18). All the wisdom that the Jews possess from the books of the Bible is the result of their angering God.
אמר רבי אסי אין נזקקין לאלהי ישראל חוץ מקונם אשתי נהנית לי שגנבה את כיסי ושהכתה את בני ונודע שלא גנבה ושלא הכתו
§ Rabbi Asi said: One does not attend to a request to dissolve a vow in which the name of the God of Israel is invoked because such a declaration is especially stringent, except for a case where one swears by the God of Israel and adds: Benefiting from me is konam for my wife because she stole my purse or she hit my son, and then it became known that she did not steal or did not hit his son. In such a case, the vow can be dissolved because the vow was made in error, but in other cases such a vow is not dissolved.
ההיא דאתאי לקמיה דרב אסי אמר לה במאי נדרת באלהי ישראל אמר לה אי נדרת במוהי שהיא כינוי בעלמא מזדקיקנא לך השתא דלא נדרת במוהי אלא באלהי ישראל לא מזדקיקנא לך
The Gemara relates: There was a certain woman who came before Rav Asi. He said to her: With what language did you vow? She said to him: By the God of Israel. He said to her: If you would have vowed and said: By mohi, which is merely a substitute name, I would have attended to your request and dissolved the vow, but now that you did not vow by mohi but rather, by the God of Israel, I will not attend to your request and dissolve the vow.
רב כהנא איקלע לבי רב יוסף אמר ליה לטעום מר מידי אמר ליה לא מרי כולא לא טעימנא ליה אמר ליה לא מרי כולא לא טעימת ליה הניחא לרב כהנא דאמר לא מרי כולא אלא לרב יוסף אמאי אמר לא מרי כולא הכי הוא דקאמר ליה לא מרי כולא הוא דקאמרת הלכך לא טעימת ליה
The Gemara relates another incident: Rav Kahana happened to come to the home of Rav Yosef. Rav Yosef said to him: Let the Master eat something. He said to him: No, by the Master of all I will not eat it. Rav Yosef said to him: No, by the Master of all you will not eat it. The Gemara comments: Rav Kahana’s statement: No, by the Master of all I will not eat it, is well understood. But for Rav Yosef, why did he say: No, by the Master of all you will not eat it? What was the purpose of his vow? The Gemara answers: This is what he said to him: No, by the Master of all you will not eat it is what you said; therefore, you may not eat it, since a vow taken in such solemn fashion may not be dissolved.
אמר רבא אמר רב נחמן הלכתא פותחין בחרטה ונזקקין לאלהי ישראל
Rava said that Rav Naḥman said: The halakha is that it is permitted for a halakhic authority to broach dissolution based on regret, and that one also attends to a request to dissolve a vow in which the name of the God of Israel is invoked.
משתבח ליה רבא לרב נחמן ברב סחורה דאדם גדול הוא אמר לו כשיבא לידך הביאהו לידי הוה ליה נדרא למישרא אתא לקמיה דרב נחמן
§ Rava praised his student Rav Seḥora to Rav Naḥman by saying that he is a great man. Rav Naḥman said to him: When Rav Seḥora comes to you, bring him to me. Rav Seḥora had a vow that he wanted to dissolve, so Rava sent Rav Seḥora to Rav Naḥman. He came before Rav Naḥman.
אמר ליה נדרת אדעתא דהכי אמר ליה אין אדעתא דהכי אין כמה זימנין איקפד רב נחמן אמר ליה זיל לקילעך
Rav Naḥman, who wanted to dissolve the vow, said to him: Did you vow with such a matter in mind? He said to him: Yes, so Rav Naḥman did not dissolve the vow. He then asked again: Did you vow with such a matter in mind, and suggested another possibility. He said to him: Yes. This happened several times, and every time Rav Naḥman attempted to broach an opening, Rav Seḥora replied that he had that in mind when he made the vow. Rav Naḥman became upset with him because it appeared that Rav Seḥora was making it unnecessarily difficult for him to dissolve the vow. Rav Naḥman said to him: Go to your tent [kilakh] because I do not want to talk to you.
נפק רב סחורה ופתח פיתחא לנפשיה רבי אומר איזה היא דרך ישרה שיבור לו האדם כל שהיא תפארת לעושיה ותפארת לו מן האדם והשתא דאיקפד רב נחמן אדעתא דהכי לא נדרי ושרא לנפשיה
Rav Seḥora went out and made the following opening for himself that would enable the dissolution of his vow, based on a mishna in tractate Avot (2:1): Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: What is the proper path that a person should choose? He should choose any path that is considered a glory to the one who does it and a glory from his fellow men. Rav Seḥora then reasoned that now that Rav Naḥman became upset at him, he would not have made the vow with knowledge of this fact, since he would not receive glory from his fellow men, and based on this he dissolved the vow for himself.
רבי שמעון ברבי הוה ליה נדרא למישרא אתא לקמייהו דרבנן אמרי ליה נדרת אדעתא דהכי אמר אין אדעתא דהכי אין כמה זימנין
The Gemara relates a similar incident: Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, had a vow to dissolve. He came before the Sages for dissolution. They said to him: Did you vow with the knowledge of this particular fact? He said: Yes. They proposed another possibility: Did you vow with the knowledge of this other particular fact? He said to them: Yes. This happened several times,
