Another story is told of Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yosi who went to dissolve a vow but any petach the rabbis suggested wasn’t working. The rabbis were upset that they couldn’t resolve this and a launderer came and hit Rabbi Yishmael since he was upsetting the rabbis. Rabbi Yishmael then used that as his petach, as had he realized he would have gotten beaten, he never would have vowed. Why is that not considered nolad, a new reason that he never would have thought of at the time of making the vow, as nolad is not able to be used for a petach. Abaye and his wife each wanted to marry her daughter off to one of their own relatives. In order to insist that she obey him, he vowed her to not benefit from him if she married her off to her own relatives. When she actually does that, he goes to dissolve the vow, using the petach suggested by Rav Yosef that had he realized she was actually going to marry off her daughter to her own relatives, he never would have taken the vow. A similar story of a man who vowed that his wife should not go on the pilgrimage to Jerusalem is brought to prove that this type of petach works. The Mishna quotes Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov saying that if you vow to insist that a friend eats at your house, you can make a declaration before that you is nullifying a vow that you are about to make. This works as long as they remember the declaration at the time of the vow. The Mishna is unclear – if the friend knows about the declaration, then the vow is anyway ineffective to encourage the friend to eat. Therefore, they reinterpret the Mishna by splitting it into two. The first part is to say that a vow to encourage a friend to eat at one’s house is a neder zeruzin and not even effective at all. Secondly, one should make a declaration at the beginning of the year that all vows they make will be nullified. Abaye and Rava disagree about whether this is effective only if one doesn’t remember the declaration at the time of the vow or can there even be a case where one somewhat remembers and yet, it can still be effective. Rav Huna bar Chinina wanted to institute that everyone makes this declaration but Rava discouraged it so that people do not treat vows lightly. Is it from here that the custom arose to say kol nidrei on Yom Kippur night or to annul our vows on erev Rosh Hashana? Do the rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov or not?
Nedarim 23
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Nedarim 23
וַהֲווֹ מִצְטַעֲרִי רַבָּנַן מִשִּׁימְשָׁא לְטוּלָּא וּמִטּוּלָּא לְשִׁימְשָׁא.
and the Sages were troubled by the fact that they could not dissolve the vow. They spent an extended period of time attempting to do so. During this time, they moved from a location with light from the sun to one with shade, and then moved again from the shade back to the sun.
(לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרָא: אַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי? אִין. כַּמָּה זִימְנִין, וַהֲווֹ מִצְטַעֲרִי רַבָּנַן מִשִּׁימְשָׁא לְטוּלָּא וּמִטּוּלָּא לְשִׁימְשָׁא.)
The Gemara cites another version of the incident: They asked him: Did you vow with knowledge of this particular fact when you vowed? He said to them: Yes. This occurred several times and the Sages were troubled with this problem for an extended period of time, during which they moved from the sun to the shade and from the shade to the sun, but they did not find a solution.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ בָּטְנִית בְּרֵיהּ דְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל בֶּן בָּטְנִית: מִי נְדַרְתְּ אַדַּעְתָּא דְּמִצְטַעֲרִי רַבָּנַן מִטּוּלָּא לְשִׁימְשָׁא וּמִשִּׁימְשָׁא לְטוּלָּא? אֲמַר: לָא, וְשַׁרְיוּהּ.
Botnit, son of Abba Shaul ben Botnit, said to him: Would you have vowed with the knowledge that the Sages would be troubled even to the point of going from shade to sun and from sun to shade? He said: No, and they dissolved it.
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בַּר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הֲוָה לֵיהּ נִדְרָא לְמִישְׁרֵא. אֲתָא לְקַמַּיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן, אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ: נְדַרְתְּ אַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי? אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִין. נְדַרְתָּא אַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי? אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִין. כַּמָּה זִימְנִין. כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזָא הָהוּא קַצָּרָא דְּמִצְטַעֲרִי רַבָּנַן, מַחְיֵיהּ בְּאוּכְלָא דְקַצָּרֵי. אֲמַר: אַדַּעְתָּא דְּמָחֵי לִי קַצָּרָא לָא נְדַרִי, וְשַׁרְיֵהּ לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ.
The Gemara relates another incident: Rabbi Yishmael bar Rabbi Yosei had a vow to dissolve. He came before the Sages. They said to him: Did you vow with knowledge of this particular fact? He said to them: Yes. They asked again: Did you vow with knowledge of this other fact? He said to them: Yes. This occurred several times. When a certain launderer saw that the Sages were troubled because Rabbi Yishmael caused them difficulty in successfully dissolving his vow, he hit Rabbi Yishmael with a launderer’s tool that he had in his hand. Rabbi Yishmael said: Had I known that the launderer would hit me due to my vow I would not have vowed, and he dissolved it.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּיפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: הַאי נוֹלָד הוּא, דְּלָא מַסֵּיק אַדַּעְתָּא דְּמָחֵי לֵיהּ קַצָּרָא. וּתְנֵינָא: אֵין פּוֹתְחִין לוֹ בַּנּוֹלָד! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַאי לָאו נוֹלָד הוּא, דִּשְׁכִיחִי אַפִּיקוֹרֵי דִּמְצַעֲרִי רַבָּנַן.
Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: This is a case of a new situation, which is not included among those matters that he could have considered at the time of the vow, because it would not enter his mind that the launderer would hit him. And we already learned: We do not broach dissolution with a person using a new situation that did not exist at the time of the vow. Ravina said to him: This is not a new situation that he could not have thought of previously, since it is common to find heretics [appikurei] who deny fundamental Torah principles and who trouble the Sages. Although he would not have considered the possibility that this launderer would attack him, he may have considered the possibility that some heretic would. Therefore, it was permitted to broach dissolution in this manner.
דְּבֵיתְהוּ דְּאַבָּיֵי הֲוָה לַהּ הָהִיא בְּרַתָּא. הוּא אָמַר: לְקָרִיבַאי. הִיא אָמְרָה: לְקָרִיבַהּ. אֲמַר לַהּ: תִּיתְּסַר הֲנָאָתִי עֲלָךְ אִי עָבְרַתְּ אַדַּעְתַּאי וּמַינְסְּבַת לַהּ לְקָרִיבָךְ. אֲזַלַת וַעֲבַרַת עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ וְאִינַּסְבָא לְקָרִיבַהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִילּוּ הֲוָה יָדְעַתְּ דַּעֲבַרַת עַל דַּעְתָּךְ וּמַנְסְבָא לַהּ לְקָרִיבַהּ מִי אַדַּרְתַּהּ? אֲמַר: לָא. וְשַׁרְיֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף.
§ The wife of Abaye had a certain daughter. Abaye said: She should get married to my relative. His wife said that she should get married to her relative. He said to his wife: Benefit from me should be forbidden to you, if you defy my will and marry her to your relative. She went and defied his will and married her to her relative. Abaye came before Rav Yosef. Rav Yosef said to him: If you had known that she would ultimately defy your will and marry her to her relative, would you have made the vow? He said: No. And Rav Yosef dissolved the vow for him because Abaye did not think that his wife would actually defy him, and he intended the vow only to serve as a threat.
וּמִי שְׁרֵי כִּי הַאי גַּוְונָא? אִין, וְהָתַנְיָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁהִדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִלַּעֲלוֹת לָרֶגֶל, וְעָבְרָה עַל דַּעְתּוֹ וְעָלְתָה לָרֶגֶל, וּבָא לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמַר לוֹ: וְאִילּוּ הָיִיתָ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁעוֹבֶרֶת עַל דַּעְתְּךָ וְעוֹלָה לָרֶגֶל כְּלוּם הִדַּרְתָּהּ? אָמַר לוֹ: לֹא, וְהִתִּירוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.
The Gemara asks: And is it dissolved in a case like this, where the vow was dependent on the daughter not marrying the wife’s relative? The Gemara answers: Yes, and it is taught in the Tosefta (5:1): There was an incident involving one man who vowed, prohibiting his wife from benefiting from him if she were to ascend to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage Festival, and she defied his will and ascended to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage Festival. And when he came before Rabbi Yosei to request dissolution, Rabbi Yosei said to him: And had you known that she would defy your will and ascend to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival, would you have vowed at all? He said to him: No, and Rabbi Yosei dissolved it. This incident indicates that it is permitted to dissolve a vow with such an opening.
מַתְנִי׳ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: אַף הָרוֹצֶה לְהַדִּיר אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁיֹּאכַל אֶצְלוֹ, יֹאמַר לוֹ: ״כׇּל נֶדֶר שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִידּוֹר הוּא בָּטֵל״, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא זָכוּר בִּשְׁעַת הַנֶּדֶר.
MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Even one who wants to take a vow prohibiting another from benefiting from him, but only in order that he should eat with him, not intending to take an actual vow, should say to him at the outset: Any vow that I take in the future is void. And this statement is effective, provided that he remembers at the time of the vow that his intent at the beginning of the year was to render it void.
גְּמָ׳ וְכֵיוָן דְּאָמַר ״כׇּל נֶדֶר שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִידּוֹר יְהֵא בָּטֵל״, לָא שָׁמַע לֵיהּ וְלָא אָתֵי בַּהֲדֵיהּ?
GEMARA: With regard to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov’s proposal, the Gemara asks: And since he said: Any vow that I take in the future should be void, the one being invited will not listen to him and will not come to eat with him, since he already knows that the vow is not valid. That being the case, why would the first individual take a vow at all?
חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיֹּאכַל אֶצְלוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ וּמְסָרֵב בּוֹ וּמַדִּירוֹ — נִדְרֵי זֵירוּזִין הוּא. וְהָרוֹצֶה שֶׁלֹּא יִתְקַיְּימוּ נְדָרָיו כׇּל הַשָּׁנָה, יַעֲמוֹד בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה וְיֹאמַר: כׇּל נֶדֶר שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִידּוֹר יְהֵא בָּטֵל, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא זָכוּר בִּשְׁעַת הַנֶּדֶר.
The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching like this: In the case of one who wants another to eat with him, and he urges him to do so and makes a vow with regard to him, this vow is included in the category of vows of exhortation, which do not require dissolution. And in addition, one who desires that his vows not be upheld for the entire year should stand up on Rosh HaShana and say: Any vow that I take in the future should be void. And this statement is effective, provided that he remembers at the time of the vow that his intent at the beginning of the year was to render it void.
אִי זָכוּר, עַקְרֵיהּ לִתְנָאֵיהּ, וְקַיֵּים לֵיהּ לְנִדְרֵיהּ! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, תָּנֵי: וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא זָכוּר בִּשְׁעַת הַנֶּדֶר.
The Gemara asks: If he remembers at the time of the vow that his intent at the beginning of the year was to render it void but still makes the vow, then he has uprooted his stipulation that all his vows are void and has upheld his vow. Why, then, does it state that the vows are void in this case? Abaye said: Teach: And this statement is effective, provided that he does not remember at the time of the vow that his intention at the beginning of the year was to render it void.
רָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם כִּדְאָמְרִינַן מֵעִיקָּרָא. הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִתְנָה בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, וְלֹא יָדַע בַּמֶּה הִתְנָה. וְהַשְׁתָּא קָא נָדַר. אִי זָכוּר בִּשְׁעַת הַנֶּדֶר, וְאָמַר ״עַל דַּעַת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אֲנִי נוֹדֵר״ — נִדְרֵיהּ לֵית בֵּיהּ מַמָּשָׁא. לֹא אָמַר ״עַל דַּעַת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אֲנִי נוֹדֵר״ — עַקְרֵיהּ לִתְנָאֵיהּ וְקַיֵּים לְנִדְרֵיהּ.
Rava said: Actually, say as we said initially, that he does remember his stipulation at the time of the vow. With what are we dealing here? It is a case where he stipulated a condition on Rosh HaShana rendering void vows that he would make later in the year, but he did not know with regard to which vows he made the stipulation, and now he makes a vow. If he remembers at the time of the vow and says: I am vowing in accordance with the initial intention, when I stipulated that all vows should be void, his vow has no substance. However, if he did not say: I am vowing in accordance with the initial intention, then he has uprooted his stipulation and upheld his vow.
רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִינָּנָא סָבַר לְמִידְרְשֵׁיהּ בְּפִירְקָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: תַּנָּא קָא מְסַתֵּים לַהּ סַתּוֹמֵי כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִנְהֲגוּ קַלּוּת רֹאשׁ בִּנְדָרִים, וְאַתְּ דָּרְשַׁתְּ לֵיהּ בְּפִירְקָא?!
The Gemara relates that Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana intended to teach this topic at the Festival lecture, so that everyone would learn this manner of rendering vows void on Rosh HaShana. Rava said to him: The tanna of the mishna conceals it and does not say it explicitly, despite the fact that it is studied by Torah scholars, in order that the public not treat vows lightly, and you teach it publicly at the Festival lecture?
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, אוֹ לָא? וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר פְּלִיגִי, הִלְכְתָא כְּוָתֵיהּ, אוֹ לָא? תָּא שְׁמַע, דִּתְנַן: הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ
§ A dilemma was raised before the scholars: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov in the mishna or not? And if you say that they disagree with him, is the halakha in accordance with his opinion or not? The Gemara suggests a proof: Come and hear, as we learned in a mishna (63b): One who says to another:
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.
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.
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
In early January of 2020, I learned about Siyyum HaShas and Daf Yomi via Tablet Magazine’s brief daily podcast about the Daf. I found it compelling and fascinating. Soon I discovered Hadran; since then I have learned the Daf daily with Rabbanit Michelle Cohen Farber. The Daf has permeated my every hour, and has transformed and magnified my place within the Jewish Universe.
San Francisco, CA , United States
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, 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
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
See video
Raanana, Israel
I am a Reform rabbi and took Talmud courses in rabbinical school, but I knew there was so much more to learn. It felt inauthentic to serve as a rabbi without having read the entire Talmud, so when the opportunity arose to start Daf Yomi in 2020, I dove in! Thanks to Hadran, Daf Yomi has enriched my understanding of rabbinic Judaism and deepened my love of Jewish text & tradition. Todah rabbah!
California, United States
Blacksburg, United States
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
Richmond, CA, United States
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
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
Bronx, United States
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
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
With Rabbanit Dr. Naomi Cohen in the Women’s Talmud class, over 30 years ago. It was a “known” class and it was accepted, because of who taught. Since then I have also studied with Avigail Gross-Gelman and Dr. Gabriel Hazut for about a year). Years ago, in a shiur in my shul, I did know about Persians doing 3 things with their clothes on. They opened the shiur to woman after that!
Haifa, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
Tel Aviv, Israel
Nedarim 23
וַהֲווֹ מִצְטַעֲרִי רַבָּנַן מִשִּׁימְשָׁא לְטוּלָּא וּמִטּוּלָּא לְשִׁימְשָׁא.
and the Sages were troubled by the fact that they could not dissolve the vow. They spent an extended period of time attempting to do so. During this time, they moved from a location with light from the sun to one with shade, and then moved again from the shade back to the sun.
(לִישָּׁנָא אַחֲרָא: אַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי? אִין. כַּמָּה זִימְנִין, וַהֲווֹ מִצְטַעֲרִי רַבָּנַן מִשִּׁימְשָׁא לְטוּלָּא וּמִטּוּלָּא לְשִׁימְשָׁא.)
The Gemara cites another version of the incident: They asked him: Did you vow with knowledge of this particular fact when you vowed? He said to them: Yes. This occurred several times and the Sages were troubled with this problem for an extended period of time, during which they moved from the sun to the shade and from the shade to the sun, but they did not find a solution.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ בָּטְנִית בְּרֵיהּ דְּאַבָּא שָׁאוּל בֶּן בָּטְנִית: מִי נְדַרְתְּ אַדַּעְתָּא דְּמִצְטַעֲרִי רַבָּנַן מִטּוּלָּא לְשִׁימְשָׁא וּמִשִּׁימְשָׁא לְטוּלָּא? אֲמַר: לָא, וְשַׁרְיוּהּ.
Botnit, son of Abba Shaul ben Botnit, said to him: Would you have vowed with the knowledge that the Sages would be troubled even to the point of going from shade to sun and from sun to shade? He said: No, and they dissolved it.
רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בַּר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הֲוָה לֵיהּ נִדְרָא לְמִישְׁרֵא. אֲתָא לְקַמַּיְיהוּ דְּרַבָּנַן, אָמְרוּ לֵיהּ: נְדַרְתְּ אַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי? אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִין. נְדַרְתָּא אַדַּעְתָּא דְּהָכִי? אֲמַר לְהוּ: אִין. כַּמָּה זִימְנִין. כֵּיוָן דַּחֲזָא הָהוּא קַצָּרָא דְּמִצְטַעֲרִי רַבָּנַן, מַחְיֵיהּ בְּאוּכְלָא דְקַצָּרֵי. אֲמַר: אַדַּעְתָּא דְּמָחֵי לִי קַצָּרָא לָא נְדַרִי, וְשַׁרְיֵהּ לְנַפְשֵׁיהּ.
The Gemara relates another incident: Rabbi Yishmael bar Rabbi Yosei had a vow to dissolve. He came before the Sages. They said to him: Did you vow with knowledge of this particular fact? He said to them: Yes. They asked again: Did you vow with knowledge of this other fact? He said to them: Yes. This occurred several times. When a certain launderer saw that the Sages were troubled because Rabbi Yishmael caused them difficulty in successfully dissolving his vow, he hit Rabbi Yishmael with a launderer’s tool that he had in his hand. Rabbi Yishmael said: Had I known that the launderer would hit me due to my vow I would not have vowed, and he dissolved it.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא מִדִּיפְתִּי לְרָבִינָא: הַאי נוֹלָד הוּא, דְּלָא מַסֵּיק אַדַּעְתָּא דְּמָחֵי לֵיהּ קַצָּרָא. וּתְנֵינָא: אֵין פּוֹתְחִין לוֹ בַּנּוֹלָד! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הַאי לָאו נוֹלָד הוּא, דִּשְׁכִיחִי אַפִּיקוֹרֵי דִּמְצַעֲרִי רַבָּנַן.
Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: This is a case of a new situation, which is not included among those matters that he could have considered at the time of the vow, because it would not enter his mind that the launderer would hit him. And we already learned: We do not broach dissolution with a person using a new situation that did not exist at the time of the vow. Ravina said to him: This is not a new situation that he could not have thought of previously, since it is common to find heretics [appikurei] who deny fundamental Torah principles and who trouble the Sages. Although he would not have considered the possibility that this launderer would attack him, he may have considered the possibility that some heretic would. Therefore, it was permitted to broach dissolution in this manner.
דְּבֵיתְהוּ דְּאַבָּיֵי הֲוָה לַהּ הָהִיא בְּרַתָּא. הוּא אָמַר: לְקָרִיבַאי. הִיא אָמְרָה: לְקָרִיבַהּ. אֲמַר לַהּ: תִּיתְּסַר הֲנָאָתִי עֲלָךְ אִי עָבְרַתְּ אַדַּעְתַּאי וּמַינְסְּבַת לַהּ לְקָרִיבָךְ. אֲזַלַת וַעֲבַרַת עַל דַּעְתֵּיהּ וְאִינַּסְבָא לְקָרִיבַהּ. אֲתָא לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִילּוּ הֲוָה יָדְעַתְּ דַּעֲבַרַת עַל דַּעְתָּךְ וּמַנְסְבָא לַהּ לְקָרִיבַהּ מִי אַדַּרְתַּהּ? אֲמַר: לָא. וְשַׁרְיֵיהּ רַב יוֹסֵף.
§ The wife of Abaye had a certain daughter. Abaye said: She should get married to my relative. His wife said that she should get married to her relative. He said to his wife: Benefit from me should be forbidden to you, if you defy my will and marry her to your relative. She went and defied his will and married her to her relative. Abaye came before Rav Yosef. Rav Yosef said to him: If you had known that she would ultimately defy your will and marry her to her relative, would you have made the vow? He said: No. And Rav Yosef dissolved the vow for him because Abaye did not think that his wife would actually defy him, and he intended the vow only to serve as a threat.
וּמִי שְׁרֵי כִּי הַאי גַּוְונָא? אִין, וְהָתַנְיָא: מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁהִדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִלַּעֲלוֹת לָרֶגֶל, וְעָבְרָה עַל דַּעְתּוֹ וְעָלְתָה לָרֶגֶל, וּבָא לִפְנֵי רַבִּי יוֹסֵי. אָמַר לוֹ: וְאִילּוּ הָיִיתָ יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁעוֹבֶרֶת עַל דַּעְתְּךָ וְעוֹלָה לָרֶגֶל כְּלוּם הִדַּרְתָּהּ? אָמַר לוֹ: לֹא, וְהִתִּירוֹ רַבִּי יוֹסֵי.
The Gemara asks: And is it dissolved in a case like this, where the vow was dependent on the daughter not marrying the wife’s relative? The Gemara answers: Yes, and it is taught in the Tosefta (5:1): There was an incident involving one man who vowed, prohibiting his wife from benefiting from him if she were to ascend to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage Festival, and she defied his will and ascended to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage Festival. And when he came before Rabbi Yosei to request dissolution, Rabbi Yosei said to him: And had you known that she would defy your will and ascend to Jerusalem on the pilgrimage Festival, would you have vowed at all? He said to him: No, and Rabbi Yosei dissolved it. This incident indicates that it is permitted to dissolve a vow with such an opening.
מַתְנִי׳ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: אַף הָרוֹצֶה לְהַדִּיר אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁיֹּאכַל אֶצְלוֹ, יֹאמַר לוֹ: ״כׇּל נֶדֶר שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִידּוֹר הוּא בָּטֵל״, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא זָכוּר בִּשְׁעַת הַנֶּדֶר.
MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Even one who wants to take a vow prohibiting another from benefiting from him, but only in order that he should eat with him, not intending to take an actual vow, should say to him at the outset: Any vow that I take in the future is void. And this statement is effective, provided that he remembers at the time of the vow that his intent at the beginning of the year was to render it void.
גְּמָ׳ וְכֵיוָן דְּאָמַר ״כׇּל נֶדֶר שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִידּוֹר יְהֵא בָּטֵל״, לָא שָׁמַע לֵיהּ וְלָא אָתֵי בַּהֲדֵיהּ?
GEMARA: With regard to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov’s proposal, the Gemara asks: And since he said: Any vow that I take in the future should be void, the one being invited will not listen to him and will not come to eat with him, since he already knows that the vow is not valid. That being the case, why would the first individual take a vow at all?
חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיֹּאכַל אֶצְלוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ וּמְסָרֵב בּוֹ וּמַדִּירוֹ — נִדְרֵי זֵירוּזִין הוּא. וְהָרוֹצֶה שֶׁלֹּא יִתְקַיְּימוּ נְדָרָיו כׇּל הַשָּׁנָה, יַעֲמוֹד בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה וְיֹאמַר: כׇּל נֶדֶר שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִידּוֹר יְהֵא בָּטֵל, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא זָכוּר בִּשְׁעַת הַנֶּדֶר.
The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching like this: In the case of one who wants another to eat with him, and he urges him to do so and makes a vow with regard to him, this vow is included in the category of vows of exhortation, which do not require dissolution. And in addition, one who desires that his vows not be upheld for the entire year should stand up on Rosh HaShana and say: Any vow that I take in the future should be void. And this statement is effective, provided that he remembers at the time of the vow that his intent at the beginning of the year was to render it void.
אִי זָכוּר, עַקְרֵיהּ לִתְנָאֵיהּ, וְקַיֵּים לֵיהּ לְנִדְרֵיהּ! אָמַר אַבָּיֵי, תָּנֵי: וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא זָכוּר בִּשְׁעַת הַנֶּדֶר.
The Gemara asks: If he remembers at the time of the vow that his intent at the beginning of the year was to render it void but still makes the vow, then he has uprooted his stipulation that all his vows are void and has upheld his vow. Why, then, does it state that the vows are void in this case? Abaye said: Teach: And this statement is effective, provided that he does not remember at the time of the vow that his intention at the beginning of the year was to render it void.
רָבָא אָמַר: לְעוֹלָם כִּדְאָמְרִינַן מֵעִיקָּרָא. הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן — כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִתְנָה בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה, וְלֹא יָדַע בַּמֶּה הִתְנָה. וְהַשְׁתָּא קָא נָדַר. אִי זָכוּר בִּשְׁעַת הַנֶּדֶר, וְאָמַר ״עַל דַּעַת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אֲנִי נוֹדֵר״ — נִדְרֵיהּ לֵית בֵּיהּ מַמָּשָׁא. לֹא אָמַר ״עַל דַּעַת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אֲנִי נוֹדֵר״ — עַקְרֵיהּ לִתְנָאֵיהּ וְקַיֵּים לְנִדְרֵיהּ.
Rava said: Actually, say as we said initially, that he does remember his stipulation at the time of the vow. With what are we dealing here? It is a case where he stipulated a condition on Rosh HaShana rendering void vows that he would make later in the year, but he did not know with regard to which vows he made the stipulation, and now he makes a vow. If he remembers at the time of the vow and says: I am vowing in accordance with the initial intention, when I stipulated that all vows should be void, his vow has no substance. However, if he did not say: I am vowing in accordance with the initial intention, then he has uprooted his stipulation and upheld his vow.
רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִינָּנָא סָבַר לְמִידְרְשֵׁיהּ בְּפִירְקָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: תַּנָּא קָא מְסַתֵּים לַהּ סַתּוֹמֵי כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִנְהֲגוּ קַלּוּת רֹאשׁ בִּנְדָרִים, וְאַתְּ דָּרְשַׁתְּ לֵיהּ בְּפִירְקָא?!
The Gemara relates that Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana intended to teach this topic at the Festival lecture, so that everyone would learn this manner of rendering vows void on Rosh HaShana. Rava said to him: The tanna of the mishna conceals it and does not say it explicitly, despite the fact that it is studied by Torah scholars, in order that the public not treat vows lightly, and you teach it publicly at the Festival lecture?
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, אוֹ לָא? וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר פְּלִיגִי, הִלְכְתָא כְּוָתֵיהּ, אוֹ לָא? תָּא שְׁמַע, דִּתְנַן: הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ
§ A dilemma was raised before the scholars: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov in the mishna or not? And if you say that they disagree with him, is the halakha in accordance with his opinion or not? The Gemara suggests a proof: Come and hear, as we learned in a mishna (63b): One who says to another:
