Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

November 17, 2022 | 讻状讙 讘诪专讞砖讜讜谉 转砖驻状讙

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • 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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nedarim 23

Another story is told of Rabbi Yishmael son of Rabbi Yosi who went to dissolve a vow but any petach the rabbis suggested wasn鈥檛 working. The rabbis were upset that they couldn鈥檛 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鈥檚 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鈥檛 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?

讜讛讜讜 诪爪讟注专讬 专讘谞谉 诪砖讬诪砖讗 诇讟讜诇讗 讜诪讟讜诇讗 诇砖讬诪砖讗

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.

(诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讗 讗讚注转讗 讚讛讻讬 讗讬谉 讻诪讛 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讜讛讜讜 诪爪讟注专讬 专讘谞谉 诪砖讬诪砖讗 诇讟讜诇讗 讜诪讟讜诇讗 诇砖讬诪砖讗)

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讟谞讬转 讘专讬讛 讚讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讘谉 讘讟谞讬转 诪讬 谞讚专转 讗讚注转讗 讚诪爪讟注专讬 专讘谞谉 诪讟讜诇讗 诇砖讬诪砖讗 讜诪砖讬诪砖讗 诇讟讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讜砖专讬讜讛

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.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讚专讗 诇诪讬砖专讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 谞讚专转 讗讚注转讗 讚讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬谉 谞讚专转讗 讗讚注转讗 讚讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬谉 讻诪讛 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讗 讛讛讜讗 拽爪专讗 讚诪爪讟注专讬 专讘谞谉 诪讞讬讬讛 讘讗讜讻诇讗 讚拽爪专讬 讗诪专 讗讚注转讗 讚诪讞讬 诇讬 拽爪专讗 诇讗 谞讚专讬 讜砖专讬讛 诇谞驻砖讬讛

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚讬驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讛讗讬 谞讜诇讚 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪住讬拽 讗讚注转讗 讚诪讞讬 诇讬讛 拽爪专讗 讜转谞讬谞讗 讗讬谉 驻讜转讞讬谉 诇讜 讘谞讜诇讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 诇讗讜 谞讜诇讚 讛讜讗 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讗驻讬拽讜专讬 讚诪爪注专讬 专讘谞谉

Rav A岣 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.

讚讘讬转讛讜 讚讗讘讬讬 讛讜讛 诇讛 讛讛讬讗 讘专转讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇拽专讬讘讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专讛 诇拽专讬讘讛 讗诪专 诇讛 转讬转住专讗 讛谞讗转讬 注诇讱 讗讬 注讘专转 讗讚注转讗讬 讜诪讬谞住讘转 诇讛 诇拽专讬讘讱 讗讝诇转 讜注讘专转 注诇 讚注转讬讛 讜讗讬谞住讘讗 诇拽专讬讘讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讜 讛讜讛 讬讚注转 讚注讘专转 注诇 讚注转讱 讜诪谞住讘讗 诇讛 诇拽专讬讘讛 诪讬 讗讚专转讛 讗诪专 诇讗 讜砖专讬讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝

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.

讜诪讬 砖专讬 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讛讚讬专 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪诇注诇讜转 诇专讙诇 讜注讘专讛 注诇 讚注转讜 讜注诇转讛 诇专讙诇 讜讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讜讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转 讬讜讚注 砖注讜讘专转 注诇 讚注转讱 讜注讜诇讛 诇专讙诇 讻诇讜诐 讛讚专转讛 讗诪专 诇讜 诇讗 讜讛转讬专讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara asks: And is it dissolved in a case like this, where the vow was dependent on the daughter not marrying the wife鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛专讜爪讛 诇讛讚讬专 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 砖讬讗讻诇 讗爪诇讜 讬讗诪专 诇讜 讻诇 谞讚专 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇讬讚讜专 讛讜讗 讘讟诇 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讗 讝讻讜专 讘砖注转 讛谞讚专

MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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.

讙诪壮 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇 谞讚专 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇讬讚讜专 讬讛讗 讘讟诇 诇讗 砖诪注 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讗转讬 讘讛讚讬讛

GEMARA: With regard to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov鈥檚 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?

讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛专讜爪讛 砖讬讗讻诇 讗爪诇讜 讞讘讬专讜 讜诪住专讘 讘讜 讜诪讚讬专讜 谞讚专讬 讝讬专讜讝讬谉 讛讜讗 讜讛专讜爪讛 砖诇讗 讬转拽讬讬诪讜 谞讚专讬讜 讻诇 讛砖谞讛 讬注诪讜讚 讘专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜讬讗诪专 讻诇 谞讚专 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇讬讚讜专 讬讛讗 讘讟诇 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讗 讝讻讜专 讘砖注转 讛谞讚专

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 is 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.

讗讬 讝讻讜专 注拽专讬讛 诇转谞讗讬讛 讜拽讬讬诐 诇讬讛 诇谞讚专讬讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转谞讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讝讻讜专 讘砖注转 讛谞讚专

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 is 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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛转谞讛 讘专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讘诪讛 讛转谞讛 讜讛砖转讗 拽讗 谞讚专 讗讬 讝讻讜专 讘砖注转 讛谞讚专 讜讗诪专 注诇 讚注转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讗谞讬 谞讜讚专 谞讚专讬讛 诇讬转 讘讬讛 诪诪砖讗 诇讗 讗诪专 注诇 讚注转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讗谞讬 谞讜讚专 注拽专讬讛 诇转谞讗讬讛 讜拽讬讬诐 诇谞讚专讬讛

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.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 住讘专 诇诪讬讚专砖讬讛 讘驻讬专拽讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 转谞讗 拽讗 诪住转讬诐 诇讛 住转讜诪讬 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬谞讛讙讜 拽诇讜转 专讗砖 讘谞讚专讬诐 讜讗转 讚专砖转 诇讬讛 讘驻讬专拽讗

The Gemara relates that Rav Huna bar 岣nnana 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?

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜 诇讗 讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 驻诇讬讙讬 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讬讛 讗讜 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜

A dilemma was raised before the scholars: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • 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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nedarim: 21-28 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will focus on four types of vows that are automatically void. These include vows meant to motivate...
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 23: Abaye Goes Too Far

How dissolving vows seems to have been a common occurrence. Also, the Manny expressions of regret. Also, both Abaye and...
eliezer ben yaakov grave

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: Short and Sweet

In the third chapter of Nedarim we have a statement from a Tanna named Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov about taking...

Nedarim 23

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 23

讜讛讜讜 诪爪讟注专讬 专讘谞谉 诪砖讬诪砖讗 诇讟讜诇讗 讜诪讟讜诇讗 诇砖讬诪砖讗

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.

(诇讬砖谞讗 讗讞专讗 讗讚注转讗 讚讛讻讬 讗讬谉 讻诪讛 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讜讛讜讜 诪爪讟注专讬 专讘谞谉 诪砖讬诪砖讗 诇讟讜诇讗 讜诪讟讜诇讗 诇砖讬诪砖讗)

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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 讘讟谞讬转 讘专讬讛 讚讗讘讗 砖讗讜诇 讘谉 讘讟谞讬转 诪讬 谞讚专转 讗讚注转讗 讚诪爪讟注专讬 专讘谞谉 诪讟讜诇讗 诇砖讬诪砖讗 讜诪砖讬诪砖讗 诇讟讜诇讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讜砖专讬讜讛

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.

专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讜讛 诇讬讛 谞讚专讗 诇诪讬砖专讗 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讬讛讜 讚专讘谞谉 讗诪专讜 诇讬讛 谞讚专转 讗讚注转讗 讚讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬谉 谞讚专转讗 讗讚注转讗 讚讛讻讬 讗诪专 诇讛讜 讗讬谉 讻诪讛 讝讬诪谞讬谉 讻讬讜谉 讚讞讝讗 讛讛讜讗 拽爪专讗 讚诪爪讟注专讬 专讘谞谉 诪讞讬讬讛 讘讗讜讻诇讗 讚拽爪专讬 讗诪专 讗讚注转讗 讚诪讞讬 诇讬 拽爪专讗 诇讗 谞讚专讬 讜砖专讬讛 诇谞驻砖讬讛

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鈥檚 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.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘 讗讞讗 诪讚讬驻转讬 诇专讘讬谞讗 讛讗讬 谞讜诇讚 讛讜讗 讚诇讗 诪住讬拽 讗讚注转讗 讚诪讞讬 诇讬讛 拽爪专讗 讜转谞讬谞讗 讗讬谉 驻讜转讞讬谉 诇讜 讘谞讜诇讚 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讗讬 诇讗讜 谞讜诇讚 讛讜讗 讚砖讻讬讞讬 讗驻讬拽讜专讬 讚诪爪注专讬 专讘谞谉

Rav A岣 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.

讚讘讬转讛讜 讚讗讘讬讬 讛讜讛 诇讛 讛讛讬讗 讘专转讗 讛讜讗 讗诪专 诇拽专讬讘讗讬 讛讬讗 讗诪专讛 诇拽专讬讘讛 讗诪专 诇讛 转讬转住专讗 讛谞讗转讬 注诇讱 讗讬 注讘专转 讗讚注转讗讬 讜诪讬谞住讘转 诇讛 诇拽专讬讘讱 讗讝诇转 讜注讘专转 注诇 讚注转讬讛 讜讗讬谞住讘讗 诇拽专讬讘讛 讗转讗 诇拽诪讬讛 讚专讘 讬讜住祝 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬诇讜 讛讜讛 讬讚注转 讚注讘专转 注诇 讚注转讱 讜诪谞住讘讗 诇讛 诇拽专讬讘讛 诪讬 讗讚专转讛 讗诪专 诇讗 讜砖专讬讬讛 专讘 讬讜住祝

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.

讜诪讬 砖专讬 讻讬 讛讗讬 讙讜讜谞讗 讗讬谉 讜讛转谞讬讗 诪注砖讛 讘讗讚诐 讗讞讚 砖讛讚讬专 讗转 讗砖转讜 诪诇注诇讜转 诇专讙诇 讜注讘专讛 注诇 讚注转讜 讜注诇转讛 诇专讙诇 讜讘讗 诇驻谞讬 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讗诪专 诇讜 讜讗讬诇讜 讛讬讬转 讬讜讚注 砖注讜讘专转 注诇 讚注转讱 讜注讜诇讛 诇专讙诇 讻诇讜诐 讛讚专转讛 讗诪专 诇讜 诇讗 讜讛转讬专讜 专讘讬 讬讜住讬

The Gemara asks: And is it dissolved in a case like this, where the vow was dependent on the daughter not marrying the wife鈥檚 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.

诪转谞讬壮 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜诪专 讗祝 讛专讜爪讛 诇讛讚讬专 讗转 讞讘讬专讜 砖讬讗讻诇 讗爪诇讜 讬讗诪专 诇讜 讻诇 谞讚专 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇讬讚讜专 讛讜讗 讘讟诇 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讗 讝讻讜专 讘砖注转 讛谞讚专

MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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.

讙诪壮 讜讻讬讜谉 讚讗诪专 讻诇 谞讚专 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇讬讚讜专 讬讛讗 讘讟诇 诇讗 砖诪注 诇讬讛 讜诇讗 讗转讬 讘讛讚讬讛

GEMARA: With regard to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov鈥檚 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?

讞住讜专讬 诪讬讞住专讗 讜讛讻讬 拽转谞讬 讛专讜爪讛 砖讬讗讻诇 讗爪诇讜 讞讘讬专讜 讜诪住专讘 讘讜 讜诪讚讬专讜 谞讚专讬 讝讬专讜讝讬谉 讛讜讗 讜讛专讜爪讛 砖诇讗 讬转拽讬讬诪讜 谞讚专讬讜 讻诇 讛砖谞讛 讬注诪讜讚 讘专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜讬讗诪专 讻诇 谞讚专 砖讗谞讬 注转讬讚 诇讬讚讜专 讬讛讗 讘讟诇 讜讘诇讘讚 砖讬讛讗 讝讻讜专 讘砖注转 讛谞讚专

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 is 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.

讗讬 讝讻讜专 注拽专讬讛 诇转谞讗讬讛 讜拽讬讬诐 诇讬讛 诇谞讚专讬讛 讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 转谞讬 讜讘诇讘讚 砖诇讗 讬讛讗 讝讻讜专 讘砖注转 讛谞讚专

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 is 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.

专讘讗 讗诪专 诇注讜诇诐 讻讚讗诪专讬谞谉 诪注讬拽专讗 讛讻讗 讘诪讗讬 注住拽讬谞谉 讻讙讜谉 砖讛转谞讛 讘专讗砖 讛砖谞讛 讜诇讗 讬讚注 讘诪讛 讛转谞讛 讜讛砖转讗 拽讗 谞讚专 讗讬 讝讻讜专 讘砖注转 讛谞讚专 讜讗诪专 注诇 讚注转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讗谞讬 谞讜讚专 谞讚专讬讛 诇讬转 讘讬讛 诪诪砖讗 诇讗 讗诪专 注诇 讚注转 讛专讗砖讜谞讛 讗谞讬 谞讜讚专 注拽专讬讛 诇转谞讗讬讛 讜拽讬讬诐 诇谞讚专讬讛

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.

专讘 讛讜谞讗 讘专 讞讬谞谞讗 住讘专 诇诪讬讚专砖讬讛 讘驻讬专拽讗 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 转谞讗 拽讗 诪住转讬诐 诇讛 住转讜诪讬 讻讚讬 砖诇讗 讬谞讛讙讜 拽诇讜转 专讗砖 讘谞讚专讬诐 讜讗转 讚专砖转 诇讬讛 讘驻讬专拽讗

The Gemara relates that Rav Huna bar 岣nnana 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?

讗讬讘注讬讗 诇讛讜 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 讚专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讗讜 诇讗 讜讗诐 转诪爪讗 诇讜诪专 驻诇讬讙讬 讛诇讻转讗 讻讜转讬讛 讗讜 诇讗 转讗 砖诪注 讚转谞谉 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜

A dilemma was raised before the scholars: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov 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:

Scroll To Top