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

Today's Daf Yomi

June 17, 2015 | 诇壮 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讛

  • 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 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.

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

Nedarim 24

Study Guide Nedarim 24


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

拽讜谞诐 砖讗讬谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇讱 讗诐 讗讬 讗转讛 谞讜讟诇 诇讘谞讱 讻讜专 砖诇 讞讬讟讬谉 讜砖转讬 讞讘讬讜转 砖诇 讬讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛转讬专 讗转 谞讚专讜 砖诇讗 注诇 驻讬 讞讻诐 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讻诇讜诐 讗诪专转 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讬诇 讻讘讜讚讬 讝讛 讛讜讗 讻讘讜讚讬

Benefiting from you is konam for me if you do not take from me for your son a kor of wheat and two barrels of wine as a gift, this other individual can dissolve his vow without the involvement of a halakhic authority. This is because he can say to the one who vowed: Did you say your vow for any reason other than due to my honor, in order to convince me to accept a gift for my son? This is my honor, that I refrain from accepting the gift.

讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 讝讛 讛讜讗 讻讘讜讚讬 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 谞讚专 讛讜讗 诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 谞讚专讬 讝讬专讜讝讬谉 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛

The Gemara infers: The reason that he may dissolve the vow without a halakhic authority is because the potential recipient said: This is my honor. But if he did not say so, then it is a vow. The Gemara clarifies: Whose opinion does this follow? If it is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, then it is included in the category of vows of exhortation and is not considered a vow, since the intention was solely to encourage the other individual to accept the gift. Rather, conclude from this mishna that the Rabbis disagree with him and hold that vows of exhortation are also vows.

诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讘讛讗讬 讚谞讚专讗 讛讜讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讻诇讘讗 讗谞讗 讚诪讬转讛谞讬谞讗 诪讬谞讱 讜诇讗 诪讬转讛谞讬转 诪讬谞讗讬

The Gemara responds: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, but Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov concedes in this case that it is a vow and not just a means of encouragement because the one who took the vow said to him: I am not a dog, that I benefit from you and you do not benefit from me. Therefore, one truly wants the vow to be valid so that the other will accept the gift, and it was not intended merely as a means of encouragement.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 拽讜谞诐 砖讗转讛 谞讛谞讬转 诇讬 讗诐 讗讬 讗转讛 谞讜转谉 诇讘谞讬 讻讜专 砖诇 讞讬讟讬谉 讜砖转讬 讞讘讬讜转 砖诇 讬讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬转谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讝讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛转讬专 讗转 谞讚专讜 砖诇讗 注诇 驻讬 讞讻诐 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讛专讬谞讬 讻讗讬诇讜 讛转拽讘诇转讬

The Gemara suggests another proof: Come and hear the continuation of that mishna: So too, in the case of one who says to another: Benefiting from me is konam for you if you do not give my son a kor of wheat and two barrels of wine, Rabbi Meir says: The vow is valid, and he may not benefit from the one who took the vow until he gives the gift. And the Rabbis say: Even this individual who took the vow can dissolve his own vow without the involvement of a halakhic authority, as he can say: I hereby consider it as though I received the gift from you.

讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 讻讗讬诇讜 讛转拽讘诇转讬 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 谞讚专 讛讜讗 诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 谞讚专讬 讝讬专讜讝讬谉 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘谞谉 讜驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara infers: The reason is because he said: I hereby consider it as though I received it from you. But if he did not say so, it would be a vow. The Gemara clarifies: Whose opinion does this statement reflect? If it reflects the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, then it is included in the category of vows of exhortation. Rather, is it not the opinion of the Rabbis, and this demonstrates that the Rabbis disagree with him with regard to vows of exhortation?

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讛讗讬 讚谞讚专讗 讛讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 诪诇讻讗 讗谞讗 讚诪讛谞讬谞讗 诇讱 讜讗转 诇讗 诪讛谞讬转 诇讬

The Gemara responds: No, actually it is possible that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov. And Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov concedes in this case that it is considered a vow because the one that took the vow says to him: I am not a king that I provide benefit to you and you do not provide benefit to me. Consequently, the intent is not simply to encourage him but rather, to actually take a vow.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 谞讚专讬 讗讜谞住讬谉 讛讚讬专讜 讞讘讬专讜 砖讬讗讻诇 讗爪诇讜 讜讞诇讛 讛讜讗 讗讜 讞诇讛 讘谞讜 讗讜 砖注讻讘讜 谞讛专 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 谞讚专 讛讜讗 诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讝讬专讜讝讬谉 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘谞谉 讜驻诇讬讙讬

Mar Kashisha, son of Rav 岣sda, said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (27a): What are examples of vows impeded by circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control, which do not require dissolution? If one鈥檚 friend took a vow with regard to him that he should eat with him, and then he became sick, or his son became sick, or a river that he was unable to cross barred him from coming, these are vows impeded by circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control. The Gemara infers: Such a vow does not require dissolution in cases like these, but if not for this unavoidable element, it would be a vow. The Gemara clarifies: Whose opinion does this follow? If it follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, then they are vows of exhortation that he did not intend to be treated as vows at all. Rather, is it not the opinion of the Rabbis, and it is therefore clear that the Rabbis disagree with him?

诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜诪讬 住讘专转 讚讗讚专讬讛 诪讝诪谞讗 诇讝诪讬谞讗 诇讗 讚讝诪讬谞讗 讗讚专讬讛 诇诪讝诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讝诪谞转 诇讬 诇住注讜讚转讬讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 谞讚专 讝讛 注诇讬讱 讜谞讚专 讜讞诇讛 讛讜讗 讗讜 砖讞诇讛 讘谞讜 讗讜 砖注讻讘讜 谞讛专 讛专讬 讗诇讜 谞讚专讬 讗讜谞住讬谉

Rav Ashi responds: Actually, this follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov. But do you hold that in the case here the host took a vow with regard to the potential guest? No, the case here is where the potential guest caused a vow to be taken by the host and said to him: Do you invite me to your meal? The inviter said to him: Yes. The invitee then asked him: Is this vow upon you, i.e., do you vow to do so? The inviter agreed and he vowed, and then he became sick, or his son became sick, or a river barred him from coming; these are vows impeded by circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control. Because the vow was initiated by the potential guest rather than the host, it cannot qualify as a vow of exhortation. Consequently, dissolution is not allowed except when unavoidable situations like these occur.

转讗 砖诪注 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇讱 讗诐 讗讬 讗转讛 诪转讗专讞 讗爪诇讬 讜转讗讻诇 注诪讬 驻转 讞诪讛 讜转砖转讛 注诪讬 讻讜住 讞诪讬谉 讜讛诇讛 讛拽驻讬讚 讻谞讙讚讜 讗祝 讗诇讜 谞讚专讬 讝讬专讜讝讬谉 讜诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讗讜

Come and hear another proof: Further to the point of the mishna, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov said: In the case of one who says to his friend: Benefiting from you is konam for me if you do not lodge with me, and eat hot bread with me, and drink a cup of hot water with me, and the other becomes irritated at him because he was forcing him to do so, these are also vows of exhortation. But the Rabbis did not concede to him on this issue, because the friend鈥檚 opposition implies that the vow must be a valid vow and not a vow of exhortation. The Gemara clarifies: What is the meaning of: The Rabbis did not concede to him? Does it not

讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘拽诪讬讬转讗 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

mean that even in the earlier cases, where he did not become irritated, they disagree with regard to vows of exhortation and hold that these vows are indeed valid, and can one conclude from here that the Rabbis disagree with him? The Gemara concludes: Conclude from here that this is so.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘

With regard to the practical conclusion of this dispute, the Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Does the halakha follow the opinion of the Rabbis or that of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov? The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov. And so said Rav Adda bar Ahava: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讚专讬 讛讘讗讬 讗诪专 拽讜谞诐 讗诐 诇讗 专讗讬转讬 讘讚专讱 讛讝讛 讻注讜诇讬 诪爪专讬诐 讗诐 诇讗 专讗讬转讬 谞讞砖 讻拽讜专转 讘讬转 讛讘讚

MISHNA: Vows of exaggeration that the Sages dissolved without a request to a halakhic authority, as described in the first mishna in the chapter, include the following examples. If one said concerning a certain item: It is konam for me if I did not see on this road as many people as those who ascended from Egypt, or if he said: It is konam for me if I did not see a snake as large as the beam of an olive press, in these cases the speaker did not intend to vow but used hyperbole to demonstrate a point, and it is understood by others that the expression is not to be taken literally.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 谞讚专讬 讛讘讗讬 诪讜转专讬谉 砖讘讜注讜转 讛讘讗讬 讗住讜专讬谉

GEMARA: A Sage taught: Items rendered forbidden through vows of exaggeration [havai] are permitted; items rendered forbidden through oaths of exaggeration are forbidden. Since oaths are very severe, one does not take an oath unless he intends it seriously. Therefore, it is not viewed as an oath of exaggeration.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 砖讘讜注讜转 讛讘讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 讗诐 诇讗 专讗讬转讬 讘讚专讱 讛讝讛 诪讬讚注诐 拽讗诪专

The Gemara clarifies the details: What are the circumstances of the case of oaths of exaggeration? If we say that it is when one said: I take an oath if I did not see on this road as many people as those who ascended from Egypt, is he saying anything? This statement is not formulated in the form of an oath and therefore has no validity at all, even if he was serious.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖专讗讬转讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 讜注讜讚 讚讜诪讬讗 讚谞讚专 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗讜诪专 讬讗住专讜 驻讬专讜转 讛注讜诇诐 注诇讬 讘砖讘讜注讛 讗诐 诇讗 专讗讬转讬 讘讚专讱 讛讝讛 讻注讜诇讬 诪爪专讬诐

The Gemara answers: Abaye said that in a case where one says: I take an oath that I saw on this road as many people as those who ascended from Egypt, the oath is valid. If he did not see that many people, he has taken a false oath. Rava said to him: If so, why do I need to say this; it is not a novelty? And furthermore, it teaches that the case of an oath is similar to that of a vow: Just as in the case of a vow he speaks of not seeing, so too with regard to an oath he must be speaking of not seeing. Rather, Rava said: An oath of exaggeration is where he says: All the produce of the world shall be forbidden to me by an oath if I did not see on this road as many people as those who ascended from Egypt.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 拽讬谞讗 讚砖讜诪砖诪谞讬 讞讝讗 讜讗住讬拽 诇讛讜谉 砖诪讗 注讜诇讬 诪爪专讬诐 讜砖驻讬专 诪砖转讘注

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And perhaps this man saw an anthill and called them: Those who ascended from Egypt, because the quantity of ants was so numerous, and he took an oath properly. Why, then, do we say that this is an oath taken in vain?

  • 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 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.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the refuah shleima 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 24: Circumstances beyond Our Control

Do the rabbis agree with R. Elazar Ben Yaakov from the mishnah or not? What if a person can't fulfill...

Nedarim 24

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 24

拽讜谞诐 砖讗讬谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇讱 讗诐 讗讬 讗转讛 谞讜讟诇 诇讘谞讱 讻讜专 砖诇 讞讬讟讬谉 讜砖转讬 讞讘讬讜转 砖诇 讬讬谉 讛专讬 讝讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛转讬专 讗转 谞讚专讜 砖诇讗 注诇 驻讬 讞讻诐 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 诇讜 讻诇讜诐 讗诪专转 讗诇讗 讘砖讘讬诇 讻讘讜讚讬 讝讛 讛讜讗 讻讘讜讚讬

Benefiting from you is konam for me if you do not take from me for your son a kor of wheat and two barrels of wine as a gift, this other individual can dissolve his vow without the involvement of a halakhic authority. This is because he can say to the one who vowed: Did you say your vow for any reason other than due to my honor, in order to convince me to accept a gift for my son? This is my honor, that I refrain from accepting the gift.

讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 讝讛 讛讜讗 讻讘讜讚讬 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 谞讚专 讛讜讗 诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 谞讚专讬 讝讬专讜讝讬谉 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛

The Gemara infers: The reason that he may dissolve the vow without a halakhic authority is because the potential recipient said: This is my honor. But if he did not say so, then it is a vow. The Gemara clarifies: Whose opinion does this follow? If it is the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, then it is included in the category of vows of exhortation and is not considered a vow, since the intention was solely to encourage the other individual to accept the gift. Rather, conclude from this mishna that the Rabbis disagree with him and hold that vows of exhortation are also vows.

诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讬讗 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讘讛讗讬 讚谞讚专讗 讛讜讬 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗 讻诇讘讗 讗谞讗 讚诪讬转讛谞讬谞讗 诪讬谞讱 讜诇讗 诪讬转讛谞讬转 诪讬谞讗讬

The Gemara responds: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, but Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov concedes in this case that it is a vow and not just a means of encouragement because the one who took the vow said to him: I am not a dog, that I benefit from you and you do not benefit from me. Therefore, one truly wants the vow to be valid so that the other will accept the gift, and it was not intended merely as a means of encouragement.

转讗 砖诪注 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 拽讜谞诐 砖讗转讛 谞讛谞讬转 诇讬 讗诐 讗讬 讗转讛 谞讜转谉 诇讘谞讬 讻讜专 砖诇 讞讬讟讬谉 讜砖转讬 讞讘讬讜转 砖诇 讬讬谉 专讘讬 诪讗讬专 讗讜诪专 注讚 砖讬转谉 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗祝 讝讛 讬讻讜诇 诇讛转讬专 讗转 谞讚专讜 砖诇讗 注诇 驻讬 讞讻诐 砖讬讻讜诇 诇讜诪专 讛专讬谞讬 讻讗讬诇讜 讛转拽讘诇转讬

The Gemara suggests another proof: Come and hear the continuation of that mishna: So too, in the case of one who says to another: Benefiting from me is konam for you if you do not give my son a kor of wheat and two barrels of wine, Rabbi Meir says: The vow is valid, and he may not benefit from the one who took the vow until he gives the gift. And the Rabbis say: Even this individual who took the vow can dissolve his own vow without the involvement of a halakhic authority, as he can say: I hereby consider it as though I received the gift from you.

讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 讛专讬谞讬 讻讗讬诇讜 讛转拽讘诇转讬 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 谞讚专 讛讜讗 诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 谞讚专讬 讝讬专讜讝讬谉 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘谞谉 讜驻诇讬讙讬

The Gemara infers: The reason is because he said: I hereby consider it as though I received it from you. But if he did not say so, it would be a vow. The Gemara clarifies: Whose opinion does this statement reflect? If it reflects the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, then it is included in the category of vows of exhortation. Rather, is it not the opinion of the Rabbis, and this demonstrates that the Rabbis disagree with him with regard to vows of exhortation?

诇讗 诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜诪讜讚讛 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讛讗讬 讚谞讚专讗 讛讜讬 诪砖讜诐 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诇讗讜 诪诇讻讗 讗谞讗 讚诪讛谞讬谞讗 诇讱 讜讗转 诇讗 诪讛谞讬转 诇讬

The Gemara responds: No, actually it is possible that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov. And Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov concedes in this case that it is considered a vow because the one that took the vow says to him: I am not a king that I provide benefit to you and you do not provide benefit to me. Consequently, the intent is not simply to encourage him but rather, to actually take a vow.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪专 拽砖讬砖讗 讘专讬讛 讚专讘 讞住讚讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 转讗 砖诪注 谞讚专讬 讗讜谞住讬谉 讛讚讬专讜 讞讘讬专讜 砖讬讗讻诇 讗爪诇讜 讜讞诇讛 讛讜讗 讗讜 讞诇讛 讘谞讜 讗讜 砖注讻讘讜 谞讛专 讛讗 诇讗讜 讛讻讬 谞讚专 讛讜讗 诪谞讬 讗讬 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讝讬专讜讝讬谉 讛讜讬 讗诇讗 诇讗讜 专讘谞谉 讜驻诇讬讙讬

Mar Kashisha, son of Rav 岣sda, said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (27a): What are examples of vows impeded by circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control, which do not require dissolution? If one鈥檚 friend took a vow with regard to him that he should eat with him, and then he became sick, or his son became sick, or a river that he was unable to cross barred him from coming, these are vows impeded by circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control. The Gemara infers: Such a vow does not require dissolution in cases like these, but if not for this unavoidable element, it would be a vow. The Gemara clarifies: Whose opinion does this follow? If it follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov, then they are vows of exhortation that he did not intend to be treated as vows at all. Rather, is it not the opinion of the Rabbis, and it is therefore clear that the Rabbis disagree with him?

诇注讜诇诐 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜诪讬 住讘专转 讚讗讚专讬讛 诪讝诪谞讗 诇讝诪讬谞讗 诇讗 讚讝诪讬谞讗 讗讚专讬讛 诇诪讝诪谞讗 讚讗诪专 诇讬讛 诪讝诪谞转 诇讬 诇住注讜讚转讬讱 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讗讬谉 谞讚专 讝讛 注诇讬讱 讜谞讚专 讜讞诇讛 讛讜讗 讗讜 砖讞诇讛 讘谞讜 讗讜 砖注讻讘讜 谞讛专 讛专讬 讗诇讜 谞讚专讬 讗讜谞住讬谉

Rav Ashi responds: Actually, this follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov. But do you hold that in the case here the host took a vow with regard to the potential guest? No, the case here is where the potential guest caused a vow to be taken by the host and said to him: Do you invite me to your meal? The inviter said to him: Yes. The invitee then asked him: Is this vow upon you, i.e., do you vow to do so? The inviter agreed and he vowed, and then he became sick, or his son became sick, or a river barred him from coming; these are vows impeded by circumstances beyond one鈥檚 control. Because the vow was initiated by the potential guest rather than the host, it cannot qualify as a vow of exhortation. Consequently, dissolution is not allowed except when unavoidable situations like these occur.

转讗 砖诪注 讬转专 注诇 讻谉 讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讛讗讜诪专 诇讞讘讬专讜 拽讜谞诐 砖讗谞讬 谞讛谞讛 诇讱 讗诐 讗讬 讗转讛 诪转讗专讞 讗爪诇讬 讜转讗讻诇 注诪讬 驻转 讞诪讛 讜转砖转讛 注诪讬 讻讜住 讞诪讬谉 讜讛诇讛 讛拽驻讬讚 讻谞讙讚讜 讗祝 讗诇讜 谞讚专讬 讝讬专讜讝讬谉 讜诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诪讗讬 诇讗 讛讜讚讜 诇讜 讞讻诪讬诐 诇讗讜

Come and hear another proof: Further to the point of the mishna, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov said: In the case of one who says to his friend: Benefiting from you is konam for me if you do not lodge with me, and eat hot bread with me, and drink a cup of hot water with me, and the other becomes irritated at him because he was forcing him to do so, these are also vows of exhortation. But the Rabbis did not concede to him on this issue, because the friend鈥檚 opposition implies that the vow must be a valid vow and not a vow of exhortation. The Gemara clarifies: What is the meaning of: The Rabbis did not concede to him? Does it not

讚讗驻讬诇讜 讘拽诪讬讬转讗 讜砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 驻诇讬讙讬 专讘谞谉 注诇讬讛 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛

mean that even in the earlier cases, where he did not become irritated, they disagree with regard to vows of exhortation and hold that these vows are indeed valid, and can one conclude from here that the Rabbis disagree with him? The Gemara concludes: Conclude from here that this is so.

诪讗讬 讛讜讬 注诇讛 转讗 砖诪注 讚讗诪专 专讘 讛讜谞讗 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘 讜讻谉 讗诪专 专讘 讗讚讗 讘专 讗讛讘讛 讛诇讻讛 讻专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘谉 讬注拽讘

With regard to the practical conclusion of this dispute, the Gemara asks: What halakhic conclusion was reached about this matter? Does the halakha follow the opinion of the Rabbis or that of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov? The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov. And so said Rav Adda bar Ahava: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya鈥檃kov.

诪转谞讬壮 谞讚专讬 讛讘讗讬 讗诪专 拽讜谞诐 讗诐 诇讗 专讗讬转讬 讘讚专讱 讛讝讛 讻注讜诇讬 诪爪专讬诐 讗诐 诇讗 专讗讬转讬 谞讞砖 讻拽讜专转 讘讬转 讛讘讚

MISHNA: Vows of exaggeration that the Sages dissolved without a request to a halakhic authority, as described in the first mishna in the chapter, include the following examples. If one said concerning a certain item: It is konam for me if I did not see on this road as many people as those who ascended from Egypt, or if he said: It is konam for me if I did not see a snake as large as the beam of an olive press, in these cases the speaker did not intend to vow but used hyperbole to demonstrate a point, and it is understood by others that the expression is not to be taken literally.

讙诪壮 转谞讗 谞讚专讬 讛讘讗讬 诪讜转专讬谉 砖讘讜注讜转 讛讘讗讬 讗住讜专讬谉

GEMARA: A Sage taught: Items rendered forbidden through vows of exaggeration [havai] are permitted; items rendered forbidden through oaths of exaggeration are forbidden. Since oaths are very severe, one does not take an oath unless he intends it seriously. Therefore, it is not viewed as an oath of exaggeration.

讛讬讻讬 讚诪讬 砖讘讜注讜转 讛讘讗讬 讗讬诇讬诪讗 讚讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 讗诐 诇讗 专讗讬转讬 讘讚专讱 讛讝讛 诪讬讚注诐 拽讗诪专

The Gemara clarifies the details: What are the circumstances of the case of oaths of exaggeration? If we say that it is when one said: I take an oath if I did not see on this road as many people as those who ascended from Egypt, is he saying anything? This statement is not formulated in the form of an oath and therefore has no validity at all, even if he was serious.

讗诪专 讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 砖讘讜注讛 砖专讗讬转讬 讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讗 讗诐 讻谉 诇诪讛 诇讬 诇诪讬诪专 讜注讜讚 讚讜诪讬讗 讚谞讚专 拽转谞讬 讗诇讗 讗诪专 专讘讗 讘讗讜诪专 讬讗住专讜 驻讬专讜转 讛注讜诇诐 注诇讬 讘砖讘讜注讛 讗诐 诇讗 专讗讬转讬 讘讚专讱 讛讝讛 讻注讜诇讬 诪爪专讬诐

The Gemara answers: Abaye said that in a case where one says: I take an oath that I saw on this road as many people as those who ascended from Egypt, the oath is valid. If he did not see that many people, he has taken a false oath. Rava said to him: If so, why do I need to say this; it is not a novelty? And furthermore, it teaches that the case of an oath is similar to that of a vow: Just as in the case of a vow he speaks of not seeing, so too with regard to an oath he must be speaking of not seeing. Rather, Rava said: An oath of exaggeration is where he says: All the produce of the world shall be forbidden to me by an oath if I did not see on this road as many people as those who ascended from Egypt.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讬谞讗 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讜讚诇诪讗 讛讗讬 讙讘专讗 拽讬谞讗 讚砖讜诪砖诪谞讬 讞讝讗 讜讗住讬拽 诇讛讜谉 砖诪讗 注讜诇讬 诪爪专讬诐 讜砖驻讬专 诪砖转讘注

Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And perhaps this man saw an anthill and called them: Those who ascended from Egypt, because the quantity of ants was so numerous, and he took an oath properly. Why, then, do we say that this is an oath taken in vain?

Scroll To Top