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

Today's Daf Yomi

November 18, 2022 | ื›ืดื“ ื‘ืžืจื—ืฉื•ื•ืŸ ืชืฉืคืดื’

  • 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 shleima of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Nedarim 24

Today’s daf is sponsored by Silke Goldberg in loving memory of her mother, Leoni Kimmel on her 3rd yahrzeit. “She was a fantastic teacher and strong believer in learning and equality for women.”ย 
Do the sages disagree with R. Eliezer ben Yaakov and think that prompting oneโ€™s friend to eat with them is not a vow of zeruzin? The Gemara cites four different sources to prove the sages disagree with him. The proof from each of these sources is rejected except for the last one. In any case, the amoraim rule with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov. The Mishna gives two examples of the neder havai, vows of exaggeration/meaningless vows. The Gemara brings a braita in which they compare the vows of exaggeration with the oaths of exaggeration. What is an example of an oath of this type? Rava and Abaye disagree on the matter. Ravina asks about the case of an oath dependent on having seen the number of those that left Egypt (600,000). Why is that viewed as an exaggeration and not that he saw a nest of 600,000 ants?

 

ืงื•ื ื ืฉืื™ื ื™ ื ื”ื ื” ืœืš ืื ืื™ ืืชื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืœื‘ื ืš ื›ื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื—ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื—ื‘ื™ื•ืช ืฉืœ ื™ื™ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืชื™ืจ ืืช ื ื“ืจื• ืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ื—ื›ื ืฉื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื• ื›ืœื•ื ืืžืจืช ืืœื ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืœ ื›ื‘ื•ื“ื™ ื–ื” ื”ื•ื ื›ื‘ื•ื“ื™

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.

ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืืžืจ ื–ื” ื”ื•ื ื›ื‘ื•ื“ื™ ื”ื ืœืื• ื”ื›ื™ ื ื“ืจ ื”ื•ื ืžื ื™ ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื ื“ืจื™ ื–ื™ืจื•ื–ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื™ ืืœื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืขืœื™ื”

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 Yaโ€™akov, 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.

ืœืขื•ืœื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื”ื™ื ื•ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื‘ื”ืื™ ื“ื ื“ืจื ื”ื•ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื ื›ืœื‘ื ืื ื ื“ืžื™ืชื”ื ื™ื ื ืžื™ื ืš ื•ืœื ืžื™ืชื”ื ื™ืช ืžื™ื ืื™

The Gemara responds: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov, but Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov 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.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืงื•ื ื ืฉืืชื” ื ื”ื ื™ืช ืœื™ ืื ืื™ ืืชื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื‘ื ื™ ื›ื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื—ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื—ื‘ื™ื•ืช ืฉืœ ื™ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืชืŸ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืืฃ ื–ื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืชื™ืจ ืืช ื ื“ืจื• ืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ื—ื›ื ืฉื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื›ืื™ืœื• ื”ืชืงื‘ืœืชื™

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.

ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื›ืื™ืœื• ื”ืชืงื‘ืœืชื™ ื”ื ืœืื• ื”ื›ื™ ื ื“ืจ ื”ื•ื ืžื ื™ ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื ื“ืจื™ ื–ื™ืจื•ื–ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื™ ืืœื ืœืื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืคืœื™ื’ื™

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 Yaโ€™akov, 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?

ืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื•ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ื”ืื™ ื“ื ื“ืจื ื”ื•ื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืื• ืžืœื›ื ืื ื ื“ืžื”ื ื™ื ื ืœืš ื•ืืช ืœื ืžื”ื ื™ืช ืœื™

The Gemara responds: No, actually it is possible that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov. And Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov 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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืจ ืงืฉื™ืฉื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ื ื“ืจื™ ืื•ื ืกื™ืŸ ื”ื“ื™ืจื• ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืฉื™ืื›ืœ ืืฆืœื• ื•ื—ืœื” ื”ื•ื ืื• ื—ืœื” ื‘ื ื• ืื• ืฉืขื›ื‘ื• ื ื”ืจ ื”ื ืœืื• ื”ื›ื™ ื ื“ืจ ื”ื•ื ืžื ื™ ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื–ื™ืจื•ื–ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื™ ืืœื ืœืื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืคืœื™ื’ื™

Mar Kashisha, son of Rav แธคisda, said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (27a): What are examples of vows impeded by circumstances beyond oneโ€™s control, which do not require dissolution? If oneโ€™s 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 oneโ€™s 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 Yaโ€™akov, 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?

ืœืขื•ืœื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื•ืžื™ ืกื‘ืจืช ื“ืื“ืจื™ื” ืžื–ืžื ื ืœื–ืžื™ื ื ืœื ื“ื–ืžื™ื ื ืื“ืจื™ื” ืœืžื–ืžื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื–ืžื ืช ืœื™ ืœืกืขื•ื“ืชื™ืš ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจ ื–ื” ืขืœื™ืš ื•ื ื“ืจ ื•ื—ืœื” ื”ื•ื ืื• ืฉื—ืœื” ื‘ื ื• ืื• ืฉืขื›ื‘ื• ื ื”ืจ ื”ืจื™ ืืœื• ื ื“ืจื™ ืื•ื ืกื™ืŸ

Rav Ashi responds: Actually, this follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov. 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 oneโ€™s 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.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื™ืชืจ ืขืœ ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืงื•ื ื ืฉืื ื™ ื ื”ื ื” ืœืš ืื ืื™ ืืชื” ืžืชืืจื— ืืฆืœื™ ื•ืชืื›ืœ ืขืžื™ ืคืช ื—ืžื” ื•ืชืฉืชื” ืขืžื™ ื›ื•ืก ื—ืžื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืœื” ื”ืงืคื™ื“ ื›ื ื’ื“ื• ืืฃ ืืœื• ื ื“ืจื™ ื–ื™ืจื•ื–ื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื“ื• ืœื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืžืื™ ืœื ื”ื•ื“ื• ืœื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืœืื•

Come and hear another proof: Further to the point of the mishna, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov 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 friendโ€™s 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

ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

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.

ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื™ ืขืœื” ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘

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 Yaโ€™akov? The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov. And so said Rav Adda bar Ahava: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื ื“ืจื™ ื”ื‘ืื™ ืืžืจ ืงื•ื ื ืื ืœื ืจืื™ืชื™ ื‘ื“ืจืš ื”ื–ื” ื›ืขื•ืœื™ ืžืฆืจื™ื ืื ืœื ืจืื™ืชื™ ื ื—ืฉ ื›ืงื•ืจืช ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ื“

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื ื ื“ืจื™ ื”ื‘ืื™ ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื•ืช ื”ื‘ืื™ ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ

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.

ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื•ืช ื”ื‘ืื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ืืžืจ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืื ืœื ืจืื™ืชื™ ื‘ื“ืจืš ื”ื–ื” ืžื™ื“ืขื ืงืืžืจ

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.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืฉืจืื™ืชื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืื ื›ืŸ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื•ืขื•ื“ ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ื ื“ืจ ืงืชื ื™ ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืืกืจื• ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื”ืขื•ืœื ืขืœื™ ื‘ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืื ืœื ืจืื™ืชื™ ื‘ื“ืจืš ื”ื–ื” ื›ืขื•ืœื™ ืžืฆืจื™ื

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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื•ื“ืœืžื ื”ืื™ ื’ื‘ืจื ืงื™ื ื ื“ืฉื•ืžืฉืžื ื™ ื—ื–ื ื•ืืกื™ืง ืœื”ื•ืŸ ืฉืžื ืขื•ืœื™ ืžืฆืจื™ื ื•ืฉืคื™ืจ ืžืฉืชื‘ืข

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?

  • 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 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

ืงื•ื ื ืฉืื™ื ื™ ื ื”ื ื” ืœืš ืื ืื™ ืืชื” ื ื•ื˜ืœ ืœื‘ื ืš ื›ื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื—ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื—ื‘ื™ื•ืช ืฉืœ ื™ื™ืŸ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืชื™ืจ ืืช ื ื“ืจื• ืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ื—ื›ื ืฉื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื•ืžืจ ืœื• ื›ืœื•ื ืืžืจืช ืืœื ื‘ืฉื‘ื™ืœ ื›ื‘ื•ื“ื™ ื–ื” ื”ื•ื ื›ื‘ื•ื“ื™

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.

ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืืžืจ ื–ื” ื”ื•ื ื›ื‘ื•ื“ื™ ื”ื ืœืื• ื”ื›ื™ ื ื“ืจ ื”ื•ื ืžื ื™ ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื ื“ืจื™ ื–ื™ืจื•ื–ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื™ ืืœื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืขืœื™ื”

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 Yaโ€™akov, 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.

ืœืขื•ืœื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื”ื™ื ื•ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื‘ื”ืื™ ื“ื ื“ืจื ื”ื•ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœื ื›ืœื‘ื ืื ื ื“ืžื™ืชื”ื ื™ื ื ืžื™ื ืš ื•ืœื ืžื™ืชื”ื ื™ืช ืžื™ื ืื™

The Gemara responds: Actually, it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov, but Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov 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.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืงื•ื ื ืฉืืชื” ื ื”ื ื™ืช ืœื™ ืื ืื™ ืืชื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื‘ื ื™ ื›ื•ืจ ืฉืœ ื—ื™ื˜ื™ืŸ ื•ืฉืชื™ ื—ื‘ื™ื•ืช ืฉืœ ื™ื™ืŸ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืชืŸ ื•ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืื•ืžืจื™ื ืืฃ ื–ื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื”ืชื™ืจ ืืช ื ื“ืจื• ืฉืœื ืขืœ ืคื™ ื—ื›ื ืฉื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœื•ืžืจ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื›ืื™ืœื• ื”ืชืงื‘ืœืชื™

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.

ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืืžืจ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ื›ืื™ืœื• ื”ืชืงื‘ืœืชื™ ื”ื ืœืื• ื”ื›ื™ ื ื“ืจ ื”ื•ื ืžื ื™ ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื ื“ืจื™ ื–ื™ืจื•ื–ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื™ ืืœื ืœืื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืคืœื™ื’ื™

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 Yaโ€™akov, 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?

ืœื ืœืขื•ืœื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื•ืžื•ื“ื” ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ื”ืื™ ื“ื ื“ืจื ื”ื•ื™ ืžืฉื•ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืœืื• ืžืœื›ื ืื ื ื“ืžื”ื ื™ื ื ืœืš ื•ืืช ืœื ืžื”ื ื™ืช ืœื™

The Gemara responds: No, actually it is possible that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov. And Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov 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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžืจ ืงืฉื™ืฉื ื‘ืจื™ื” ื“ืจื‘ ื—ืกื“ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ืชื ืฉืžืข ื ื“ืจื™ ืื•ื ืกื™ืŸ ื”ื“ื™ืจื• ื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืฉื™ืื›ืœ ืืฆืœื• ื•ื—ืœื” ื”ื•ื ืื• ื—ืœื” ื‘ื ื• ืื• ืฉืขื›ื‘ื• ื ื”ืจ ื”ื ืœืื• ื”ื›ื™ ื ื“ืจ ื”ื•ื ืžื ื™ ืื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื–ื™ืจื•ื–ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื™ ืืœื ืœืื• ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืคืœื™ื’ื™

Mar Kashisha, son of Rav แธคisda, said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a proof from a mishna (27a): What are examples of vows impeded by circumstances beyond oneโ€™s control, which do not require dissolution? If oneโ€™s 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 oneโ€™s 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 Yaโ€™akov, 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?

ืœืขื•ืœื ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื•ืžื™ ืกื‘ืจืช ื“ืื“ืจื™ื” ืžื–ืžื ื ืœื–ืžื™ื ื ืœื ื“ื–ืžื™ื ื ืื“ืจื™ื” ืœืžื–ืžื ื ื“ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืžื–ืžื ืช ืœื™ ืœืกืขื•ื“ืชื™ืš ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจ ื–ื” ืขืœื™ืš ื•ื ื“ืจ ื•ื—ืœื” ื”ื•ื ืื• ืฉื—ืœื” ื‘ื ื• ืื• ืฉืขื›ื‘ื• ื ื”ืจ ื”ืจื™ ืืœื• ื ื“ืจื™ ืื•ื ืกื™ืŸ

Rav Ashi responds: Actually, this follows the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov. 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 oneโ€™s 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.

ืชื ืฉืžืข ื™ืชืจ ืขืœ ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื”ืื•ืžืจ ืœื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืงื•ื ื ืฉืื ื™ ื ื”ื ื” ืœืš ืื ืื™ ืืชื” ืžืชืืจื— ืืฆืœื™ ื•ืชืื›ืœ ืขืžื™ ืคืช ื—ืžื” ื•ืชืฉืชื” ืขืžื™ ื›ื•ืก ื—ืžื™ืŸ ื•ื”ืœื” ื”ืงืคื™ื“ ื›ื ื’ื“ื• ืืฃ ืืœื• ื ื“ืจื™ ื–ื™ืจื•ื–ื™ืŸ ื•ืœื ื”ื•ื“ื• ืœื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืžืื™ ืœื ื”ื•ื“ื• ืœื• ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืœืื•

Come and hear another proof: Further to the point of the mishna, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov 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 friendโ€™s 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

ื“ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ืงืžื™ื™ืชื ื•ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ืคืœื™ื’ื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืขืœื™ื” ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื”

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.

ืžืื™ ื”ื•ื™ ืขืœื” ืชื ืฉืžืข ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘ ื•ื›ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ืื“ื ื‘ืจ ืื”ื‘ื” ื”ืœื›ื” ื›ืจื‘ื™ ืืœื™ืขื–ืจ ื‘ืŸ ื™ืขืงื‘

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 Yaโ€™akov? The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which Rav Huna said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov. And so said Rav Adda bar Ahava: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaโ€™akov.

ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื ื“ืจื™ ื”ื‘ืื™ ืืžืจ ืงื•ื ื ืื ืœื ืจืื™ืชื™ ื‘ื“ืจืš ื”ื–ื” ื›ืขื•ืœื™ ืžืฆืจื™ื ืื ืœื ืจืื™ืชื™ ื ื—ืฉ ื›ืงื•ืจืช ื‘ื™ืช ื”ื‘ื“

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.

ื’ืžืณ ืชื ื ื ื“ืจื™ ื”ื‘ืื™ ืžื•ืชืจื™ืŸ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื•ืช ื”ื‘ืื™ ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ

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.

ื”ื™ื›ื™ ื“ืžื™ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื•ืช ื”ื‘ืื™ ืื™ืœื™ืžื ื“ืืžืจ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืื ืœื ืจืื™ืชื™ ื‘ื“ืจืš ื”ื–ื” ืžื™ื“ืขื ืงืืžืจ

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.

ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืฉืจืื™ืชื™ ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื ืื ื›ืŸ ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžื™ืžืจ ื•ืขื•ื“ ื“ื•ืžื™ื ื“ื ื“ืจ ืงืชื ื™ ืืœื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ื‘ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืืกืจื• ืคื™ืจื•ืช ื”ืขื•ืœื ืขืœื™ ื‘ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ืื ืœื ืจืื™ืชื™ ื‘ื“ืจืš ื”ื–ื” ื›ืขื•ืœื™ ืžืฆืจื™ื

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.

ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืจื‘ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ ืืฉื™ ื•ื“ืœืžื ื”ืื™ ื’ื‘ืจื ืงื™ื ื ื“ืฉื•ืžืฉืžื ื™ ื—ื–ื ื•ืืกื™ืง ืœื”ื•ืŸ ืฉืžื ืขื•ืœื™ ืžืฆืจื™ื ื•ืฉืคื™ืจ ืžืฉืชื‘ืข

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