Nedarim 28
חוּץ מִבִּשְׁבוּעָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַף בִּשְׁבוּעָה.
except for by taking of an oath, due to its more stringent nature. And Beit Hillel say: One may mislead them even by taking an oath.
בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִפְתַּח לוֹ בְּנֶדֶר, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַף יִפְתַּח לוֹ. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: בַּמֶּה שֶׁהוּא מַדִּירוֹ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַף בַּמֶּה שֶׁאֵינוֹ מַדִּירוֹ.
Beit Shammai say: When negotiating with a robber, one should not initiate by taking a vow for him unless the robber does not believe his claim, in which case he may take a vow to reinforce his words. And Beit Hillel say: He may even initiate by taking a vow to him. Beit Shammai say: One may take a vow only about that which the robber compels him to take a vow but may not add to it. And Beit Hillel say: One may take a vow even about that which he does not compel him to take a vow.
כֵּיצַד? אָמַר לוֹ: אֱמוֹר ״קֻוֽנָּם אִשְׁתִּי נֶהֱנֵית לִי״, וְאָמַר: ״קֻוֽנָּם אִשְׁתִּי וּבָנַי נֶהֱנִין לִי״, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אִשְׁתּוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת וּבָנָיו אֲסוּרִין. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ מוּתָּרִין.
The mishna explains the previous statement: How so? If the extortionist said to him that he should say: Benefiting from me is konam for my wife if the vow is not true, and he said: Benefiting from me is konam for my wife and my children, Beit Shammai say: His wife is permitted to benefit from him, since the extortionist demanded that he take that vow, but his children, whom he added of his own accord, are prohibited from benefiting from their father. And Beit Hillel say: Both these and those are permitted to benefit from him.
גְּמָ׳ וְהָאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: דִּינָא דְמַלְכוּתָא דִּינָא?
GEMARA: The Gemara asks, concerning the mishna’s statement that one may take a vow to tax collectors: But didn’t Shmuel say: The law of the kingdom is the law, i.e., there is a halakhic principle that Jews must obey the laws of the state in which they live? Since one must pay the tax determined by the kingdom, how did the Sages permit one to lie in order to avoid paying?
אָמַר רַב חִינָּנָא אָמַר רַב כָּהֲנָא אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּמוֹכֵס שֶׁאֵין לוֹ קִצְבָה. דְּבֵי רַבִּי יַנַּאי אָמַר: בְּמוֹכֵס הָעוֹמֵד מֵאֵלָיו.
Rav Ḥinnana said that Rav Kahana said that Shmuel said: The mishna is referring to a tax collector who has no fixed amount for collection established by the kingdom, but rather collects the tax arbitrarily. Therefore, this case is not included in the law of the kingdom. A Sage of the school of Rabbi Yannai said: The mishna is referring to a tax collector who establishes himself as such independently and was not appointed by the kingdom.
שֶׁהֵן שֶׁל בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן שֶׁל בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ. הֵיכִי נָדַר? אָמַר רַב עַמְרָם אָמַר רַב: בְּאוֹמֵר ״יֵאָסְרוּ פֵּירוֹת הָעוֹלָם עָלַי אִם אֵינָן שֶׁל בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ״.
§ The mishna states: He may also take a vow to them that his produce belongs to the house of the king, although it does not belong to the house of the king. The Gemara asks: How does he take a vow in this way? Rav Amram said that Rav said: This is a case where he said: The produce of the world should be forbidden to me if this produce does not belong to the house of the king.
כֵּיוָן דְּאָמַר ״יֵאָסְרוּ״ — אִיתְּסַרוּ עֲלֵיהּ כׇּל פֵּירֵי עָלְמָא! בְּאוֹמֵר ״הַיּוֹם״. אִי דְּאָמַר ״הַיּוֹם״ לָא מְקַבֵּל מִינֵּיהּ מוֹכֵס!
The Gemara asks: Since he said that the produce of the world shall be forbidden to him, shouldn’t all the produce of the world be forbidden to him, as this produce did not belong to the house of the king? The Gemara answers: This is a case where he says: They shall be forbidden to me only today. The Gemara wonders: If he says: Today, the tax collector will not accept it as a vow, since it is not difficult to avoid eating produce for one day. Therefore, he may still be suspected of lying.
בְּאוֹמֵר בְּלִבּוֹ ״הַיּוֹם״, וּמוֹצִיא בִּשְׂפָתָיו סְתָם. וְאַף עַל גַּב דִּסְבִירָא לַן דְּבָרִים שֶׁבַּלֵּב אֵינָן דְּבָרִים — לְגַבֵּי אוֹנָסִין שָׁאנֵי.
The Gemara answers: This is a case where he says: Today, in his heart but verbalizes the vow in an unspecified manner. And although we hold that unspoken matters that remain in the heart are not significant matters and are not taken into consideration, with regard to circumstances beyond one’s control it is different, and he is permitted to rely on the mental stipulation that he added in order to limit the duration of the prohibition effected by the vow.
בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: בַּכֹּל כּוּ׳. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: בַּמֶּה שֶׁהוּא מַדִּירוֹ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַף בְּשֶׁאֵינוֹ מַדִּירוֹ. כֵּיצַד? אָמַר לוֹ: ״קֻוֽנָּם אִשְׁתִּי נֶהֱנֵית לִי״, וְאָמַר ״קֻוֽנָּם אִשְׁתִּי וּבָנַי נֶהֱנִין לִי״. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אִשְׁתּוֹ מוּתֶּרֶת וּבָנָיו אֲסוּרִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ מוּתָּרִין.
§ The mishna states: Beit Shammai say that they may take a vow in such a case using every means of vowing except for an oath, while Beit Hillel say they may take a vow even using an oath. Beit Shammai say: One may vow only about that which the extortionist compels him to take a vow but may not add to it. And Beit Hillel say: One may take a vow even about that which he does not compel him to take a vow. How so? If the extortionist said to him that he should say: Benefiting from me is konam for my wife if the vow is not true, and he said: Benefiting from me is konam for my wife and my children, Beit Shammai say: His wife is permitted to benefit from him, since the extortionist demanded that he take that vow, but his children, whom he added of his own accord, are prohibited from benefiting from their father. And Beit Hillel say: Both these and those are permitted to benefit from him.
אָמַר רַב הוּנָא: תָּנָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִפְתַּח לוֹ בִּשְׁבוּעָה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אַף יִפְתַּח לוֹ בִּשְׁבוּעָה. לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי בִּשְׁבוּעָה הוּא דְּלֹא יִפְתַּח לוֹ, הָא בְּנֶדֶר יִפְתַּח לוֹ. וְהָא תְּנַן, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: לֹא יִפְתַּח לוֹ בַּנֶּדֶר!
Rav Huna said that a Sage taught: Beit Shammai say that one may not initiate by taking an oath to him unless the extortionist does not believe his claim, and Beit Hillel say: He may even initiate by taking an oath to him. The Gemara asks: A precise analysis of the wording indicates that according to Beit Shammai it is only by taking an oath to him that one may not initiate, but one may initiate by taking a vow to him. Rav Huna asks: But didn’t we learn in the mishna that Beit Shammai say: He may not initiate by taking a vow to him?
וְתוּ: מִיפְתָּח הוּא דְּלָא יִפְתַּח לוֹ בִּשְׁבוּעָה, הָא מִידָּר נָדַר בִּשְׁבוּעָה. וְהָתְנַן, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: בַּכֹּל נוֹדְרִין חוּץ מִבִּשְׁבוּעָה!
Rav Huna asks another question: And furthermore, a precise analysis of the wording indicates that he may not initiate by taking an oath to him, but he may certainly vow with an oath if the tax collector insists on it; but didn’t we learn in the mishna that Beit Shammai say: They may take a vow in such a case using every means of vowing in order to mislead them except for by taking an oath, which indicates that one may not take an oath even if he does not initiate with one?
תַּנָּא מַתְנִיתִין בְּנֶדֶר, לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחָן דְּבֵית שַׁמַּאי. תַּנָּא בָּרַיְיתָא בִּשְׁבוּעָה, לְהוֹדִיעֲךָ כֹּחָן דְּבֵית הִלֵּל.
The Gemara resolves the contradiction: The mishna taught the halakha that pertains to a vow to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Beit Shammai, who say that one may not initiate even with a vow. However, the baraita taught the halakha that pertains to an oath to convey to you the far-reaching nature of the opinion of Beit Hillel, who maintain that initiating even with an oath is permitted. It is apparent that according to Beit Shammai one may not initiate with a vow and may not take an oath at all. Therefore, the baraita cannot be used to infer Beit Shammai’s opinion concerning oaths.
רַב אָשֵׁי אָמַר, הָכִי קָתָנֵי, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: אֵין שְׁאֵלָה בִּשְׁבוּעָה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: יֵשׁ שְׁאֵלָה בִּשְׁבוּעָה.
Rav Ashi said the following to resolve the contradiction: This is what it is teaching: The baraita does not refer to a vow taken in the case of robbers or tax collectors. Rather, the dispute focuses on an entirely different topic: Beit Shammai say that there is no allowance for a request for dissolution of an oath, and the statement: He may not initiate, relates to a halakhic authority who seeks an opening to dissolve an oath. And Beit Hillel say there is an allowance for a request for dissolution of an oath.
מַתְנִי׳ ״הֲרֵי נְטִיעוֹת הָאֵלּוּ קׇרְבָּן אִם אֵינָן נִקְצָצוֹת״, ״טַלִּית זוֹ קׇרְבָּן אִם אֵינָהּ נִשְׂרֶפֶת״ — יֵשׁ לָהֶן פִּדְיוֹן. ״הֲרֵי נְטִיעוֹת הָאֵלּוּ קׇרְבָּן עַד שֶׁיִּקָּצְצוּ״, ״טַלִּית זוֹ קׇרְבָּן עַד שֶׁתִּשָּׂרֵף״ —
MISHNA: If one sees his property in danger of being destroyed, and takes a vow stating, for example: These saplings are like an offering if they are not cut down, or: This garment is like an offering if it is not burned, these items are consecrated if the saplings remain standing or if the garment is not burned. In addition, they are subject to the possibility of redemption just as other items consecrated for maintenance of the Temple may be redeemed. But if one said: These saplings are like an offering until they are cut down, or: This garment is like an offering until it is burned,
אֵין לָהֶם פִּדְיוֹן.
then they are not subject to the possibility of redemption.
גְּמָ׳ וְלִיתְנֵי ״קְדוֹשׁוֹת וְאֵין קְדוֹשׁוֹת״! אַיְּידֵי דְבָעֵי לְמִיתְנָא סֵיפָא ״אֵין לָהֶם פִּדְיוֹן״, תְּנָא נָמֵי רֵישָׁא ״יֵשׁ לָהֶם פִּדְיוֹן״.
GEMARA: The Gemara questions the language of the mishna: Why does the mishna utilize the wording: They have redemption and they do not have redemption? Let the mishna teach: They are consecrated and they are not consecrated, since the primary novelty is that they are consecrated, but not completely. The Gemara answers: Since it wanted to teach in the latter clause the phrase: They are not subject to the possibility of redemption, which cannot be expressed as: They are not consecrated, as they are consecrated, it taught also the first clause using the language: They are subject to the possibility of redemption.
הֵיכִי נָדַר? אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: בְּאוֹמֵר ״אִם אֵינָן נִקְצָצוֹת הַיּוֹם״, וְעָבַר הַיּוֹם וְלֹא נִקְצְצוּ. אִם כֵּן לְמָה לִי לְמֵימַר? פְּשִׁיטָא! לָא צְרִיכָא כְּגוֹן דְּאִיכָּא זִיקָא נְפִישָׁא.
The Gemara elaborates: How did he take a vow? What was the precise language that he used? Ameimar said: Where he says: These saplings are like an offering if they are not cut down today, and the day passed and they were not cut down. The Gemara asks: If so, why do I need to say that they are consecrated? Isn’t it obvious that his vow takes effect? The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary in a case where there is a great strong wind and he thought that they would be uprooted by the wind.
וְהָא קָתָנֵי לַהּ גַּבֵּי טַלִּית, וְטַלִּית לִשְׂרֵיפָה קָיְימָא? [אִין] כְּגוֹן דְּאִיכָּא דְּלֵיקָה. הָכָא נָמֵי, דְּאִיכָּא זִיקָא נְפִישָׁא, וְסָלְקָא דַּעְתָּךְ דְּמַסֵּיק אַדַּעְתֵּיהּ דְּלָא מִיתְנַצְלָן וּמִשּׁוּם הָכִי קָא נָדַר, קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara asks: But isn’t this taught together with the case of a garment, indicating that the two are equivalent, and is a garment ready for burning, i.e., is it assumed that it will burn? The Gemara answers: Yes, in a case where there is a fire. The Gemara explains: Here also there is a great strong wind, and it enters your mind that one raised in his mind the possibility that the saplings will not be saved, and due to that reason he took a vow. Since in any event he assumes he will lose the saplings, perhaps he did not really intend to consecrate them. The mishna teaches us that in spite of this it is still considered a vow.
הֲרֵי נְטִיעוֹת הָאֵלּוּ קׇרְבָּן כּוּ׳. וּלְעוֹלָם? אָמַר בַּר פְּדָא: פְּדָאָן — חוֹזְרוֹת וְקוֹדְשׁוֹת, פְּדָאָן — חוֹזְרוֹת וְקוֹדְשׁוֹת, עַד שֶׁיִּקָּצְצוּ. נִקְצְצוּ — פּוֹדָן פַּעַם אַחַת וְדַיּוֹ. וְעוּלָּא אָמַר: כֵּיוָן שֶׁנִּקְצְצוּ — שׁוּב אֵין פּוֹדָן.
§ The mishna states that if he said: These saplings are like an offering until they are cut down, they are not subject to the possibility of redemption. The Gemara asks: And are they not subject to redemption forever? Bar Padda said: If he redeemed them, they become consecrated again, as they have not yet been cut down. If he redeemed them again, they become consecrated again, until they are cut down. Once they are cut down, he redeems them once and it is sufficient. And Ulla said: Once they are cut down one does not need to redeem them again because they are no longer consecrated.
