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

Daf Yomi

December 29, 2022 | ื”ืณ ื‘ื˜ื‘ืช ืชืฉืคืดื’

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.ย 

  • 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.

Nedarim 65

This weekโ€™s learning is sponsored by Naomi Oxman in honor of Rabbanit Michelle. โ€œToda Rabah to Rabbanit Michelle and the entire Hadran community for your energy, hard work, ongoing commitment and inspiration.

Todayโ€™s daf is sponsored by Judi Felber on the fourth yahrzeit of Yovel MorYosef and Yossi Cohen, who were killed in a terror attack at Givat Assaf and for the continued refuah shleima of her son, Netanel Ilan ben Shayna Tzipora, who was critically injured in the attack.

Todayโ€™s daf is sponsored by Patti Evans on the second yahrzeit of her mother, Gloria Weisman. “Mom’s sparkle shines no less now than when she was with us. We feel her love and support all around, as her memory is indeed a blessing.”

One who vows against another must dissolve the vow in the presence of the person. The Gemara brings two proofs for this: from Moshe Rabbeinu and Zedekiah the king who dissolved a vow he made to Nebuchadnezzar. The Mishna brings the opinion of Rabbi Meir who speaks of a different category in the dissolving of vows โ€“ using a petach of something that is considered nolad but not really considered nolad. What are examples of this category? Did the sages agree with him? The rabbis have two different interpretations to understand why Rabbi Meir permits this type of petach. The Gemara raises a difficulty for one of the opinions and there is no resolution. ย You can use a verse in the Torah for a petach such as: Did you know that by making the vow you went against the verse, “You shall not hate your brother in your heart.” If the person one vowed against became poor, one can use a petach: Did you know that by making the vow you would violate the verse “and your brother will live with you.” If someone made a vow against his wife that required him to divorce her, we can suggest a petach by mentioning the ketubah payment (if you knew that you had to pay her the amount in the ketubah, would you have made a vow). The Mishna brings a story that illustrates the use of this law. The Gemara raises several questions about the story from the law of ketubah and other monetary laws.

ืชื ื™ื ื”ืžื•ื“ืจ ื”ื ืื” ืžื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืชื™ืจื™ืŸ ืœื• ืืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื”ืณ ืืœ ืžืฉื” ื‘ืžื“ื™ืŸ ืœืš ืฉื‘ ืžืฆืจื™ื ื›ื™ ืžืชื• ื›ืœ ื”ืื ืฉื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื• ื‘ืžื“ื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจืช ืœืš ื•ื”ืชืจ ื ื“ืจืš ื‘ืžื“ื™ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ื•ืืœ ืžืฉื” ืื™ืŸ ืืœื” ืืœื ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ื‘ื ืืชื• ื‘ืืœื”


ยง It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:12): With regard to one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from another, they dissolve the vow for him only in the presence of the one who is the subject of the vow. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Naแธฅman said: As it is written: โ€œAnd the Lord said to Moses in Midian: Go, return to Egypt; for all the men are deadโ€ (Exodus 4:19). Rav Naแธฅman notes that the verse specifies where God spoke to Moses, and explains that God said to him: In Midian you vowed to Yitro that you would not return to Egypt, go and dissolve your vow in Midian. And where does it say that Moses vowed to Yitro? For it is written: โ€œAnd Moses was content [vayoโ€™el] to dwell with the manโ€ (Exodus 2:21). The word vayoโ€™el is related to the word ala, and ala means nothing other than an oath, as it is written: โ€œAnd heโ€ฆbrought him under an oath [ala]โ€ (Ezekiel 17:13), and the halakhot of dissolution of oaths are identical to those of dissolution of vows.


ื•ื’ื ื‘ืžืœืš ื ื‘ื•ื›ื“ื ืืฆืจ ืžืจื“ ืืฉืจ ื”ืฉื‘ื™ืขื• ื‘ืืœื”ื™ื (ื—ื™ื™ื) ืžืื™ ืžืจื“ื•ืชื™ื” ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ืฆื“ืงื™ื” ืœื ื‘ื•ื›ื“ื ืืฆืจ ื“ื”ื•ื” ืงืื›ื™ืœ ืืจื ื‘ื ื—ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืข ืœื™ ื“ืœื ืžื’ืœื™ืช ืขื™ืœื•ื™ ื•ืœื ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืžื™ืœืชื ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืข


The Gemara cites another proof that one may dissolve such a vow or oath only in the presence of the party affected by the vow or oath. It states with regard to King Zedekiah: โ€œAnd he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by Godโ€ (IIย Chronicles 36:13). The Gemara asks: What was his rebellion? The Gemara answers: Zedekiah found Nebuchadnezzar eating a live rabbit, and the latter was ashamed to be seen doing this. He said to him: Take an oath to me that you will not reveal my behavior and this matter will not emerge in public. Zedekiah took an oath to him.


ืœืกื•ืฃ ื”ื•ื” ืงื ืžืฆื˜ืขืจ ืฆื“ืงื™ื”ื• ื‘ื’ื•ืคื™ื” ืื™ืชืฉื™ืœ ืืฉื‘ื•ืขืชื™ื” ื•ืืžืจ ืฉืžืข ื ื‘ื•ื›ื“ื ืฆืจ ื“ืงื ืžื‘ื–ื™ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืฉืœื— ื•ืื™ื™ืชื™ ืกื ื”ื“ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืฆื“ืงื™ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื”ื•ืŸ ื—ื–ื™ืชื•ืŸ ืžืื™ ืงื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืฆื“ืงื™ื”ื• ืœืื• ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืข ื‘ืฉืžื ื“ืฉืžื™ื ื“ืœื ืžื’ืœื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืชืฉืœื™ ืืฉื‘ื•ืขืชื


Later, Zedekiah was physically suffering, as he wanted to tell people what he had seen, but he could not do so due to his oath. He requested dissolution of his oath from the judges of the Sanhedrin, who dissolved it for him, and he publicly said what he had witnessed. Nebuchadnezzar heard that he was being ridiculed for his behavior. He sent for and brought the Sanhedrin and Zedekiah before him. He said to them: Did you see what Zedekiah has done? Did he not take an oath in the name of Heaven: That I will not reveal? They said to him: He requested dissolution of the oath.


[ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืžืชืฉืœื™ืŸ ืืฉื‘ื•ืขืชื] ืืžืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ืื• ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ืืžืจื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ืืžืจ ืœื”ื•ืŸ ื•ืืชื•ืŸ ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื“ื™ืชื•ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืœื ืืžืจื™ืชื•ืŸ ืœืฆื“ืงื™ื”ื• ืžื™ื“ ื™ืฉื‘ื• ืœืืจืฅ ื™ื“ืžื• ื–ืงื ื™ ื‘ืช ืฆื™ื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืฉืฉืžื˜ื• ื›ืจื™ื ืžืชื—ืชื™ื”ื:


He said to them: Can one request the dissolution of an oath? They said to him: Yes. He said to them: Must this be done in the presence of the person he took an oath to, or even not in his presence? They said to him: It must be dissolved in his presence. He said to them: And you, what did you do? What is the reason you did not say to Zedekiah that he can have his oath dissolved only in my presence? Immediately, they fulfilled the verse: โ€œThey sit upon the ground, and keep silence, the elders of the daughter of Zionโ€ (Lamentations 2:10). Rabbi Yitzแธฅak said: This means that they removed the cushions upon which they sat from underneath them, as a sign that they had erred in halakha.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืฉ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉื”ืŸ ื›ื ื•ืœื“ ื•ืื™ื ืŸ ื›ื ื•ืœื“ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืžื•ื“ื™ื ืœื• ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืืžืจ ืงื•ื ื ืฉืื ื™ ื ื•ืฉื ืืช ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ืฉืื‘ื™ื” ืจืข ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืžืช ืื• ืฉืขืฉื” ืชืฉื•ื‘ื” ืงื•ื ื ืœื‘ื™ืช ื–ื” ืฉืื ื™ ื ื›ื ืก ืฉื”ื›ืœื‘ ืจืข ื‘ืชื•ื›ื• ืื• ืฉื”ื ื—ืฉ ื‘ืชื•ื›ื• ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืžืช ื”ื›ืœื‘ ืื• ืฉื ื”ืจื’ ื”ื ื—ืฉ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ื›ื ื•ืœื“ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื›ื ื•ืœื“ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืžื•ื“ื™ื ืœื•:


MISHNA: As a continuation of the opinion of the Rabbis in the previous mishna that they may not broach dissolution of a vow based on a new situation, Rabbi Meir says: There are matters that are, at first glance, like a new situation but are not in fact like a new situation, and the Rabbis do not concede to him. How so? For example, one said: Marrying so-and-so is konam for me, as her father is evil, and they told him that her father died, or that he repented. Or he said: Entering this house is konam for me, as there is a bad dog inside it, or a snake inside it, and they told him that the dog died, or that the snake was killed. This is at first glance perceived like a new situation, and yet it is not in fact like a new situation, and this claim may be used to broach dissolution. But the Rabbis do not concede to him.


ื’ืžืณ ืงื•ื ื ืฉืื ื™ ื ื›ื ืก ืœื‘ื™ืช ื–ื” ืฉื”ื›ืœื‘ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืžืช ื ื•ืœื“ ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื ืขืฉื” ื›ืชื•ืœื” ื ื“ืจื• ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื›ื‘ืจ ืžืช ื•ื›ื‘ืจ ืขืฉื” ืชืฉื•ื‘ื” ืงืืžืจื™ ืœื™ื”


GEMARA: The mishna taught that according to Rabbi Meir certain matters are similar to, but in fact do not constitute a new situation, such as a vow which states: Entering this house is konam for me, as there is a bad dog there, where the halakha is that if the dog dies, it is not considered to be a new situation. The Gemara asks: Certainly death is a new situation. Rav Huna said: He is considered like one who makes his vow dependent on a matter. In other words, his vow is interpreted as conditional, that he will not enter the house as long as the dog is alive, for he explicitly stated that this was the reason for his vow. Therefore, when the dog dies, the vow is dissolved. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said it means that they say to him: The dog had already died, or: The father had already repented, before the vow, and it was a mistaken vow from the outset that never took effect.


ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืงื•ื ื ืฉืื™ื ื™ ื ื•ืฉื ืœืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ื›ืขื•ืจื” ื•ื”ืจื™ ื”ื™ื ื ืื” ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ื•ื”ืจื™ ื”ื™ื ืœื‘ื ื” ืงืฆืจื” ื•ื”ืจื™ ื”ื™ื ืืจื•ื›ื” ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื” ืœื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื›ืขื•ืจื” ื•ื ืขืฉืช ื ืื” ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ื•ื ืขืฉืช ืœื‘ื ื” ืงืฆืจื” ื•ื ืขืฉืช ืืจื•ื›ื” ืืœื ืฉื”ื ื“ืจ ื˜ืขื•ืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื“ืืžืจ ื ืขืฉื” ื›ืชื•ืœื” ื ื“ืจื• ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ืชื ื ืชื•ืœื” ื ื“ืจื• ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ื•ืชื ื ื ื“ืจ ื˜ืขื•ืช ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ื‘ืจ ืžืช ื•ื›ื‘ืจ ืขืฉื” ืชืฉื•ื‘ื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžืชื ื™ ืชืจื™ ื–ื™ืžื ื™ ื ื“ืจ ื˜ืขื•ืช ืงืฉื™ื:


Rabbi Abba raised an objection from a later mishna (66a): If one said: I will not marry ugly so-and-so as that is konam for me, and she is in fact beautiful, or if he called her black, and she is in fact white, or if he called her short, and she is in fact tall, he is permitted to her. Not because she was ugly and became beautiful, black and became white, or short and became tall, but rather, because the vow was mistaken from the outset. Granted, according to Rav Huna, who said that he is considered like one who makes his vow dependent on a matter, the mishna here taught the case of one who makes his vow dependent on a matter, and it taught there the case of a mistaken vow. But according to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, who said that the mishna here is referring to a situation where the dog had already died, or the father had already repented, why do I need the mishna to teach the halakha of a mistaken vow twice? The Gemara comments: This is difficult.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื•ืขื•ื“ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืคื•ืชื—ื™ืŸ ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืฉื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื•ืื•ืžืจื™ืŸ ืœื• ืื™ืœื• ื”ื™ื™ืช ื™ื•ื“ืข ืฉืืชื” ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืขืœ ืœื ืชืงื ื•ืขืœ ืœื ืชื˜ืจ ื•ืขืœ ืœื ืชืฉื ื ืืช ืื—ื™ืš ื‘ืœื‘ื‘ืš ื•ืื”ื‘ืช ืœืจืขืš ื›ืžื•ืš ื•ื—ื™ ืื—ื™ืš ืขืžืš ืฉื”ื•ื ืขื ื™ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืืชื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœืคืจื ืกื• ืืžืจ ืื™ืœื• ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืฉื”ื•ื ื›ืŸ ืœื ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ื ื•ื“ืจ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžื•ืชืจ:


MISHNA: And Rabbi Meir further said: The halakhic authorities may broach dissolution with him from that which is written in the Torah, and they may say to him: Had you known that through your vow you are transgressing the prohibition โ€œyou shall not take vengeanceโ€ (Leviticus 19:18) and the prohibition โ€œnor bear any grudgeโ€ (Leviticus 19:18), and the prohibition โ€œyou shall not hate your brother in your heartโ€ (Leviticus 19:17), and โ€œyou shall love your neighbor as yourselfโ€ (Leviticus 19:18), as well as โ€œand your brother should live with youโ€ (Leviticus 25:36), as he, the one prohibited by the vow, is poor and now you are not able to provide him with a livelihood due to your vow, would you have vowed in that case? If he said in reply: Had I known that it is so, that my vow involved all these prohibitions, I would not have vowed; it is dissolved.


ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืงื˜ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ื™ืžื ื›ืœ ื“ืžืขื ื™ ืœืื• ืขืœื™ ื ืคื™ืœ ืžืื™ ื“ืžื˜ื™ ืœื™ ืœืคืจื ืกื• ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืžืคืจื ืกื ื ืœื™ื” ืืžืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื ื•ืคืœ ืื™ื ื• ื ื•ืคืœ ืœื™ื“ื™ ื’ื‘ืื™ ืชื—ืœื”:


GEMARA: Rav Huna bar Rav Ketina said to the Sages: But let the one who stated the vow say with regard to the last claim: All who become poor do not fall upon me; it is not my responsibility to provide for this specific poor person. What is placed upon me to provide for him together with everyone else, I will provide to him when I give money to those collecting for the communal charity fund. They said to him: I say that anyone who falls into poverty and requires assistance does not fall into the hands of the charity collector first. Rather, his descent begins when he encounters hard times, and it is at this stage that he may require individual, direct support to prevent him from plunging into a state of absolute poverty.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืคื•ืชื—ื™ืŸ ืœืื“ื ื‘ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉืชื•


MISHNA: The halakhic authorities may broach dissolution with a man by raising the issue of his wifeโ€™s marriage contract. If one takes a vow that would require him to divorce his wife, e.g., he prohibits her from deriving benefit from him, his vow may be dissolved by asking him whether he had considered how difficult it would be to pay her marriage contract.


ื•ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืื—ื“ ืฉื ื“ืจ ืžืืฉืชื• ื”ื ืื” ื•ื”ื™ืชื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืืจื‘ืข ืžืื•ืช ื“ื™ื ืจื™ื ื•ื‘ื ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžื•ื ื” ืžืื•ืช ื“ื™ื ืจื™ืŸ ื”ื ื™ื— ืื‘ื ื ื˜ืœ ืื—ื™ ืืจื‘ืข ืžืื•ืช ื•ืื ื™ ืืจื‘ืข ืžืื•ืช ืœื ื“ื™ื” ืฉืชื˜ื•ืœ ื”ื™ื ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืื ื™ ืžืืชื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืืชื” ืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉืขืจ ืจืืฉืš ืืชื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืืžืจ ืœื• ืื™ืœื• ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืฉื”ื•ื ื›ืŸ ืœื ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ื ื•ื“ืจ ื•ื”ืชื™ืจื” ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื:


The mishna relates: And an incident occurred with regard to one who vowed against his wife deriving benefit from him, and her marriage contract was worth four hundred dinars. And he came before Rabbi Akiva, and he obligated him to give her the payment of her marriage contract. He said to Rabbi Akiva: My teacher, my father left eight hundred dinars as our inheritance, of which my brother took four hundred and I took four hundred. Isnโ€™t it enough for my wife to take two hundred and I will have two hundred? Rabbi Akiva said to him: Your claim is not accepted, as even if you sell the hair on your head, you must give her the full payment of her marriage contract. He said to him: Had I known that it was so, that I would have to give her all my property, I would not have vowed. And Rabbi Akiva permitted her to derive benefit from him.


ื’ืžืณ ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ ืžื™ ืžืฉืชืขื‘ื“ื™ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืงืจืงืข ืฉื•ื” ืฉืžื•ื ื” ืžืื•ืช ื“ื™ื ืจ ื•ื”ืงืชื ื™ ืฉืขืจ ืจืืฉื• ื•ืฉืขืจ ืจืืฉื• ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ ื”ื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืืชื” ืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉืขืจ ืจืืฉืš ื•ืื•ื›ืœ


GEMARA: The Gemara questions the comment made by Rabbi Akiva, that even if the man were to sell the hair on his head, he must pay her the full sum of her marriage contract: Is movable property mortgaged for the payment of a marriage contract? The Rabbis maintain that only land owned by the husband is mortgaged for the payment of a marriage contract, so why should he have to sell the hair on his head? Abaye said: He said that the father had left land worth eight hundred dinars, and he received four hundred dinarsโ€™ worth of land, so all of his land is equal in value to his wifeโ€™s marriage contract. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the mishna teaches that he must pay even from: The hair on his head, and the hair on his head is movable property. The Gemara answers: This is what he said: You must pay the marriage contract from the land even if you will need to sell the hair on your head and use the proceeds from the sale in order to eat, as you will have no other source of income.


ืฉืžืขืช ืžื™ื ื” ืื™ืŸ ืžืกื“ืจื™ืŸ ืœื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง


The Gemara poses a question: Should you conclude from the mishna that arrangements are not made with a creditor, but instead, the entire sum is collected immediately, without reaching an agreement with the husbandโ€™s creditors to leave him some money to support himself? The Gemara refutes this suggestion: Rav Naแธฅman, son of Rabbi Yitzแธฅak, said:


  • This month's learning is sponsored by Shifra Tyberg and Rephael Wenger in loving memory of Zvi ben Yisrael Yitzhak Tyberg on his yahrzeit, and in honor of their daughter Ayelet's upcoming marriage to Ori Kinberg.

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Rabbi Hayim Herring with pride and love, in honor of his spouse, Terri Krivosha, who received this year's Sidney Barrows Lifetime Commitment Award from the Mpls. And St. Paul Federations in recognition of her distinguished contribution to the Twin Cities Legal and Jewish Communities.ย 

  • 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.

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: 64-69 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn the ninth chapter of Masechet Nedarim. We will learn the concept of โ€œfinding an opening...
Gefet with Rabbanit Yael Shimoni

Gefet 50 – Does Dissolving a Vow Need an Audience?

https://youtu.be/dsPnDfTGlkU  
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 65: Nebuchadnezzar’s Knowledge of Halakhah

Dissolving a vow that pertains to another person can only be done in the presence of that other person. With...

Nedarim 65

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 65

ืชื ื™ื ื”ืžื•ื“ืจ ื”ื ืื” ืžื—ื‘ื™ืจื• ืื™ืŸ ืžืชื™ืจื™ืŸ ืœื• ืืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ืžื ื ื”ื ื™ ืžื™ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื”ืณ ืืœ ืžืฉื” ื‘ืžื“ื™ืŸ ืœืš ืฉื‘ ืžืฆืจื™ื ื›ื™ ืžืชื• ื›ืœ ื”ืื ืฉื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื• ื‘ืžื“ื™ืŸ ื ื“ืจืช ืœืš ื•ื”ืชืจ ื ื“ืจืš ื‘ืžื“ื™ืŸ ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ื•ืืœ ืžืฉื” ืื™ืŸ ืืœื” ืืœื ืฉื‘ื•ืขื” ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ ื•ื™ื‘ื ืืชื• ื‘ืืœื”


ยง It is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 2:12): With regard to one prohibited by a vow from deriving benefit from another, they dissolve the vow for him only in the presence of the one who is the subject of the vow. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Naแธฅman said: As it is written: โ€œAnd the Lord said to Moses in Midian: Go, return to Egypt; for all the men are deadโ€ (Exodus 4:19). Rav Naแธฅman notes that the verse specifies where God spoke to Moses, and explains that God said to him: In Midian you vowed to Yitro that you would not return to Egypt, go and dissolve your vow in Midian. And where does it say that Moses vowed to Yitro? For it is written: โ€œAnd Moses was content [vayoโ€™el] to dwell with the manโ€ (Exodus 2:21). The word vayoโ€™el is related to the word ala, and ala means nothing other than an oath, as it is written: โ€œAnd heโ€ฆbrought him under an oath [ala]โ€ (Ezekiel 17:13), and the halakhot of dissolution of oaths are identical to those of dissolution of vows.


ื•ื’ื ื‘ืžืœืš ื ื‘ื•ื›ื“ื ืืฆืจ ืžืจื“ ืืฉืจ ื”ืฉื‘ื™ืขื• ื‘ืืœื”ื™ื (ื—ื™ื™ื) ืžืื™ ืžืจื“ื•ืชื™ื” ืืฉื›ื—ื™ื” ืฆื“ืงื™ื” ืœื ื‘ื•ื›ื“ื ืืฆืจ ื“ื”ื•ื” ืงืื›ื™ืœ ืืจื ื‘ื ื—ื™ื” ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืข ืœื™ ื“ืœื ืžื’ืœื™ืช ืขื™ืœื•ื™ ื•ืœื ืชื™ืคื•ืง ืžื™ืœืชื ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืข


The Gemara cites another proof that one may dissolve such a vow or oath only in the presence of the party affected by the vow or oath. It states with regard to King Zedekiah: โ€œAnd he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by Godโ€ (IIย Chronicles 36:13). The Gemara asks: What was his rebellion? The Gemara answers: Zedekiah found Nebuchadnezzar eating a live rabbit, and the latter was ashamed to be seen doing this. He said to him: Take an oath to me that you will not reveal my behavior and this matter will not emerge in public. Zedekiah took an oath to him.


ืœืกื•ืฃ ื”ื•ื” ืงื ืžืฆื˜ืขืจ ืฆื“ืงื™ื”ื• ื‘ื’ื•ืคื™ื” ืื™ืชืฉื™ืœ ืืฉื‘ื•ืขืชื™ื” ื•ืืžืจ ืฉืžืข ื ื‘ื•ื›ื“ื ืฆืจ ื“ืงื ืžื‘ื–ื™ืŸ ืœื™ื” ืฉืœื— ื•ืื™ื™ืชื™ ืกื ื”ื“ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืฆื“ืงื™ื”ื• ืืžืจ ืœื”ื•ืŸ ื—ื–ื™ืชื•ืŸ ืžืื™ ืงื ืขื‘ื™ื“ ืฆื“ืงื™ื”ื• ืœืื• ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืฉืชื‘ืข ื‘ืฉืžื ื“ืฉืžื™ื ื“ืœื ืžื’ืœื™ื ื ืืžืจ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืชืฉืœื™ ืืฉื‘ื•ืขืชื


Later, Zedekiah was physically suffering, as he wanted to tell people what he had seen, but he could not do so due to his oath. He requested dissolution of his oath from the judges of the Sanhedrin, who dissolved it for him, and he publicly said what he had witnessed. Nebuchadnezzar heard that he was being ridiculed for his behavior. He sent for and brought the Sanhedrin and Zedekiah before him. He said to them: Did you see what Zedekiah has done? Did he not take an oath in the name of Heaven: That I will not reveal? They said to him: He requested dissolution of the oath.


[ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืžืชืฉืœื™ืŸ ืืฉื‘ื•ืขืชื] ืืžืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืื™ืŸ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ืื• ืืคื™ืœื• ืฉืœื ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ืืžืจื™ ืœื™ื” ื‘ืคื ื™ื• ืืžืจ ืœื”ื•ืŸ ื•ืืชื•ืŸ ืžืื™ ืขื‘ื“ื™ืชื•ืŸ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืœื ืืžืจื™ืชื•ืŸ ืœืฆื“ืงื™ื”ื• ืžื™ื“ ื™ืฉื‘ื• ืœืืจืฅ ื™ื“ืžื• ื–ืงื ื™ ื‘ืช ืฆื™ื•ืŸ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง ืฉืฉืžื˜ื• ื›ืจื™ื ืžืชื—ืชื™ื”ื:


He said to them: Can one request the dissolution of an oath? They said to him: Yes. He said to them: Must this be done in the presence of the person he took an oath to, or even not in his presence? They said to him: It must be dissolved in his presence. He said to them: And you, what did you do? What is the reason you did not say to Zedekiah that he can have his oath dissolved only in my presence? Immediately, they fulfilled the verse: โ€œThey sit upon the ground, and keep silence, the elders of the daughter of Zionโ€ (Lamentations 2:10). Rabbi Yitzแธฅak said: This means that they removed the cushions upon which they sat from underneath them, as a sign that they had erred in halakha.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ื™ืฉ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืฉื”ืŸ ื›ื ื•ืœื“ ื•ืื™ื ืŸ ื›ื ื•ืœื“ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืžื•ื“ื™ื ืœื• ื›ื™ืฆื“ ืืžืจ ืงื•ื ื ืฉืื ื™ ื ื•ืฉื ืืช ืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ืฉืื‘ื™ื” ืจืข ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืžืช ืื• ืฉืขืฉื” ืชืฉื•ื‘ื” ืงื•ื ื ืœื‘ื™ืช ื–ื” ืฉืื ื™ ื ื›ื ืก ืฉื”ื›ืœื‘ ืจืข ื‘ืชื•ื›ื• ืื• ืฉื”ื ื—ืฉ ื‘ืชื•ื›ื• ืืžืจื• ืœื• ืžืช ื”ื›ืœื‘ ืื• ืฉื ื”ืจื’ ื”ื ื—ืฉ ื”ืจื™ ื”ืŸ ื›ื ื•ืœื“ ื•ืื™ื ื• ื›ื ื•ืœื“ ื•ืื™ืŸ ื—ื›ืžื™ื ืžื•ื“ื™ื ืœื•:


MISHNA: As a continuation of the opinion of the Rabbis in the previous mishna that they may not broach dissolution of a vow based on a new situation, Rabbi Meir says: There are matters that are, at first glance, like a new situation but are not in fact like a new situation, and the Rabbis do not concede to him. How so? For example, one said: Marrying so-and-so is konam for me, as her father is evil, and they told him that her father died, or that he repented. Or he said: Entering this house is konam for me, as there is a bad dog inside it, or a snake inside it, and they told him that the dog died, or that the snake was killed. This is at first glance perceived like a new situation, and yet it is not in fact like a new situation, and this claim may be used to broach dissolution. But the Rabbis do not concede to him.


ื’ืžืณ ืงื•ื ื ืฉืื ื™ ื ื›ื ืก ืœื‘ื™ืช ื–ื” ืฉื”ื›ืœื‘ ื•ื›ื•ืณ ืžืช ื ื•ืœื“ ื”ื•ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื ืขืฉื” ื›ืชื•ืœื” ื ื“ืจื• ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ื•ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ืืžืจ ื›ื‘ืจ ืžืช ื•ื›ื‘ืจ ืขืฉื” ืชืฉื•ื‘ื” ืงืืžืจื™ ืœื™ื”


GEMARA: The mishna taught that according to Rabbi Meir certain matters are similar to, but in fact do not constitute a new situation, such as a vow which states: Entering this house is konam for me, as there is a bad dog there, where the halakha is that if the dog dies, it is not considered to be a new situation. The Gemara asks: Certainly death is a new situation. Rav Huna said: He is considered like one who makes his vow dependent on a matter. In other words, his vow is interpreted as conditional, that he will not enter the house as long as the dog is alive, for he explicitly stated that this was the reason for his vow. Therefore, when the dog dies, the vow is dissolved. And Rabbi Yoแธฅanan said it means that they say to him: The dog had already died, or: The father had already repented, before the vow, and it was a mistaken vow from the outset that never took effect.


ืžืชื™ื‘ ืจื‘ื™ ืื‘ื ืงื•ื ื ืฉืื™ื ื™ ื ื•ืฉื ืœืคืœื•ื ื™ืช ื›ืขื•ืจื” ื•ื”ืจื™ ื”ื™ื ื ืื” ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ื•ื”ืจื™ ื”ื™ื ืœื‘ื ื” ืงืฆืจื” ื•ื”ืจื™ ื”ื™ื ืืจื•ื›ื” ืžื•ืชืจ ื‘ื” ืœื ืžืคื ื™ ืฉื›ืขื•ืจื” ื•ื ืขืฉืช ื ืื” ืฉื—ื•ืจื” ื•ื ืขืฉืช ืœื‘ื ื” ืงืฆืจื” ื•ื ืขืฉืช ืืจื•ื›ื” ืืœื ืฉื”ื ื“ืจ ื˜ืขื•ืช ื‘ืฉืœืžื ืœืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื“ืืžืจ ื ืขืฉื” ื›ืชื•ืœื” ื ื“ืจื• ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ืชื ื ืชื•ืœื” ื ื“ืจื• ื‘ื“ื‘ืจ ื•ืชื ื ื ื“ืจ ื˜ืขื•ืช ืืœื ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ื‘ืจ ืžืช ื•ื›ื‘ืจ ืขืฉื” ืชืฉื•ื‘ื” ืœืžื” ืœื™ ืœืžืชื ื™ ืชืจื™ ื–ื™ืžื ื™ ื ื“ืจ ื˜ืขื•ืช ืงืฉื™ื:


Rabbi Abba raised an objection from a later mishna (66a): If one said: I will not marry ugly so-and-so as that is konam for me, and she is in fact beautiful, or if he called her black, and she is in fact white, or if he called her short, and she is in fact tall, he is permitted to her. Not because she was ugly and became beautiful, black and became white, or short and became tall, but rather, because the vow was mistaken from the outset. Granted, according to Rav Huna, who said that he is considered like one who makes his vow dependent on a matter, the mishna here taught the case of one who makes his vow dependent on a matter, and it taught there the case of a mistaken vow. But according to Rabbi Yoแธฅanan, who said that the mishna here is referring to a situation where the dog had already died, or the father had already repented, why do I need the mishna to teach the halakha of a mistaken vow twice? The Gemara comments: This is difficult.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ื•ืขื•ื“ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ืžืื™ืจ ืคื•ืชื—ื™ืŸ ืœื• ืžืŸ ื”ื›ืชื•ื‘ ืฉื‘ืชื•ืจื” ื•ืื•ืžืจื™ืŸ ืœื• ืื™ืœื• ื”ื™ื™ืช ื™ื•ื“ืข ืฉืืชื” ืขื•ื‘ืจ ืขืœ ืœื ืชืงื ื•ืขืœ ืœื ืชื˜ืจ ื•ืขืœ ืœื ืชืฉื ื ืืช ืื—ื™ืš ื‘ืœื‘ื‘ืš ื•ืื”ื‘ืช ืœืจืขืš ื›ืžื•ืš ื•ื—ื™ ืื—ื™ืš ืขืžืš ืฉื”ื•ื ืขื ื™ ื•ืื™ืŸ ืืชื” ื™ื›ื•ืœ ืœืคืจื ืกื• ืืžืจ ืื™ืœื• ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืฉื”ื•ื ื›ืŸ ืœื ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ื ื•ื“ืจ ื”ืจื™ ื–ื” ืžื•ืชืจ:


MISHNA: And Rabbi Meir further said: The halakhic authorities may broach dissolution with him from that which is written in the Torah, and they may say to him: Had you known that through your vow you are transgressing the prohibition โ€œyou shall not take vengeanceโ€ (Leviticus 19:18) and the prohibition โ€œnor bear any grudgeโ€ (Leviticus 19:18), and the prohibition โ€œyou shall not hate your brother in your heartโ€ (Leviticus 19:17), and โ€œyou shall love your neighbor as yourselfโ€ (Leviticus 19:18), as well as โ€œand your brother should live with youโ€ (Leviticus 25:36), as he, the one prohibited by the vow, is poor and now you are not able to provide him with a livelihood due to your vow, would you have vowed in that case? If he said in reply: Had I known that it is so, that my vow involved all these prohibitions, I would not have vowed; it is dissolved.


ื’ืžืณ ืืžืจ ืœื”ื• ืจื‘ ื”ื•ื ื ื‘ืจ ืจื‘ ืงื˜ื™ื ื ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ื ื™ืžื ื›ืœ ื“ืžืขื ื™ ืœืื• ืขืœื™ ื ืคื™ืœ ืžืื™ ื“ืžื˜ื™ ืœื™ ืœืคืจื ืกื• ื‘ื”ื“ื™ ื›ื•ืœื™ ืขืœืžื ืžืคืจื ืกื ื ืœื™ื” ืืžืจื™ ืœื™ื” ืื ื™ ืื•ืžืจ ื›ืœ ื”ื ื•ืคืœ ืื™ื ื• ื ื•ืคืœ ืœื™ื“ื™ ื’ื‘ืื™ ืชื—ืœื”:


GEMARA: Rav Huna bar Rav Ketina said to the Sages: But let the one who stated the vow say with regard to the last claim: All who become poor do not fall upon me; it is not my responsibility to provide for this specific poor person. What is placed upon me to provide for him together with everyone else, I will provide to him when I give money to those collecting for the communal charity fund. They said to him: I say that anyone who falls into poverty and requires assistance does not fall into the hands of the charity collector first. Rather, his descent begins when he encounters hard times, and it is at this stage that he may require individual, direct support to prevent him from plunging into a state of absolute poverty.


ืžืชื ื™ืณ ืคื•ืชื—ื™ืŸ ืœืื“ื ื‘ื›ืชื•ื‘ืช ืืฉืชื•


MISHNA: The halakhic authorities may broach dissolution with a man by raising the issue of his wifeโ€™s marriage contract. If one takes a vow that would require him to divorce his wife, e.g., he prohibits her from deriving benefit from him, his vow may be dissolved by asking him whether he had considered how difficult it would be to pay her marriage contract.


ื•ืžืขืฉื” ื‘ืื—ื“ ืฉื ื“ืจ ืžืืฉืชื• ื”ื ืื” ื•ื”ื™ืชื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืืจื‘ืข ืžืื•ืช ื“ื™ื ืจื™ื ื•ื‘ื ืœืคื ื™ ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ื•ื—ื™ื™ื‘ื• ืœื™ืชืŸ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžื•ื ื” ืžืื•ืช ื“ื™ื ืจื™ืŸ ื”ื ื™ื— ืื‘ื ื ื˜ืœ ืื—ื™ ืืจื‘ืข ืžืื•ืช ื•ืื ื™ ืืจื‘ืข ืžืื•ืช ืœื ื“ื™ื” ืฉืชื˜ื•ืœ ื”ื™ื ืžืืชื™ื ื•ืื ื™ ืžืืชื™ื ืืžืจ ืœื• ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื ืืคื™ืœื• ืืชื” ืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉืขืจ ืจืืฉืš ืืชื” ื ื•ืชืŸ ืœื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ืชื” ืืžืจ ืœื• ืื™ืœื• ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืฉื”ื•ื ื›ืŸ ืœื ื”ื™ื™ืชื™ ื ื•ื“ืจ ื•ื”ืชื™ืจื” ืจื‘ื™ ืขืงื™ื‘ื:


The mishna relates: And an incident occurred with regard to one who vowed against his wife deriving benefit from him, and her marriage contract was worth four hundred dinars. And he came before Rabbi Akiva, and he obligated him to give her the payment of her marriage contract. He said to Rabbi Akiva: My teacher, my father left eight hundred dinars as our inheritance, of which my brother took four hundred and I took four hundred. Isnโ€™t it enough for my wife to take two hundred and I will have two hundred? Rabbi Akiva said to him: Your claim is not accepted, as even if you sell the hair on your head, you must give her the full payment of her marriage contract. He said to him: Had I known that it was so, that I would have to give her all my property, I would not have vowed. And Rabbi Akiva permitted her to derive benefit from him.


ื’ืžืณ ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ ืžื™ ืžืฉืชืขื‘ื“ื™ ืœื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืืžืจ ืื‘ื™ื™ ืงืจืงืข ืฉื•ื” ืฉืžื•ื ื” ืžืื•ืช ื“ื™ื ืจ ื•ื”ืงืชื ื™ ืฉืขืจ ืจืืฉื• ื•ืฉืขืจ ืจืืฉื• ืžื˜ืœื˜ืœื™ ื”ื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ืงืืžืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ืืชื” ืžื•ื›ืจ ืฉืขืจ ืจืืฉืš ื•ืื•ื›ืœ


GEMARA: The Gemara questions the comment made by Rabbi Akiva, that even if the man were to sell the hair on his head, he must pay her the full sum of her marriage contract: Is movable property mortgaged for the payment of a marriage contract? The Rabbis maintain that only land owned by the husband is mortgaged for the payment of a marriage contract, so why should he have to sell the hair on his head? Abaye said: He said that the father had left land worth eight hundred dinars, and he received four hundred dinarsโ€™ worth of land, so all of his land is equal in value to his wifeโ€™s marriage contract. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But the mishna teaches that he must pay even from: The hair on his head, and the hair on his head is movable property. The Gemara answers: This is what he said: You must pay the marriage contract from the land even if you will need to sell the hair on your head and use the proceeds from the sale in order to eat, as you will have no other source of income.


ืฉืžืขืช ืžื™ื ื” ืื™ืŸ ืžืกื“ืจื™ืŸ ืœื‘ืขืœ ื—ื•ื‘ ืืžืจ ืจื‘ ื ื—ืžืŸ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื™ืฆื—ืง


The Gemara poses a question: Should you conclude from the mishna that arrangements are not made with a creditor, but instead, the entire sum is collected immediately, without reaching an agreement with the husbandโ€™s creditors to leave him some money to support himself? The Gemara refutes this suggestion: Rav Naแธฅman, son of Rabbi Yitzแธฅak, said:


Scroll To Top