נדרים כ

נדרים כ

מַתְנִי׳ נָדַר בְּחֵרֶם, וְאָמַר: לֹא נָדַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בְּחֶרְמוֹ שֶׁל יָם. בְּקׇרְבָּן, וְאָמַר: לֹא נָדַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בְּקׇרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁל מְלָכִים.

MISHNA: One who took a vow by associating an item with a dedication [ḥerem], saying: This item is hereby forbidden to me like an item dedicated to the Temple, and then said: I took a vow only with the intention that it would be like a sea net [ḥermo shel yam] that is used to catch fish; or one who took a vow by associating an item with an offering, and then said: I took a vow only with reference to offerings to kings, i.e., a gift for a king, not an offering to God.

״הֲרֵי עַצְמִי קׇרְבָּן״, וְאָמַר: לֹא נָדַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בְּעֶצֶם שֶׁהִנַּחְתִּי לִי לִהְיוֹת נוֹדֵר בּוֹ, ״קֻוֽנָּם אִשְׁתִּי נֶהֱנֵית לִי״, וְאָמַר: לֹא נָדַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בְּאִשְׁתִּי הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁגֵּירַשְׁתִּי —

Or one who said: I am hereby an offering myself [atzmi], and then said: I took a vow only with reference to a bone [etzem] that I set aside for myself to vow with, as atzmi means both myself and my bone, i.e., he set aside a bone so as to pretend to take a vow upon himself; or one who said: Deriving benefit from me is konam for my wife, and then said: I took a vow only with regard to my first wife whom I divorced, not with regard to my current wife.

עַל כּוּלָּן אֵין נִשְׁאָלִין לָהֶם. וְאִם נִשְׁאֲלוּ — עוֹנְשִׁין אוֹתָן וּמַחְמִירִין עֲלֵיהֶן. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

For all of the above vows, those who took them do not need to request of a halakhic authority to dissolve them, as the speaker interpreted the vows in a manner that caused them not to take effect at all. However, if they requested dissolution, apparently due to their being uncertain of their explanations, the court punishes them and treats them stringently and the vows are not dissolved. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: פּוֹתְחִין לָהֶן פֶּתַח מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר, וּמְלַמְּדִין אוֹתָן — כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִנְהֲגוּ קַלּוּת רֹאשׁ בִּנְדָרִים.

And the Rabbis say: These vows are not treated stringently. Rather, dissolution is broached with them by suggesting a different extenuation, i.e., the halakhic authority suggests extenuating circumstances that undermine the vow but do not pertain to its wording. And we teach them that they should not take this kind of vow in the future, in order that they will not take vows lightly.

גְּמָ׳ הָא גּוּפָא קַשְׁיָא, אָמְרַתְּ: אֵין נִשְׁאָלִין לָהֶן, וַהֲדַר תָּנֵי: אִם נִשְׁאֲלוּ עוֹנְשִׁין אוֹתָן וּמַחְמִירִין עֲלֵיהֶן?

GEMARA: This matter is itself difficult. On the one hand, you said they do not need to request to dissolve them, and then it is taught that if they requested dissolution, the court punishes them and treats them stringently, i.e., the vows took effect and the vows are not dissolved.

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה, הָכִי קָתָנֵי: וְכוּלָּן אֵין צְרִיכִין שְׁאֵלָה, בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בְּתַלְמִיד חָכָם, אֲבָל בְּעַם הָאָרֶץ שֶׁבָּא לִישָּׁאֵל — עוֹנְשִׁין אוֹתוֹ וּמַחְמִירִין עָלָיו.

Rav Yehuda said that this is what the mishna is teaching: All of these vows do not need a request. However, in what case is this statement said? In the case of a Torah scholar, who knows that these vows do not take effect, and he obviously did not intend for them to take effect in the first place. However, in the case of an ignoramus who comes to request dissolution of the vow, the court punishes him and treats him stringently.

בִּשְׁלָמָא מַחְמִירִין — דְּלָא פָּתְחִינַן לֵיהּ בַּחֲרָטָה, אֶלָּא עוֹנְשִׁין הֵיכִי דָּמֵי?

The Gemara asks: Granted, the court treats him stringently in that the halakhic authorities do not broach dissolution with him merely by means of regret; rather, extenuating circumstances must be found. However, what are the circumstances in which the court punishes him?

כִּדְתַנְיָא: מִי שֶׁנָּזַר וְעָבַר עַל נְזִירוּתוֹ — אֵין נִזְקָקִין לוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּנְהוֹג בּוֹ אִיסּוּר כַּיָּמִים שֶׁנָּהַג בָּהֶן הֶיתֵּר. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי: בַּמֶּה דְּבָרִים אֲמוּרִים — בִּנְזִירוּת מוּעֶטֶת. אֲבָל בִּנְזִירוּת מְרוּבָּה — דַּיּוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם.

The Gemara answers that the circumstances are as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to one who vowed to be a nazirite and violated his naziriteship, the halakhic authority does not attend to him to dissolve his vow until he observes the prohibitions of naziriteship for the same number of days in which he behaved with permissiveness concerning the restrictions of a nazirite. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei said: In what case is this statement, that he must observe naziriteship for a period of time corresponding to his vow, said? It is said in the case of a short term of naziriteship, which is not longer than the minimum thirty days. However, in the case of a long term of naziriteship it is enough for him to observe it for thirty days, even if he violated it for a greater number of days. This explains the punishment mentioned in the mishna: An ignoramus who requests the dissolution of his vow must first observe the vow for a certain period of time.

אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: הוֹאִיל וְאָמְרִי רַבָּנַן אֵין נִזְקָקִים לוֹ, בֵּי דִינָא דְּמִזְדַּקְקִי לָא עָבֵיד שַׁפִּיר. רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר: מְשַׁמְּתִינַן לֵיהּ.

Rav Yosef said: Since the Sages say that the halakhic authority does not attend to him, a court that does attend to him and dissolves his vow immediately is not acting properly. Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov says: A halakhic authority who dissolves the vow prematurely is excommunicated.

וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים פּוֹתְחִין לוֹ פֶּתַח כּוּ׳. תָּנָא: לְעוֹלָם אַל תְּהִי רָגִיל בַּנְּדָרִים, שֶׁסּוֹפְךָ לִמְעוֹל בִּשְׁבוּעוֹת. וְאַל תְּהִי רָגִיל אֵצֶל עַם הָאָרֶץ, שֶׁסּוֹפְךָ לְהַאֲכִילְךָ טְבָלִים. אַל תְּהִי רָגִיל אֵצֶל כֹּהֵן עַם הָאָרֶץ, שֶׁסּוֹפְךָ לְהַאֲכִילְךָ תְּרוּמָה. וְאַל תַּרְבֶּה שִׂיחָה עִם הָאִשָּׁה, שֶׁסּוֹפְךָ לָבוֹא לִידֵי נִיאוּף.

§ It is stated in the mishna that the Rabbis say: Dissolution is broached with him by suggesting a different extenuation, and he is taught not to take this kind of vow so that he will not take vows lightly. It is taught in a baraita: Never be accustomed to taking vows, because ultimately you will disregard them, and you will even abuse oaths, which are more grave. And do not regularly be around an ignoramus, because ultimately he will feed you untithed produce, as he is not careful to tithe. Do not regularly be by an ignorant priest, because ultimately he will feed you teruma due to his close relationship with you, and teruma is forbidden to a non-priest. And do not talk extensively with a woman, because ultimately you will come to adultery.

רַבִּי אַחָא בְּרַבִּי יֹאשִׁיָּה אוֹמֵר: כׇּל הַצּוֹפֶה בְּנָשִׁים, סוֹפוֹ בָּא לִידֵי עֲבֵירָה. וְכׇל הַמִּסְתַּכֵּל בַּעֲקֵבָהּ שֶׁל אִשָּׁה, הָוְיִין לוֹ בָּנִים שֶׁאֵינָן מְהוּגָּנִין. אָמַר רַב יוֹסֵף: וּבְאִשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ: עֲקֵבָהּ דְּקָתָנֵי, בִּמְקוֹם הַטִּנּוֹפֶת, שֶׁהוּא מְכֻוּוֹן כְּנֶגֶד הֶעָקֵב.

Rabbi Aḥa, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, says: Anyone who watches women will ultimately come to sin, and anyone who looks at the heel of a woman will have indecent children as a punishment. Rav Yosef said: And this relates to all women, including his wife when she has the status of a menstruating woman. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The heel of a woman that is mentioned is not the heel of the foot, but the place of uncleanliness, i.e., the genitalia, and it is called a heel as a euphemism, as it is situated opposite the heel.

תַּנְיָא: ״בַּעֲבוּר תִּהְיֶה יִרְאָתוֹ עַל פְּנֵיכֶם״ — זוֹ בּוּשָׁה. ״לְבִלְתִּי תֶחֱטָאוּ״ — מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהַבּוּשָׁה מְבִיאָה לִידֵי יִרְאַת חֵטְא. מִיכָּן אָמְרוּ: סִימָן יָפֶה בְּאָדָם שֶׁהוּא בַּיְישָׁן. אֲחֵרִים אוֹמְרִים: כׇּל אָדָם הַמִּתְבַּיֵּישׁ, לֹא בִּמְהֵרָה הוּא חוֹטֵא. וּמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בּוֹשֶׁת פָּנִים — בְּיָדוּעַ שֶׁלֹּא עָמְדוּ אֲבוֹתָיו עַל הַר סִינַי.

§ It is taught in a baraita: “That His fear may be upon your faces” (Exodus 20:17); this is referring to shame, as shame causes one to blush. “That you not sin” (Exodus 20:17) teaches that shame leads to fear of sin. From here the Sages said: It is a good sign in a person that he is one who experiences shame. Others say: Any person who experiences shame will not quickly sin, and conversely, one who does not have the capacity to be shamefaced, it is known that his forefathers did not stand at Mount Sinai.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן דַּהֲבַאי, אַרְבָּעָה דְּבָרִים סָחוּ לִי מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת: חִיגְּרִין מִפְּנֵי מָה הָוְיִין — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוֹפְכִים אֶת שׁוּלְחָנָם. אִילְּמִים מִפְּנֵי מָה הָוְיִין — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְּנַשְּׁקִים עַל אוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם. חֵרְשִׁים מִפְּנֵי מָה הָוְיִין — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמְסַפְּרִים בִּשְׁעַת תַּשְׁמִישׁ. סוֹמִין מִפְּנֵי מָה הָוְיִין — מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמִּסְתַּכְּלִים בְּאוֹתוֹ מָקוֹם.

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Dehavai said: The ministering angels told me four matters: For what reason do lame people come into existence? It is because their fathers overturn their tables, i.e., they engage in sexual intercourse in an atypical way. For what reason do mute people come into existence? It is because their fathers kiss that place of nakedness. For what reason do deaf people come into existence? It is because their parents converse while engaging in sexual intercourse. For what reason do blind people come into existence? It is because their fathers stare at that place.

וּרְמִינְהוּ, שָׁאֲלוּ אֶת אִימָּא שָׁלוֹם: מִפְּנֵי מָה

And the Gemara raises a contradiction: Imma Shalom, the wife of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, was asked: For what reason

בָּנַיִךְ יְפֵיפִין בְּיוֹתֵר? אָמְרָה לָהֶן: אֵינוֹ מְסַפֵּר עִמִּי לֹא בִּתְחִלַּת הַלַּיְלָה, וְלֹא בְּסוֹף הַלַּיְלָה, אֶלָּא בַּחֲצוֹת הַלַּיְלָה. וּכְשֶׁהוּא מְסַפֵּר, מְגַלֶּה טֶפַח וּמְכַסֶּה טֶפַח, וְדוֹמֶה עָלָיו כְּמִי שֶׁכְּפָאוֹ שֵׁד.

are your children so beautiful? She said to them: My husband does not converse with me while engaging in sexual intercourse, neither at the beginning of the night nor at the end of the night, but rather at midnight. And when he converses with me while engaging in sexual intercourse, he reveals a handbreadth of my body and covers a handbreadth, and he covers himself up as though he were being coerced by a demon and is covering himself out of fear.

וְאָמַרְתִּי לוֹ: מָה טַעַם? וְאָמַר לִי: כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא אֶתֵּן אֶת עֵינַי בְּאִשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת, וְנִמְצְאוּ בָּנָיו בָּאִין לִידֵי מַמְזֵרוּת.

And I said to my husband: What is the reason for this behavior? And he said to me: It is so that I will not set my eyes on another woman, i.e., think about another woman; if a man thinks about another woman during sexual intercourse with his wife, his children consequently come close to receiving a mamzer status, i.e., the nature of their souls is tantamount to that of a mamzer. Therefore I engage in sexual intercourse with you at an hour when there are no people in the street, and in this manner. In any event, it can be seen from her words that a Sage conversed with his wife while engaging in sexual intercourse with her.

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא — בְּמִילֵּי דְתַשְׁמִישׁ, הָא — בְּמִילֵּי אַחְרָנְיָיתָא.

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This permission to converse with her is with regard to matters of sexual intercourse, whereas that restriction of conversation is with regard to other matters that are not related to sexual intercourse.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: זוֹ דִּבְרֵי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן דַּהֲבַאי, אֲבָל אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים: אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּיוֹחָנָן בֶּן דַּהֲבַאי, אֶלָּא כֹּל מַה שֶּׁאָדָם רוֹצֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ — עוֹשֶׂה. מָשָׁל לְבָשָׂר הַבָּא מִבֵּית הַטַּבָּח, רָצָה לְאׇכְלוֹ בְּמֶלַח — אוֹכְלוֹ. צָלִי — אוֹכְלוֹ. מְבוּשָּׁל — אוֹכְלוֹ. שָׁלוּק — אוֹכְלוֹ. וְכֵן דָּג הַבָּא מִבֵּית הַצַּיָּיד.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: That is the statement of Yoḥanan ben Dehavai. However, the Rabbis said: The halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Yoḥanan ben Dehavai. Rather, whatever a man wishes to do with his wife he may do. He may engage in sexual intercourse with her in any manner that he wishes, and need not concern himself with these restrictions. As an allegory, it is like meat that comes from the butcher. If he wants to eat it with salt, he may eat it that way. If he wants to eat it roasted, he may eat it roasted. If he wants to eat it cooked, he may eat it cooked. If he wants to eat it boiled, he may eat it boiled. And likewise with regard to fish that come from the fisherman.

אָמַר אַמֵּימָר: מַאן מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת — רַבָּנַן, דְּאִי תֵּימָא מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת מַמָּשׁ, אַמַּאי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אֵין הֲלָכָה כְּיוֹחָנָן בֶּן דַּהֲבַאי? הָא אִינְהוּ בְּקִיאִי בְּצוּרַת הַוָּלָד טְפֵי! וְאַמַּאי קָרוּ לְהוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת — דִּמְצַיְּינִי כְּמַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת.

Ameimar said: Who are the ministering angels that Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Dehavai mentioned? He was referring to the Sages, for whom he employed the honorary title: Ministering angels. Because if you say that he was referring to actual ministering angels, why did Rabbi Yoḥanan say that the halakha is not in accordance with the opinion of Yoḥanan ben Dehavai? The ministering angels are more knowledgeable about the forming of the fetus than people are. Clearly, if the ministering angels were the source for the ruling of Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Dehavai it would have been imperative to heed his instructions. And why are the Sages called ministering angels? Because they stand out like ministering angels, as they are recognized by their clothing.

הַהִיא דַּאֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי, אָמְרָה לוֹ: רַבִּי, עָרַכְתִּי לוֹ שׁוּלְחָן וַהֲפָכוֹ! אֲמַר לָהּ: בִּתִּי, תּוֹרָה הִתִּירָתֶךְ, וַאֲנִי מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה לִיךְ? הָהִיא דַּאֲתַאי לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב, אָמְרָה לוֹ: רַבִּי, עָרַכְתִּי לוֹ שׁוּלְחָן וַהֲפָכוֹ! אָמַר: מַאי שְׁנָא מִן בִּינִיתָא?

The Gemara relates: A certain woman, who came before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi to complain about her husband, said to him: My teacher, I set him a table, using a euphemism to say that she lay before him during intimacy, and he turned it over. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to her: My daughter, the Torah permitted him to engage in sexual intercourse with you even in an atypical manner, and what can I do for you if he does so? Similarly, a certain woman who came before Rav said to him: My teacher, I set a table for him and he turned it over. He said to her: In what way is this case different from a fish [binnita] that one may eat any way he wishes?

״וְלֹא תָתוּרוּ אַחֲרֵי לְבַבְכֶם״, מִכָּאן אָמַר רַבִּי: אַל יִשְׁתֶּה אָדָם בְּכוֹס זֶה וְיִתֵּן עֵינָיו בְּכוֹס אַחֵר. אָמַר רָבִינָא: לֹא נִצְרְכָא, אֶלָּא דַּאֲפִילּוּ שְׁתֵּי נָשָׁיו.

§ The verse states: “And that you not go about after your own heart” (Numbers 15:39). Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said that it is derived from here that a man should not drink from this cup while setting his eyes on another cup, i.e., one should not engage in sexual intercourse with one woman while thinking about another woman. Ravina said: This statement is not necessary with regard to an unrelated woman. Rather, it is necessary only to state that even with regard to his own two wives, he should not engage in sexual intercourse with one while thinking about the other.

״וּבָרוֹתִי מִכֶּם הַמֹּרְדִים וְהַפּוֹשְׁעִים בִּי״, אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי: אֵלּוּ בְּנֵי תֵּשַׁע מִדּוֹת, בְּנֵי אׇסְנַ״‎ת משגע״‎ח.

The verse states: “And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and those that transgress against Me” (Ezekiel 20:38). Rabbi Levi said: These are children of those who have nine traits, who are defective from their conception and from whom rebels and transgressors emerge. The mnemonic for these nine traits is children of the acronym aleph, samekh, nun, tav, mem, shin, gimmel, ayin, ḥet.

בְּנֵי אֵימָה, בְּנֵי אֲנוּסָה, בְּנֵי שְׂנוּאָה, בְּנֵי נִידּוּי, בְּנֵי תְמוּרָה, בְּנֵי מְרִיבָה, בְּנֵי שִׁכְרוּת, בְּנֵי גְּרוּשַׁת הַלֵּב, בְּנֵי עִרְבּוּבְיָא, בְּנֵי חֲצוּפָה.

The children of nine traits are as follows: Children of fear [eima], i.e., where the wife was afraid of her husband and engaged in sexual intercourse with him out of fear; children of a woman who was raped [anusa]; children of a hated woman [senua], i.e., a woman who was hated by her husband; children of ostracism [niddui], i.e., one of the parents was ostracized by the court; children of substitution [temura], i.e., while engaging in intercourse with the woman, the man thought that she was another woman; children of strife [meriva], i.e., the parents engaged in intercourse while they were quarreling; children of drunkenness [shikhrut], i.e., the parents engaged in intercourse while they were drunk; children of a woman who was divorced in the heart [gerushat halev], i.e., the husband had already decided to divorce her when they engaged in intercourse; children of mixture [irbuveya], i.e., the man did not know with which woman he was engaging in intercourse; children of a shameless woman [ḥatzufa] who demands of her husband that he engage in intercourse with her.

אִינִי? וְהָאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: כׇּל אָדָם שֶׁאִשְׁתּוֹ תּוֹבַעְתּוֹ — הָוְיִין לוֹ בָּנִים שֶׁאֲפִילּוּ בְּדוֹרוֹ שֶׁל מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּינוּ לֹא הָיוּ כְּמוֹתָם. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״הָבוּ לָכֶם אֲנָשִׁים חֲכָמִים וּנְבֹנִים״, וּכְתִיב: ״וָאֶקַּח אֶת רָאשֵׁי שִׁבְטֵיכֶם״, וְלָא כְּתִיב ״נְבוֹנִים״.

The Gemara asks: Is that so? But didn’t Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani say that Rabbi Yonatan said: Any man whose wife demands of him that he engage in sexual intercourse with her will have children the likes of whom did not exist even in the generation of Moses our teacher? As it is stated: “Get you wise men, and understanding, and well known from each one of your tribes, and I will make them head over you” (Deuteronomy 1:13); and it is written subsequently: “So I took the heads of your tribes, wise men, and well known” (Deuteronomy 1:15). And it does not say that they were understanding. Evidently, even Moses could not find understanding men in his generation.

וּכְתִיב ״יִשָּׂשכָר חֲמֹר גָּרֶם״, וּכְתִיב: ״מִבְּנֵי יִשָּׂשכָר יוֹדְעֵי בִינָה לַעִתִּים״!

And by contrast, it is written: “Issachar is a large-boned donkey” (Genesis 49:14). The Sages transmitted a tradition that this is an allusion to the incident when Jacob came in from the field riding on a donkey, and Leah went out to greet him, saying: “You must come in to me; for I have hired you with my son’s mandrakes” (Genesis 30:16). Issachar was conceived from their subsequent sexual intercourse. And it is written: “And of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times” (I Chronicles 12:33). The descendants of Issachar were understanding men. It is derived from here that a woman who demands from her husband that he engage in sexual intercourse with her has a positive effect on their children.

הַהִיא דְּמַרְצְיָא אַרְצוֹיֵי.

The Gemara answers: That baraita is not referring to a woman who demands intercourse explicitly, but rather to one who entices her husband, so that he understands that she wants to engage in sexual intercourse with him. They consequently have excellent children.

הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ וְאֵלּוּ מוּתָּרִין

אַרְבָּעָה נְדָרִים הִתִּירוּ חֲכָמִים: נִדְרֵי זֵרוּזִין, וְנִדְרֵי הֲבַאי, וְנִדְרֵי שְׁגָגוֹת, וְנִדְרֵי אוֹנָסִין. נִדְרֵי זֵרוּזִין כֵּיצַד? הָיָה מוֹכֵר חֵפֶץ, וְאָמַר: ״קֻוֽנָּם שֶׁאֵינִי פּוֹחֵת לְךָ מִן הַסֶּלַע״, וְהַלָּה אוֹמֵר: ״קֻוֽנָּם שֶׁאֵינִי מוֹסִיף לָךְ עַל הַשֶּׁקֶל״,

MISHNA: The Sages dissolved four types of vows without the requirement of a request to a halakhic authority: Vows of exhortation, vows of exaggeration, vows that are unintentional, and vows whose fulfillment is impeded by circumstances beyond one’s control. The mishna explains: Vows of exhortation are those by which one encourages another using vow terminology that is exaggerated. How so? One was selling an item and said: I will not lower the price for you to less than a sela, as that is konam, forbidden as if it were an offering, for me. And the other one, the buyer, says: I will not raise my payment to you to more than a shekel, as that is konam for me.