נדרים עז

נדרים עז

תְּנַן הָתָם: מְפִירִין נְדָרִים בְּשַׁבָּת, וְנִשְׁאָלִין לִנְדָרִים שֶׁהֵן לְצוֹרֶךְ הַשַּׁבָּת. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: מְפִירִין נְדָרִים בְּשַׁבָּת לְצוֹרֶךְ הַשַּׁבָּת, אוֹ דִלְמָא אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ?

§ We learned in a mishna elsewhere (Shabbat 157a): A father or husband may nullify his daughter’s or his wife’s vows on Shabbat and one may request from a halakhic authority to dissolve vows that are for the purpose of Shabbat. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: May one nullify vows on Shabbat only when they are for the purpose of Shabbat, or may one perhaps nullify vows on Shabbat even when they are not for the purpose of Shabbat?

תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּתָנֵי רַב זוּטֵי דְּבֵי רַב פַּפֵּי: אֵין מְפִירִין נְדָרִים אֶלָּא לְצוֹרֶךְ הַשַּׁבָּת. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי, הָא לָא תְּנַן הָכִי: נָדְרָה עִם חֲשֵׁיכָה — מֵפֵר לָהּ עַד שֶׁלֹּא תֶּחְשַׁךְ. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ לְצוֹרֶךְ הַשַּׁבָּת — אִין, שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ הַשַּׁבָּת — לָא, מַאי אִירְיָא חָשְׁכָה? אֲפִילּוּ בְּתוֹךְ הַיּוֹם אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר דְּשֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ!

Come and hear the baraita that Rav Zuti from the school of Rav Pappi taught: Vows may be nullified on Shabbat only for the purpose of Shabbat. Rav Ashi said: We did not learn that way in the mishna here. The mishna teaches: If she took a vow with nightfall approaching, her father or husband can nullify the vow for her only until nightfall. And if you say that with regard to nullification of vows that are for the purpose of Shabbat, yes, he may nullify those vows, but nullifications that are not for the purpose of Shabbat, no, he may not, why does the tanna specify nightfall? After all, even during the day he may not nullify that which is not for the purpose of Shabbat.

תַּנָּאֵי הִיא: הֲפָרַת נְדָרִים כׇּל הַיּוֹם, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמְרוּ: מֵעֵת לְעֵת.

The Gemara rejects this conclusion: Nullification on Shabbat is subject to a dispute between tanna’im: Nullification of vows can be performed all day on the day that the vow was heard. And Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said: A vow can be nullified for a twenty-four-hour period from the time it was heard.

לְמַאן דְּאָמַר כׇּל הַיּוֹם אִין, טְפֵי לָא — אֲפִילּוּ שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ הַשַּׁבָּת מֵפֵר. לְמַאן דְּאָמַר מֵעֵת לְעֵת, לְצוֹרֶךְ הַשַּׁבָּת — אִין, שֶׁלֹּא לְצוֹרֶךְ הַשַּׁבָּת — לָא.

According to the one who says all day, yes, one can nullify vows all day, but not more than that; he may nullify on Shabbat even when it is not for the purpose of Shabbat, since otherwise, he could not nullify a vow taken on Shabbat at all. According to the one who says that one can nullify her vows for a twenty-four-hour period, that which is for the purpose of Shabbat, yes, he may nullify, but that which is not necessary for Shabbat, he may not nullify, as he can do so after Shabbat.

וְנִשְׁאָלִין לִנְדָרִים שֶׁהֵן לְצוֹרֶךְ הַשַּׁבָּת. אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ: כְּשֶׁלֹּא הָיָה לָהֶם פְּנַאי, אוֹ דִלְמָא כְּשֶׁהָיָה לָהֶם פְּנַאי? תָּא שְׁמַע, דְּאִיזְדְּקִיקוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לִבְרֵיהּ דְּרַב זוּטְרָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב זְעֵירָא אֲפִילּוּ בִּנְדָרִים שֶׁהָיָה לָהֶם פְּנַאי מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם.

§ The mishna from tractate Shabbat teaches: And one may request from a halakhic authority to dissolve vows that are for the purpose of Shabbat. A dilemma was raised before the Sages: Is this specifically when those who took the vows did not have the opportunity to request dissolution of the vows before Shabbat, or perhaps it is the case even when they did have the opportunity? The Gemara responds: Come and hear: It happened that the Sages attended to the dissolution of the vows of the son of Rav Zutra, son of Rav Zeira, on Shabbat, even for vows that they had the opportunity to dissolve while it was still day, before Shabbat had begun.

סָבַר רַב יוֹסֵף לְמֵימַר: נִשְׁאָלִין נְדָרִים בְּשַׁבָּת, בְּיָחִיד מוּמְחֶה — אִין, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה הֶדְיוֹטוֹת — לָא, מִשּׁוּם דְּמִתְחֲזֵי כְּדִינָא.

Rav Yosef thought to say: With regard to requesting that a halakhic authority dissolve vows on Shabbat, yes, requesting of a single expert is permitted on Shabbat, but requesting of three laymen is not permitted on Shabbat, because it looks like a court judgment, which may not be performed on Shabbat.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַבָּיֵי: כֵּיוָן דִּסְבִירָא לַן אֲפִילּוּ מְעוּמָּד, אֲפִילּוּ בִּקְרוֹבִים, וַאֲפִילּוּ בַּלַּיְלָה — לָא מִתְחֲזֵי כְּדִינָא.

Abaye said to him: Since we hold that vows may be dissolved even while the halakhic authority is standing, and even by relatives, and even at night, it does not look like a judgment. Since it is not regarded as an act of a court, vows may be dissolved on Shabbat even by three laymen.

אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא אָמַר רַב הוּנָא אָמַר רַב: הֲלָכָה, מְפִירִין נְדָרִים בַּלַּיְלָה. וְהָא מַתְנִיתִין הִיא: נָדְרָה בְּלֵילֵי שַׁבָּת! אֶלָּא אֵימָא: הֲלָכָה, נִשְׁאָלִין בַּלַּיְלָה.

Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said that Rav said: The halakha is that one can nullify vows at night. The Gemara asks: But this is already stated in the mishna: If a woman took a vow on Shabbat evening, her father or husband can nullify the vow on Shabbat evening; why would Rav Huna need to state his halakha? Rather, say that Rav’s ruling was as follows: The halakha is that one can request that a halakhic authority dissolve a vow at night.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי אַבָּא לְרַב הוּנָא: אֲמַר רַב הָכִי? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִישְׁתִּיק. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אִישְׁתִּיק קָא אָמְרַתְּ, אוֹ שָׁתֵי קָאָמְרַתְּ?

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Huna: Did Rav say that? Rav Huna said to him: Rav was silent [ishtik] when this ruling was stated in his presence. Rabbi Abba said to him: Did you say: He was silent [ishtik], indicating that he accepted this ruling, or did you say: He was drinking [shatei], and was therefore preoccupied, so that his silence did not necessarily indicate agreement?

אָמַר רַב אִיקָא בַּר אָבִין: אִיזְדְּקִיק לֵיהּ רַב לְרַבָּה

In order to clarify Rav’s opinion on the issue, the Gemara cites Rav Ika bar Avin who said: Rav attended to the dissolution of a vow made by Rabba,

בְּקִיטוֹנָא דְבֵי רַב, עוֹמֵד, יְחִידִי, וּבַלַּיְלָה.

in a side room [kitona] of the study hall, while standing, alone and at night.

אָמַר רַבָּה אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה, נִשְׁאָלִין נְדָרִים עוֹמֵד, יְחִידִי, וּבַלַּיְלָה, וּבַשַּׁבָּת, וּבִקְרוֹבִים, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָיָה לָהֶן פְּנַאי מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם.

Rabba said that Rav Naḥman said: The halakha is that one can request the dissolution of vows even when the halakhic authority is standing or alone, i.e., without a court of three, as long as he is a halakhic authority, and that one can do so at night, on Shabbat, and by relatives, and even when those requesting dissolution on Shabbat had the opportunity to do so while it was still day, i.e., before Shabbat.

עוֹמֵד? וְהָתַנְיָא: יָרַד רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מִן הַחֲמוֹר וְנִתְעַטֵּף וְיָשַׁב וְהִתִּיר לוֹ נִדְרוֹ. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר: פּוֹתְחִין בַּחֲרָטָה. מִיעְקַר נִדְרָא בָּעִינַן, וּבָעֵי עַיּוֹנֵי, אַהָכִי יָשַׁב. וְרַב נַחְמָן סָבַר: אֵין פּוֹתְחִין בַּחֲרָטָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ מְעוּמָּד.

The Gemara raises a difficulty with this ruling: Can a judge dissolve a vow while standing? But it is taught in a baraita that Rabban Gamliel alighted from a donkey, and wrapped himself in his shawl in the customary manner of a judge, and sat, and dissolved a man’s vow for him. If one can dissolve a vow while standing, why did he sit? The Gemara explains: Rabban Gamliel holds that one must broach dissolution based on regret. In other words, a halakhic authority does not dissolve vows directly, but must prompt the one who took the vow to concede that he regrets having taken the vow in the first place. We require that the vow be uprooted, and he needed to examine the case; therefore, he sat down. But Rav Naḥman holds that one need not broach dissolution based on regret, and therefore a halakhic authority can dissolve the vow even while standing.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: חֲזִי מָר הַאי מֵרַבָּנַן דַּאֲתָא מִמַּעְרְבָא וְאָמַר: אִיזְדְּקִיקוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לִבְרֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא בַּר אָבִין, וּשְׁרוֹ לֵיהּ נִדְרֵיהּ וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: זִיל וּבְעִי רַחֲמֵי עַל נַפְשָׁךְ דַּחֲטָאת. דְּתָנֵי רַב דִּימִי אֲחוּהּ דְּרַב סָפְרָא: כׇּל הַנּוֹדֵר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מְקַיְּימוֹ — נִקְרָא חוֹטֵא. אָמַר רַב זְבִיד: מַאי קְרָא — ״וְכִי תֶחְדַּל לִנְדֹּר לֹא יִהְיֶה בְךָ חֵטְא״, הָא לֹא חָדַלְתָּ — אִיכָּא חֵטְא.

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Master, see that Sage who came from the West, Eretz Yisrael, and who said: The Sages attended to the dissolution of a vow taken by the son of Rav Huna bar Avin, and they dissolved his vow and said to him: Go and request mercy for yourself, for you have sinned by taking a vow. As Rav Dimi, the brother of Rav Safra teaches: With regard to anyone who takes a vow, even if he fulfills it, he is called a sinner. Rav Zevid said: What verse teaches this? It is: “But if you refrain to vow, it will be no sin in you” (Deuteronomy 23:23). It may be inferred that if you did not refrain from taking vows, there is sin.

תַּנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ ״כׇּל נְדָרִים שֶׁתִּדּוֹרִי, אִי אֶפְשִׁי שֶׁתִּדּוֹרִי״, ״אֵין זֶה נֶדֶר״ — לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. ״יָפֶה עָשִׂית״, וְ״אֵין כְּמוֹתֵךְ״, וְ״אִם לֹא נָדַרְתְּ, מַדִּירֵךְ אֲנִי״ — דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין.

§ It is taught in a baraita: One who says to his wife: Any vows which you will vow, I do not want [ee efshi] you to vow, or one who wants to nullify a vow and says: This is not a vow, has not said anything, as this is not a valid formula of nullification. If he says: You have done well, or: There are none like you, or: If you had not taken a vow, I, myself, would have taken a vow to obligate you in this, his statement is substantial, and the vow is ratified.

לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לְאִשְׁתּוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת ״מוּפָר לִיכִי״, ״בָּטֵיל לִיכִי״, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאוֹמֵר לָהּ בַּחוֹל, אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר לָהּ: ״טְלִי וְאִכְלִי״, ״טְלִי וּשְׁתִי״, וְהַנֶּדֶר בָּטֵל מֵאֵלָיו. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּבַטֵּל בְּלִבּוֹ.

A man should not say to his wife when nullifying her vows on Shabbat: It is nullified for you, or: It is canceled for you, in the manner that he would say to her on weekdays. Rather, he should say to her, if she took a vow to refrain from food or drink: Take this and eat it, or: Take this and drink it, and the vow is canceled on its own. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And he must also cancel the vow in his heart; simply telling her to eat or drink is not sufficient.

תַּנְיָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: בַּשַּׁבָּת מְבַטֵּל בְּלִבּוֹ, בַּחוֹל מוֹצִיא בִּשְׂפָתָיו. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה — מְבַטֵּל בְּלִבּוֹ, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְהוֹצִיא בִּשְׂפָתָיו.

It is taught in a baraita: Beit Shammai say: On Shabbat he cancels the vow in his heart and on a weekday he articulates the nullification with his lips. And Beit Hillel say: Both in this case and in that case, i.e., whether on Shabbat or a weekday, it is sufficient if he cancels the vow in his heart, and he need not articulate with his lips.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חָכָם שֶׁאָמַר בִּלְשׁוֹן בַּעַל, וּבַעַל שֶׁאָמַר בִּלְשׁוֹן חָכָם — לָא אָמַר כְּלוּם.

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A halakhic authority who pronounced his dissolution of a vow with language appropriate to a husband, i.e., he said the word nullified instead of dissolved, or a husband who pronounced his nullification of a vow with language appropriate to a halakhic authority, i.e., he said the word dissolved instead of nullified, has not said anything. Each of them has the authority to cancel a vow only in the particular manner allotted to him.

דְּתַנְיָא: ״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ — הֶחָכָם מַתִּיר וְאֵין בַּעַל מַתִּיר. שֶׁיָּכוֹל: וּמָה חָכָם שֶׁאֵין מֵפֵר — מַתִּיר, בַּעַל שֶׁמֵּפֵר — אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁמַּתִּיר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר:

As it is taught in a baraita: The verse “This is the thing which the Lord has commanded” (Numbers 30:2) indicates that the husband’s nullification, which is the topic of the subsequent verses, must be done specifically in this way. The Sages concluded that a halakhic authority dissolves a vow, but a husband does not dissolve it. As, one might have thought: And just as a halakhic authority, who cannot nullify vows, nevertheless dissolves them, so too with regard to a husband, who can nullify vows, is it not logical that he should also dissolve them? Therefore, the verse states: