Torah Community Connections

Week 71 - Shabbat - 7 April 2001

NEDARIM: CHAPTER 8: MISHNAH 7

If one says to his fellow, "Konam if I derive benefit from you, if you do not come and take for your children one kor of wheat, and two barrels of wine" - he may annul his vow without asking a Sage, and say to him, "Did you not say only in my honor, this is my honor." Similarly if one says to his fellow, "Konam if you derive benefit from me, if you do not come and give my son one kor of wheat and two barrels of wine" - Rabbi Meir says, He is prohibited until he gives. But the Sages say, this one too can annul his vow without recourse to a Sage, and say to him, "It is as if I had received." They urged him to marry his sister's daughter, and he said, "Konam that she forever derives benefit from me"; and similarly, if one divorces his wife and said, "Konam if my wife forever derives benefit from me" - these are permitted to derive benefit from him, for he intended only regarding marriage. If one urged his fellow to eat with him, and he said, "Konam that I do not enter your house," "a drop of cold water that I do not taste of yours" - he is permitted to enter his house and to drink his cold water, for he intended only regarding eating and drinking.

Kehati

Incidental to the preceding mishnayot, which deal with vows which are interpreted according to the intent of the person taking the vow, this mishnah teaches other laws in which we follow the intent of the person taking the vow is followed.

If one says to his fellow, "Konam if I derive benefit from you - i.e., may any benefit I derive from that of yours be prohibited to me as a sacrifice, if you do not come and take for your children - as a gift from me, one kor of wheat, and two barrels of wine" - and his fellow does not want to take a gift from him, he - his fellow - may annul his vow without asking - for permission from - a Sage, and say to him - i.e., he may say to the person taking the vow, "Did you not say - that I should take a gift from you, only in my honor - to honor me, this is my honor" - that I will not take from you, thus you have already honored me; according to another interpretation: "Did you not say only in my honor" - that I would be honored by you before other people, who would see that I am important in your eyes, for you want to give me a gift, "this is my honor" - that I will be honored more when they see that you want to give me, and I do not want to accept it (Rabbeinu Nissim); and your intent in your vow has already been fulfilled, and you are permitted to derive benefit from that of mine, for the vow does not apply to you.

And similarly if one says to his fellow, "Konam if you derive benefit from me - may whatever benefit you derive from that of mine be prohibited to you as a sacrifice, if you do not come and give my son - from that of yours, as a gift, one kor of wheat and two barrels of wine" - and his fellow does not want to give, Rabbi Meir says, He - the one prohibited by the other's vow, is prohibited - from deriving benefit from that of the one who prohibited him by a vow, until he gives - to the son of the one prohibiting by vow one kor of wheat and two barrels of wine.

But the Sages say, This one too can annul his vow without recourse to a Sage, and he - the one prohibiting by avow, will say to him - he may say to his fellow, "It is as if I had - already - received" - for my son your gift, and I have no further use for it; the vow did not take effect, and you are permitted to derive benefit from that of mine.

If they urged him - a person, to marry his sister's daughter - or another woman; the mishnah cited "his sister's daughter" since it is virtuous to marry her, for it is written, "if a person marries the daughter of his sister" (Yev. 62b), concerning which Scripture writes, "And that you do not ignore your own flesh" (Isa. 58:7), and he said, "Konam that she forever derive benefit from me" - he took a vow that his sister's daughter would never derive any benefit from that of his; and he did so, in order that they would no longer urge him; and similarly, if one divorces his wife and said, "Konam if my wife forever derives benefit from me" - he took a vow that his wife would never derive benefit from that of his, so that he would not change his mind and remarry his divorced wife, these are permitted to derive - any - benefit from him - except for the benefit of marriage, for he intended - in his vow, only regarding marriage - even though he used the wording of "deriving benefit," without qualification, in his vow, we assess his intent, that he intended only the deriving of benefit through marriage.

If one urged his fellow to eat with him - a meal, and his fellow refused, and - thereupon - he said, "Konam that I do not enter your house," "a drop of cold water that I do not taste of yours" - he took a vow that he would not enter his house and that he would not drink from that of his a drop of cold water, so that his fellow would leave him alone, and would not urge him any longer, he is permitted to enter his house - the house of the one urging him, and to drink his cold water - even though he prohibited himself by vow from that of his, for he intended - in his vow, only regarding eating and drinking - that he would not eat and drink with him in an actual meal. According to some commentators, he is even permitted eating and drinking, since he did not pronounce the words eating and drinking, for vows must be pronounced (Rabbeinu Asher, Bartenura), but this is not implied by Rambam's statement. (Melekhet Shelomo). However, the Tosefta states explicitly, "And he is prohibited from eating and drinking."

NEDARIM: CHAPTER 9: MISHNAH 1

Rabbi Eliezer says, They may open for a man with the honor of his father and his mother; but the Sages prohibit. Rabbi Zadok says, Rather than open for him with the honor of his father and his mother, they should open for him with the honor of the Lord. If so there are no vows! And the Sages agree with Rabbi Eliezer in a matter between him and his father and his mother that they may open for him with the honor of his father and mother.

Kehati

If a person takes a vow, and later regrets it, e.g., he took the vow out of anger and rashness, and after his anger has been assuaged and he is calm, he regrets having taken his vow - he may correct this by going to a Sage, (i.e., an expert), and explaining in detail the entire episode of his vow and his regret, and the Sage may annul his vow, saying to him, "It is permitted for you," "It is allowed for you," or a similar wording. And even a panel of three laymen may annul vows. If the person who took the vow comes to the Sage to ask about his vow, and does not tell him that he regrets the entire vow, but rather requests to be released from his vow, then the Sage investigates the circumstances of the vow, and asks the vower various questions, in which the Sage provides him with an opening for regret, so that he will wholeheartedly regret his vow; or the Sage clarifies the matter, and discovers that the vow was taken erroneously, for if he had known that such-and-such would be the case, he would not have taken his vow, and thus the vow is completely annulled. This is what we have learned in a number of places in our tractate: "they open for him an opening from another place" (2:1, 5). This chapter deals with the laws of annulling vows, and teaches how we offer an opening to annul a vow.

Rabbi Eliezer says, They may open for a man - who comes to annul his vow, and does not regret his vow, as was explained above: "they open for him - an opening to annul his vow - with the honor of his father and his mother - e.g., they ask him, "If you had known that you slight the honor of your father and your mother with your vow, and that other people would chide them because you make vows wantonly, would you have taken the vow?" And when he replies, "If I had known, I would not have taken the vow," they annul his vow. But the Sages prohibit - opening for him in honor of his father and his mother in order to annul his vow. They fear that he may lie, since he is ashamed to say that he would not have refrained from taking a vow in consideration of the honor of his father and his mother, and thus they would be annulling his vow without him regretting.

Rabbi Zadok says, Rather than open for him with the honor of his father and his mother, they should open for him with the honor of the Lord - Hamakom the Omnipresent. Rabbi Zadok questions the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, for if we open for a person with the honor of his father and his mother, and we do not fear that he is being untruthful, they may open for him also with the honor of God, e.g., they could ask him, "If you knew that the person taking a vow is called 'wicked' in the eyes of the Lord, would you have taken a vow?" If - you say - so - that they do open with the honor of the Omnipresent as well, there are no vows! - i.e., there are no vows which are properly annulled (Gemara), for they would be annulled on the basis of untrue statements, which the person who took the vow makes only out of shame, but in his heart he does not completely regret his vow. According to another interpretation (in the Gemara), "if so, there are no vows which a Sage would be asked," for since the honor of the Omnipresent can serve as an opening for any vow; everyone would annul him his vow on the basis of this opening, and he would not come to ask a Sage at all.

And the Sages agreed with Rabbi Eliezer in a matter between him and his father and his mother - e.g., he prohibited his father and his mother by vow from deriving benefit from his property, that they may open for him with the honor of his father and mother - for they say to him, "If you knew that you are obligated to honor them, would you have taken the vow?" And when he replies that he would not have taken the vow, they annul his vow. We do not fear, in such a case, that he is being untruthful out of shame, for if he impudent towards them to prohibit them by vow from deriving benefit from that of his, he certainly is not ashamed to say what he actually thinks.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives