Torah Community Connections

Week 72 - Monday - 9 April 2001

NEDARIM: CHAPTER 9: MISHNAH 4

And Rabbi Meir also said, They open for him from what is written in the Torah, and say to him: "If you had known that you are transgressing 'You shall not take vengeance' and 'you shall not bear any grudge' (Lev. 19:18), and 'You shall not hate your brother in your heart' (Lev. 19:17), 'you shall love your neighbor as yourself' (Lev. 19:18), 'that your brother may live with you' (Lev. 25:36), perhaps he will become impoverished and you will not be able to support him?" And he said, "If I had known that this is so, I would not have taken a vow" - then he is released.

Kehati

We learned at the beginning of this chapter that there is a disagreement between Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages, whether we open an opening for a person (to annul his vow) based on the honor of his father and his mother; they all agree that if his vow was on a matter between him and his father and his mother, then we do open for him with the honor of his father and his mother. Everyone also agrees that we do not open for a person based on the honor of the Omnipresent. Two reasons are given in the Gemara for these laws: 1) we open an opening only with something regarding which a person would not be ashamed to tell the truth; we therefore do not open with the honor of the Omnipresent, since we fear the person who took the vow would be ashamed, and would not dare to tell what he is really thinking, namely that he would not refrain from taking a vow because of the honor of the Omnipresent. This is the reason for Abbaye's statement (in the Gemara): "If so, there are no vows which are properly annulled." Concerning matters between him and his father and his mother, however, since he dared to prohibit them by a vow, he would certainly dare to tell the Sage the truth; 2) we open an opening only with what is pertinent to the vow under consideration; we therefore do not open with the matter of the honor of the Omnipresent, for the honor of the Omnipresent can serve as a basis for annulling all the vows in the world; this is the reason for Rava's statement (in the Gemara): "If so, there are no vows regarding which a Sage must be asked" (as we explained in mishnah 1, above); and the Sages agree regarding a matter between him and his father and his mother, that they do open for him with the honor of his father and his mother, since this opening is pertinent to the vow which they will annul.

This mishnah teaches (as a continuation of Rabbi Meir's words in the previous mishnah) that just as we learned "regarding a matter between him and his father and his mother, they open for him with the honor of his father and his mother," the same applies regarding a matter between him and his fellow, they open for him from what is written in the Torah, either because a person is not ashamed regarding one commandment or certain commandments, to say the truth, or because this passage in the Torah is pertinent to the vow.

And Rabbi Meir also said, They - Sages who are going to annul the vow of a person, open for him from what is written in the Torah - they ask the person who took the vow if he would have refrained from taking the vow if this entailed contravening what is written in the Torah, e.g., if he prohibited his fellow by vow from benefiting from his property, out of revenge and hatred; they open - and say to him: "If you had known that you are transgressing 'You shall not take vengeance and 'you shall not bear any grudge,' and 'You shall not hate your brother in your heart' - would you have taken the vow?" Or, e.g., his fellow became impoverished, they open to the vower and say to him: "If you had remembered at the time you took the vow that it is written in the Torah - 'but you shall love your neighbor as yourself,' ‘that your brother may live with you' - for each person is obligated to love his fellow, to support him, and to keep him alive, and you had feared that - perhaps he - your fellow, whom you prohibited by vow from your property, will become impoverished and you will not be able to support him - because you prohibited him from benefiting from that of yours, would you have taken the vow?"

And he - the person prohibiting him by vow, said, "If I had known that this is so, I would not have taken a vow" - then he is released - i.e., the Sage releases him from his vow with this opening.

NEDARIM: CHAPTER 9: MISHNAH 5

They open for a man with the ketubah of his wife. And it once happened that one prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from his wife, and her ketubah was four hundred dinars, and they came before Rabbi Akiva, and he obligated him to give her the ketubah. He said to him, "Rabbi! Father left eight hundred dinars, and my brother took four hundred, and I four hundred; is it not sufficient for her that she take two hundred, and I two hundred?" Rabbi Akiva said to him, "Even if you sell the hair of your head, you give her the ketubah." He said to him, "If I had known that this is so, I would not have taken a vow"; and Rabbi Akiva permitted her.

Kehati

They open for a man with the ketubah of his wife - e.g., if a person took a vow that he would not benefit from his wife, and he has to divorce her, or if he took a vow to divorce his wife (Rabbeinu Asher), they open for him an opening with the payment of the money of the ketubah, and say to him: "If you had known that you would be required to pay her ketubah, and remain without property, would you have taken the vow?" And if he answers, "If I had known that this was so, I would not have taken the vow," they annul his vow.

And it once happened that one prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from his wife - and he was required to divorce her, and her ketubah was four hundred dinars, and they came before Rabbi Akiva, and he - Rabbi Akiva, obligated him to give her the ketubah - four hundred dinars. He - the husband, said to him - to Rabbi Akiva, "Rabbi! Our - Father left eight hundred dinars - to us as an inheritance, and my brother took four hundred, and I four hundred - and I have nothing besides these four hundred dinars; is it not sufficient for her - my wife, that she take two hundred - dinars, and I two hundred - so that two hundred will also remain for me?" The Gemara explains that this refers to a case in which they inherited from their father land worth eight hundred dinars, and after the inheritance was divided between him and his brother, he was left with land worth four hundred dinars and which was mortgaged to his wife's ketubah; if, however, he had money or movable property, the law is that movable property are not mortgaged to the wife's ketubah, even when she comes to claim from the husband himself (see Gemara Ket. 81b); therefore, Rabbi Akiva said to him, "Even if you - do not have anything to eat, and you are forced to - sell the hair of your head - for your livelihood, you - are obligated to - give her - the entire sum of - her ketubah" - i.e., all the land you possess is mortgaged for the payment of her ketubah.

He - the husband, said to him, "If I had known that this is so, I would not have taken a vow"; and Rabbi Akiva permitted her - the wife, to her husband, i.e., he annulled his vow with this opening.

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives