Torah Community Connections

Week 72 - Sunday - 8 April 2001

NEDARIM: CHAPTER 9: MISHNAH 2

And Rabbi Eliezer also said, They open with a new circumstance; but the Sages prohibit. How so? If a person said, "Konam that I do not benefit from so-and so," and he became a scribe, or he was to wed his son shortly, and he said, "If I had known that he would become a scribe, or that he would wed his son shortly, I would not have taken a vow." "Konam that I do not enter this house," and it became a synagogue, he said, "If I had known that it would become a synagogue, I would not have taken a vow" - Rabbi Eliezer permits, and the Sages prohibit.

Kehati

In the previous mishnah, Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagreed on whether we open for a person with the honor of his father and his mother; this opening is something which existed at the time of the vow, and could have prevented the person from taking the vow if he had considered it at the time. This mishnah deals with an opening which did not exist at the time the vow was taken, but rather occurred afterwards; in this case also, Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagree whether they open for him with a new development.

And Rabbi Eliezer also said - another lenient ruling regarding vows, They open - an opening for annulling the vow - with a new circumstance - something which occurred after he took the vow, for if he had known at the time of the vow that this would happen, then he would not have taken the vow, as is explained below; but the Sages prohibit - opening with a new circumstance, for the person taking the vow would not have refrained from taking the vow because of something which did not exist at the time the vow was taken, because of the fear that it would come into existence; thus the vow is not completely annulled by this opening.

How so? If a person said, "Konam that I do not benefit from so-and so" - a person took a vow that he would not derive benefit from that of such-and-such a person, and he - this other person, became a scribe - i.e., a Sage or a scribe (Rashi), and the person taking the vow needed his services, or he - the other person, was to wed his son shortly - and the person who took the vow wished to participate in the wedding banquet, and he - the person who took the vow, said - to the Sage, "If I had known that he would become a scribe, or that he would wed his son shortly, I would sot have taken a vow."

Or if a person said, "Konam that I do not enter this house" - he took a vow that he would not enter a certain building, and it - this same building later - became a synagogue, and - he - the person who had taken the vow, said - to the Sage, "If I had known that it would become a synagogue, I would not have taken a vow" - Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagree in such a case: Rabbi Eliezer permits - for according to him, the Sage may annul the vow with this opening, for we do open with a new development, and the Sages prohibit - for the reason which was explained above. The Gemara explains that the Sages disagree with Rabbi Eliezer only regarding an uncommon development, for according to the Sages, the person taking the vow would not at all fear that this development might come about and would not refrain from taking the vow; this therefore cannot serve as an opening for annulling the vow. The annulment of a vow is its total cancellation, and regarding something which is uncommon, the vow is not totally cancelled; regarding a common new development, however, even the Sages agree that they open with it, since it is logical to assume that if he had considered this at the time he took the vow, he really would not have taken the vow.

NEDARIM: CHAPTER 9: MISHNAH 3

Rabbi Meir says, There are things which are like a new circumstance, and are not like a new circumstance; and the Sages do not agree with him. How so? If a person said, "Konam that I do not marry so-and-so whose father is evil," they said to him, "He died," or "He repented"; Konam this house that I do not enter, there is a vicious dog in it," or "there is a snake in it," they said to him, "The dog died," or "The snake was killed" - then they are like a new circumstance, and they are not like a new circumstance; but the Sages do not agree with him.

Kehati

We learned in 3:2, above: "If a person said, 'Konam my wife benefiting from me, for she stole my purse,' 'for she has struck my son,' and it became known that she had not struck him, and it became known that she had not stolen it" - this is one of the nidrei shegagot vows which the Sages annulled. Hence if a person based his vow on something which is not true, but he thought it was so, and it was later discovered that it was not so, his vow is not valid and does not require annulment by a Sage. Similarly, if a person based his vow on something which was true, and afterwards a change developed e.g., a person says, "Konam this house that I do not enter as long as the dog is in it," and afterwards the dog died, the condition no longer exists, the vow is cancelled. The Jerusalem Talmud states also: "If a person says, 'Konam if I derive benefit from so-and-so all the time he wears black", and he wore white, he is permitted; Rabbi Zeira says, He does not even require annulment by a Sage." This mishnah deals with the case in which a person specified at the time of his taking the vow the reason for the vow, but he did not explicitly link his vow to this reason as a condition as in the case above, and afterwards a change developed and the reason no longer exists.

Rabbi Meir says, There are things which are like - which seem to be like - a new circumstance - i.e., they are similar to the things which were taught in the previous mishnah, which developed after the vow was taken, and - but - are not - actually - like a new circumstance - and they can be used to open an opening for the annulment of the vow; and the Sages do not agree with him - with Rabbi Meir, for in their opinion these things are considered as new developments, and we do not open with them.

How so? If a person said, "Konam that I do not marry so-and-so whose father is evil" - he specified in his vow that he prohibits himself from marrying so-and-so, since her father is evil, and it indeed was true that her father was evil, but afterwards, they said to him, "He - her father, died," or "He repented" - of his evil ways; or a person said, "Konam this house that I do not enter - he took a vow that he would not enter a certain house, and he stated the reason for his vow, because - there is a vicious dog in it," or 'there is a snake in it" - and this was actually so, and afterwards - they said to him, "The dog died," or "The snake was killed" - since he specified at the time he took his vow the reason for his vow, and the reason no longer existed, then they are like a new circumstance, and they are not like a new circumstance - according to Rabbi Meir, for he holds that even this case is similar to linking his vow to something; even though there is not a complete condition here, for he did not say, "Konam that I do not marry so-and-so as long as her father is evil," or "as long as her father is alive," etc. (for if he had said so, he would not require the annulment of a Sage at all, as was mentioned in the introduction to this mishnah, above), the wording of his vow nevertheless reveals a sort of condition, that he took the vow only while her father is evil, etc., and therefore we open with this to annul his vow (Ritba).

But the Sages do not agree with him - as was explained above. According to another version, the mishnah reads, both here and above, "and the Sages agree with him" - that the Sages agree with Rabbi Meir on this, and disagree only with Rabbi Eliezer in the preceding mishnah (Rambam, Rabbeinu Asher in his legal decisions, Ramban). According to the interpretation of other commentators (following the Jerusalem Talmud), Rabbi Meir holds that he does not need at all annulment by a Sage, since he is considered a person who links his vow to something as a condition, and since the reason for his vow no longer exists, his vow is annulled (Nimukei Yosef; Rambam in his Mishnah Commentary; see Rambam, Hil. Nedarim 8:1-2, and his super-commentaries).

Return to Mishna Yomit Index

Visit the Mishna Yomit Archives