Nedarim 154

Chapter 154

אבקיטונאVkytvnדביDvyרבRvעומדVmdיחידיYkhydyובלילהVvlylh

1in a chamber of the College, whilst standing, alone, and at night.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The former question is left unanswered, but this incident is quoted to show that Rab himself acted on this ruling. — So cur. edd. But other readings introduce this by 'come and hear. ');">1 Raba said in R. Nahman's name: The halachah is that absolution from vows may be granted standing, alone, and at night, on the Sabbath, by relatives, and even if there was time before the Sabbath [to seek absolution]. 'Standing'? But it was taught: R. Gamaliel descended from the ass, wrapped himself [in his robe], sat down, and absolved him?2

באמרMrרבהRvhאמרMrרבRvנחמןNkhmnהלכהHlkhhנשאליןNshlynנדריםNdrymעומדVmdיחידיYkhydyובלילהVvlylhובשבתVvshvtובקרוביםVvkrvvymואפי'Vfy'היהHyhלהןLhnפנאיFnyמבעודMvvdיוםYvm

2— R. Gamaliel held that [the Rabbi] must give an 'opening' for regret, so that the vow may be revoked ab initio; this requires deep thought; therefore he sat down.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The Rabbi must find grounds sufficiently strong to make him regret his now (v. supra 21b). Such grounds are not easily found. But sitting is not essential for the actual granting of absolution. ');">3 But in R. Nahman's opinion no opening for regret Is necessary;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [Even if he expresses no regret for ever having made the vow, but merely wishes to be absolved from it from now on, the Sage may revoke it; (v. Rashi 'Er. 64a).] ');">4

געומדVmdוהתניאVhtnyירדYrdר"גRg"מןMnהחמורHkhmvrונתעטףVnttfוישבVyshvוהתירVhtyrלוLvנדרוNdrvרבןRvnגמליאלGmlylסברSvrפותחיןFvtkhynבחרטהVkhrthמיעקרMykrנדר'Ndr'בעינןVynnובעיVvyעיוניYvnyאהכיHkhyישבYshvורבVrvנחמןNkhmnסברSvrאיןYnפותחיןFvtkhynבחרטהVkhrthואפילוVfylvמעומדMvmd

3therefore he [the Rabbi] can stand.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' So cur. edd. and Rashi, Ran and Asheri reverse the reading, though the final result remains unaltered. Thus: R. Gamaliel held that mere (present) regret does not afford an 'opening', i.e., grounds for absolution, but some fact, which, had it been present to the mind of the person vowing, would have caused him to desist, so that the vow may be voided from its very beginning, etc. ');">5 Raba said to R. Nahman: Behold, Master, a scholar, who came from the west [i.e., Palestine], and related that the Rabbis gave a hearing to the son of R. Huna b. Abin and absolved him of his vow, and then said to him, 'Go, and pray for mercy, for you have sinned. For R. Dimi, the brother of R. Safra, learnt: He who vows, even though he fulfils it, is designated a sinner.' R. Zebid said: What verse [teaches this]? — But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee;6

דא"לL"רבאRvלרבLrvנחמןNkhmnחזיKhzyמרMrהאיHyמרבנןMrvnnדאתאDtממערבאMmrvואמרVmrאיזדקיקוYzdkykvליהLyhרבנןRvnnלבריהLvryhדרבDrvהונאHvnברVrאביןVynושרוVshrvליהLyhנדריהNdryhואמרוVmrvליהLyhזילZylובעיVvyרחמיRkhmyעלLנפשךNfshkhדחטאתDkhttדתניDtnyרבRvדימיDymyאחוהKhvhדרבDrvספראSfrכלKhlהנודרHnvdrאע"פF"שהואShhvמקיימוMkyymvנקראNkrחוטאKhvtאמרMrרבRvזבידZvydמאיMyקראKr(דברים(dvrymכג,Khg,כג)Khg)וכיVkhyתחדלTkhdlלנדורLndvrלאLיהיהYhyhבךVkhחטאKhtהאHלאLחדלתKhdltאיכאYkhחטאKht

4hence, if thou hast not forborne, there is sin. It was taught: If a man says to his wife, '[In respect to] all vows which you may make, I object to your vowing,' or, 'they are no vows,' the declaration is valueless.7

התניאTnyהאומרHvmrלאשתוLshtvכלKhlנדריםNdrymשתדוריShtdvryאיYאפשיFshyשתדוריShtdvryאיןYnזהZhנדרNdrלאLאמרMrכלוםKhlvmיפהYfhעשיתShytואיןVynכמותךKhmvtkhואםVmלאLנדרתNdrtמדירךMdyrkhאניNyדבריוDvryvקיימיןKyymyn

5[If he says,] 'You have done well,' or, 'there is none like you,'8 or, 'had you not vowed, I myself would have imposed a vow upon you.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This must not be taken that in Talmudic times the husband could impose a vow upon his wife, the expression merely being one of approval. In the chapter dealing with vows (Num. XXX) the husband is merely given powers of annulment, not to impose vows; in fact, no person is empowered to impose vows upon another; but v. Weiss, Dor. 1, p. 15. ');">9

ולאLיאמרYmrאדםDmלאשתוLshtvבשבתVshvtמופרMvfrליכיLykhyבטילVtylליכיLykhyכדרךKhdrkhשאומרShvmrלהLhבחולVkhvlאלאLאומרVmrלהLhטליTlyואכליVkhlyטליTlyושתיVshtyוהנדרVhndrבטלVtlמאליוMlyvא"רR"יוחנןYvkhnnוצריךVtsrykhשיבטלShyvtlבלבוVlvv

6— these declarations are effective.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., they are perfect confirmations, which cannot be withdrawn by subsequent annulment. — 'Effective' is followed by two dots (:), which denotes the completion of a subject, the next word commencing a new one. As, however, the next passage is not preceded in our text by 'It was taught' nor by any other word which generally introduces a new passage, it is possible that the dots have crept into the editions in error. But in the version of Ran the next passage is preceded by 'It has been taught' (v. Marginal Glosses to Wilna edition). ');">10 A man should not say to his wife on the Sabbath, 'It is annulled for you,' or, 'made void for you,' as he would say on week-days, but, 'Take and eat it,' 'Take and drink it,'11

זתניאTnyבש"אVsh"בשבתVshvtמבטלMvtlבלבוVlvvבחולVkhvlמוציאMvtsyבשפתיוVshftyvובה"אVvh"אחדKhdזהZhואחדVkhdזהZhמבטלMvtlבלבוVlvvואיןVynצריךTsrykhלהוציאLhvtsyבשפתיוVshftyv

7and the vow becomes automatically void.12 R. Johanan observed: Yet he must annul it in his heart.13

חא"רR"יוחנןYvkhnnחכםKhkhmשאמרShmrבלשוןVlshvnבעלVlובעלVvlשאמרShmrבלשוןVlshvnחכםKhkhmלאLאמרMrכלוםKhlvm

8It was taught: Beth Shammai say: On the Sabbath he must annul it in his heart; on week-days he must express [his annulment] with his lips. But Beth Hillel say: In both cases he may annul it in his heart, and need not express it with his lips.14 R. Johanan said: If a Sage employs a husband's phraseology, or a husband that of a Sage, their pronouncements are invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' A husband must say, [H] 'It is annulled for thee'; a Sage, [H] 'It is permitted thee'. [The difference in the phraseology employed by Sage and husband is determined by the distinct function of each. The Sage revokes the vow, rendering it void ab initio, whereas the husband annuls it that it may not be binding for the future (Ran).] ');">15

טדתני'Dtny'(במדבר(vmdvrל,L,ב)V)זהZhהדברHdvrהחכםHkhkhmמתירMtyrואיןVynבעלVlמתירMtyrשיכולShykhvlומהVmhחכםKhkhmשאיןShynמפרMfrמתירMtyrבעלVlשמפרShmfrאינוYnvדיןDynשמתירShmtyrת"לTl"

9For it was taught: This is the thing [which the Lord hath commanded]:16 [this teaches], only a Sage may absolve, but a husband cannot absolve.17 For I might think, If a Sage, who cannot annul, can absolve, surely a husband, who may annul, can also absolve! Therefore it is stated,

Previous Chapter Next Chapter