Nedarim 179

ושרקיה טינא ואתייה לקמיה דרב חסדא אמר רבא מאן חכים למיעבד כי הא מילתא אי לאו דרב אחא בר רב הונא דגברא רבה הוא דקסבר דכי היכי דפליגי רבנן ור' נתן בהפרה הכי נמי פליגי בשאלה

then daubed him with clay<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., his garments. To show him that the services of other people were indispensable: he would straightway need someone to clean his garments (Ran). ');">¹</span>

ורב פפי אמר מחלוקת בהפרה דר' נתן סבר אין הבעל מיפר אא"כ חל נדר דכתיב (ישעיהו כד, כג) וחפרה הלבנה ורבנן סברי בעל מיפר אע"פ שלא חל נדר דכתיב (איוב ה, יב) מפר מחשבות ערומים

and brought him before R. Hisda.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For absolution. ');">²</span>

אבל בשאלה דברי הכל אין חכם מתיר כלום אא"כ חל נדר דכתיב (במדבר ל, ג) לא יחל דברו

Said Raba: Who is so wise as to do such a thing if not R. Aha son of R. Huna, who is [indeed] a great man? For he maintains: Just as the Rabbis and R. Nathan disagree in reference to annulment, so also with respect to absolution.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 89b. R. Nathan maintains that since the vow is not yet operative, he cannot annul, whilst the Rabbis hold that he can annul it though as yet inoperative. So with reference to absolution: in R. Nathan's view, one can be absolved from his vow only when it is in effect etc. For that reason he caused him to marry first, and did not have the vow annulled immediately. ');">³</span>

לימא מסייע ליה קונם שאיני נהנה לפלוני ולמי שאשאל עליו נשאל על הראשון ואח"כ נשאל על השני ואי אמרת נשאל אע"פ שלא חל נדר אי בעי על האי ניתשיל ברישא אי בעי על האי ניתשיל ברישא

But R. Papi said: The disagreement is only in respect to annulment, R. Nathan holding that the husband cannot annul unless the vow has already become operative, for it is written, Then the moon shall be confounded;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Isa. XXIV, 23; Heb. [H]. This is merely quoted as a sign. [H] is similar to [H] (and he shall disallow her), whilst [H] is connected with [H] to build, and thus, by a play on words, the phrase is translated: and he shall disallow her, when the edifice (of the vow) be erected, i.e., when the vow is operative, but not before. [It is however omitted from MS.M.] ');">⁴</span>

ומי ידע אי האי קמא אי האי בתרא

whilst the Rabbis maintain: The husband can annul even before the vow takes effect, as it is written, He maketh void the intentions of the crafty.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Job V, 12, i.e., even when a vow is as yet merely an intention, not having taken effect, it can be annulled. ');">⁵</span>

אלא לימא מסייע ליה קונם שאיני נהנה לפלוני הריני נזיר לכשאשאל עליו נשאל על נדרו ואח"כ נשאל על נזרו

But as for absolution, all agree that a Sage cannot permit anything until the vow is operative, for it is written, He shall not break his word.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Num. XXX, 3: Rashi translates: he (the Rabbi) shall not break (i.e., grant absolution for) his vow, i.e., as long as it is only a word, which has not yet taken effect. Asheri observes: from this we deduce, he (who vowed) may not break his word, but another (sc. a Sage) may break it, i.e., grant absolution, but that is only when 'he must do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth,' viz., when the vow is operative. ');">⁶</span>

ואי אמרת נשאל אע"פ שלא חל נדר אי בעי על נדרו איתשיל ברישא אי בעי על נזרו איתשיל ברישא ר' נתן היא

Shall we say that the following supports him? [If he vows,] 'Konam that I benefit not from So-and-so, and from anyone from whom I may obtain absolution for him,' he must obtain absolution in respect of the first, and then obtain absolution in respect of the second.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the Sages who became subject to the vow on account of having granted absolution. ');">⁷</span>

אמר רבינא אמר לי מרימר הכי אמר אבוך משמיה דרב פפי מחלוקת בהפרה אבל בשאלה דברי הכל מפר ואע"פ שלא חל נדר דכתיב לא יחל דברו

But if you say, absolution may be granted even before the vow takes effect, surely he can be absolved in whatever order he pleases!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if he wishes, he can be absolved of this one first, and if he wishes, he can be absolved of the other first.' — Thus this supports R. Papa's contention. ');">⁸</span> — And who knows whether this one is first and that the other is the second?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., indeed that is so: 'first' and 'second' need not refer to the order in which he vowed, but to the order of absolution. ');">⁹</span> Shall we say that this supports him: [If he vows,] 'Konam that I benefit not from So-and-so, and behold! I will be a nazirite if I be absolved therefrom'; he must be absolved of his vow, and then of his naziriteship.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Here it is explicitly stated that be can only be absolved of being a nazirite after absolution of his vow, when his conditional vow to be a nazirite has taken effect. ');">¹⁰</span> But if you say, absolution may be granted before the vow takes effect, if he wishes, let him first be absolved of his vow; and if he wishes, let him first be absolved of being a nazirite? — This agrees with R. Nathan.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., R. Abba b. R. Huna may be correct in asserting that this is a matter of dispute, and this Baraitha is taught according to R. Nathan. ');">¹¹</span> Rabina said: Meremar told me: Thus did your father say in R. Papi's name: The controversy is only in reference to annulment, but in respect to absolution all agree that he [the Sage] may grant it even before the vow is operative,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The reverse of what was said above. ');">¹²</span> because it is written, 'He shall not break his word,'