נדרים 21 — Soncino English Talmud

¹GEMARA. FOUR VOWS HAVE THE RABBIS INVALIDATED etc. R. Abba b. Memel said to R. Ammi: You have told us in the name of R. Judah Nesi'ah: Which Tanna holds this view? — R. Judah, who said on the authority of R. Tarfon: Neither is a nazir, because neziroth must be expressed with certainty. Raba said: You may even say, The Rabbis. Does the Mishnah teach, both [subsequently] agreed — it teaches, BOTH ARE AGREED. Rabina asked R. Ashi: If he demanded more than a se'ah, and the other offered less than a shekel is it a [valid] vow, or still a matter of incitement? — He replied. We have learnt this. If one was urging his neighbour to eat in his house, and he answered: 'Konam if I enter your house,' or 'if I drink a drop of cold water', he may enter his house and drink cold water, because he only meant eating and drinking in general. But why? Did he not state, a drop of cold water? Hence this is the usual manner of speech. Thus here too: this is the usual manner of speech! — He said to him: To Part b^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ

^ᵃnote:R. Judah, the Prince II.
^ᵇnote:19b. Thus here too, in the case of the incentive vow, since the two parties are dependent upon another, the vow is invalid.
^ᶜnote:Thus, neither meant the vow seriously at all; but the conditional vow of neziroth was really meant.
^ᵈnote:[I.e., the vendor demanded a sela' and a perutah (v. Glos.) and the buyer offered a shekel minus a perutah (Ran).]
^ᵉnote:Since each was so exact, it may be that the sum was literally meant by both, and the vow likewise.
^ᶠnote:But did not intend his words literally.
^ᵍnote:For emphasis stating 'a drop of water', when in reality something substantial was meant.
^ʰnote:For emphasis: but neither meant his words literally, hence the vow is invalid.

²Rab Judah said in R. Assi's name: For these four vows [formal] absolution must be sought from a Sage. When I stated this before Samuel, he observed: The Tanna teaches, FOUR VOWS HAVE THE SAGES INVALIDATED, yet you say. absolution must be sought from a Sage! R. Joseph reported this discussion in the following version: Rab Judah said in R. Assi's name: A Sage may remit only such [vows] as are similar to these four. Thus in his view mere regret is not given as an opening [for absolution]. A man once came before R. Huna [for absolution]. He asked him: 'Are you still of the same mind?' and he replied 'No!' Thereupon he absolved him. A man once came before Rabbah son of R. Huna, who asked him: 'Had ten men been present to appease you just then, would you have vowed?' On his replying 'No!' he absolved him. It was taught: R. Judah said: We ask him, 'Are you still of the same mind?' If he answers, No!' he is absolved. R. Ishmael son of R. Jose said on his father's authority: We say to him: 'Had ten men been present to appease you just then, would you have vowed?' If he replies in the negative, absolution is granted. (Mnemonic: Assi and Eleazar, Johanan and Jannai). A man once came before R. Assi. He asked him: 'Do you now regret [that you ever vowed]?' and he replied, 'Do I not?' Thereupon he absolved him. A man once came before R. Eleazar. He said to him, 'Do you desire your vow?' 'He replied: 'Had I not been provoked, I certainly would not have desired aught.' 'Let it be as you wish,' answered he. A woman who had subjected her daughter to a vow came before R. Johanan. Said he to her, 'Had you known that your neighbours would say of your daughter, ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ

^ⁱnote:I.e., they have no binding power at all.
^ʲnote:A definite reason for absolution is necessary, based on a fact which was unknown when the vow was made; consequently, it may be regarded as having been made in error. But if the only reason for cancellation is that the vower regrets it, absolution cannot be granted, v. infra 77b.
^ᵏnote:A mnemonic is a short phrase or a string of words or letters each consisting of catchwords of statements or incidents, strung together as an aid to the memory.
^ˡnote:(He holds that mere regret is accepted as ground for revoking a vow, contrary to the view of Rab Assi in the name of Rab Judah, the author of this ruling here being Rabbi Assi, a Palestinian Amora as distinct from the former, who was a Babylonian. (Ran).]
^ᵐnote:Ran: I.e., have you no regret that you ever made the vow except that you wish that it be no longer valid from now, in which case absolution cannot be granted. Rashi: 'Did you fully desire to vow, i.e., were you calm and composed, vowing with full deliberation' this seems more plausible.
^ⁿnote:Not to benefit from her mother.