Chagigah 10a — the Talmud in English

when he had intercourse with her

under duress

of the woman—for the wife of an Israelite is not forbidden to her husband when she was violated, and therefore he has a remedy if she did not give birth to a mamzer from him.

Here—where they said: even if he did not give birth to a mamzer from her, he has no remedy—when he had intercourse with her

with

the consent

of the woman, for she became forbidden to her husband.

And if you wish, say: in both cases it is under duress, and it is not difficult:

Here it is a priest’s wife,

who becomes forbidden to her husband even under duress.

Here it is the wife of an Israelite,

who does not become forbidden to her husband when she was violated.

It is written:

“And for the one who goes out and for the one who comes in there is no peace.”

Rav said: Once a person departs from a matter of halakha

[Mishna teachings], and comes

to speak of Scripture,

from which one may not issue a ruling,

he no longer has peace

in a matter of instruction.

And Shmuel said: This is one who separates from the Talmud

[which is the words of the Sages, who carefully explain the Mishnas that contradict one another, and find the reason for exemption and liability, for prohibition and permission]

to the Mishna

[the version of the Mishnas as they are before us].

For if he departs from the Talmud and gives his attention to the version of the Mishnas, he no longer has peace in a matter of instruction, for correct instruction cannot be based on the words of the Mishna. For there are many Mishnas whose words are not properly aligned, and the Sages reconciled them, such as: “Something is missing, and this is what it teaches,” or: “Whose opinion is this? It is the opinion of so-and-so,” and the halakha is not in accordance with him.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: Even

one who separates

from the

[Talmud] Yerushalmi

to the

Babylonian Talmud has no peace in a matter of halakha. Since it is deep, he cannot derive a clear halakha from it. And as we say in Sanhedrin [24a]: “He has set me in dark places, like those who are dead forever”—this is the Babylonian Talmud.

Mishna:

One who makes a vow and finds a “basis” for regretting his vow goes to a Sage and details his vow and its basis, or says to the Sage that he regrets the vow, and the Sage releases him from his vow.

The release of vows

that the Sages said

“hover”

they

“in the air”!

That is to say: there is only a slight hint concerning this in Scripture,

and they have no

Scriptural passage in the Torah

upon which to rely,

but this was transmitted to the Sages in the Oral Torah. But some of the

halakhot of Shabbat,

and likewise the halakhot of

pilgrimage offerings

on the Festivals,

and

some of the laws of

misappropriations

of consecrated property—

behold, they are like “mountains suspended by a hair”

[like one who suspends a mountain on hairs of the head]—

Since

the Scripture is scant and the halakhot are numerous.

These halakhot depend upon a hint from scant Scripture [Rashi].

But

the civil laws

[monetary laws],

and the Temple services

in the Temple,

the purities and the impurities, and

the laws of

forbidden sexual relations—

they have upon what to rely!

That is to say: they have abundant support [but they are not explicit].

And these are the very fundamentals of Torah,

as the Gemara explains.

Gemara:

It was taught,

that tannaim disagreed concerning the Mishna that says that the release of vows “hovers in the air” and has nothing upon which to rely. And they maintain that it does have upon whom to rely, but they disagreed as to where the release is written in the Torah:

Rabbi Eliezer says: They have

for the release of vows

upon what to rely.

As it is said

in the passage of valuations:

“When he shall clearly utter

a vow according to your valuation,” and it is said in the passage of the nazirite:

“When he shall clearly utter

to vow a vow of naziriteship, to consecrate himself to the Lord.” Thus the Torah said

twice

the expression of clear utterance:

one clear utterance

[its meaning] is

for prohibition,

when he specifies his vow.

And one clear utterance

[its meaning] is

for release,

when he specifies before the Sage and says: “Thus I vowed, and only with this understanding did I vow. But with another understanding—I did not vow!” so that the Sage will release him from his vow.

Rabbi Joshua says: They have upon what to rely.

As it is said: “That I swore in My anger

that they shall not enter [the generation of the wilderness] into My rest [in the World to Come, Tosafot].”

And why did Scripture say:

“That I swore ‘in My anger’”?

It need only have said, “That I swore,” to teach you:

“In My anger”

[in My wrath]

I swore, and

afterward

I recanted

my oath!

That is to say: I can be asked concerning it, since I swore because of My anger, and not with a settled mind [Rashi; see Sefat Emet].

Rabbi Yitzhak says: They have upon what to rely.

As it is said

in connection with the contribution for the Tabernacle that the Children of Israel brought:

“Every generous-hearted person

shall bring it as the contribution of the Lord.” Thus you have learned: if his heart is still generous, then he shall bring; but if his heart is no longer with him, because he regrets his vow and his donation, he shall not bring, because the Sage will release him.

Hananiah, the nephew of Rabbi Joshua, says: They have upon what to rely.

As it is said: “I swore ‘and I will fulfill’ to observe the judgments of Your righteousness.”

He need only have said: “I swore to observe the judgments of Your righteousness.” And why did he say, “And I will fulfill”? To teach you: if I wish, I will fulfill; and if not, I will go to a Sage, and he will release me from my oath.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: Had I been there, I would have said to them

[had I been there, I would have said to those tannaim]:

“Mine is preferable to yours”

[my support is better than yours]:

As it is said: “He shall not profane his word!” He

himself

does not release

[the expression of profanation] his word,

but others

[a Sage]

release him, .

Rava said: For all of them

[all the supports brought by the tannaim]

there is a refutation

[one can respond to them],

except for Shmuel’s, for which there is no refutation

[apart from the support brought by Shmuel, to which nothing can be answered]! For:

If from Rabbi Eliezer,

who supported the release of vows from “when he shall clearly utter, when he shall clearly utter,” one can answer:

perhaps

the doubling of the clear utterance comes to teach

in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who said in the name of Rabbi Tarfon.

For it was taught: Rabbi Yehuda said in the name of Rabbi Tarfon:

Two people were sitting, and one person passed before them. One said: “I am a nazirite if this passerby is a nazirite” [that is to say: if he is not a nazirite, then I am a nazirite], and the second said: “I am a nazirite if this passerby is not a nazirite.” In the end, it was found to be as one of them had said; nevertheless,

not

even

one of them is a nazirite.

Because naziriteship was given only for clear utterance,

a vow of naziriteship does not obligate the one who vows if he undertook naziriteship conditionally and doubtfully, but only a clearly uttered and explicit naziriteship [certain].

And

if from Rabbi Joshua,

who supported the release of vows from “that I swore in My anger,” one can answer:

perhaps this is what it says: “In My anger I swore, and I did not recant.”

And

if from Rabbi Yitzhak,

who supported the release of vows from “every generous-hearted person,” one can answer:

perhaps

Scripture said “his heart” in order

to exclude Shmuel’s opinion.

For Shmuel said: If one finishes

vowing

in his heart—

he must utter it with his lips.

And this teaches us: even though he did not utter it with his lips,

his vow is a vow [see the additional explanation in the notes]. And

if from Hananiah, the nephew of Rabbi Joshua,

who supported the release of vows from “I swore and I will fulfill, to observe the judgments of Your righteousness,” one can answer:

perhaps

the verse comes to teach

as Rav Giddel said in the name of Rav.

For Rav Giddel said in the name of Rav: From where is it derived that one swears “to fulfill” a mitzva,

that is to say: it is a mitzva for a person to swear to fulfill a mitzva, so that he will hurry and be zealous to fulfill it [Rashi]?

As it is said: “I swore ‘and I will fulfill’ to observe the judgments of Your righteousness.”

But Shmuel’s,

who supported the release of vows from “he shall not profane”

has no refutation.

Rava said, and some say Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak,

concerning Shmuel’s words in relation to the words of the other tannaim:

“This is what people say: One sharp peppercorn is better than a full basket of gourds.”

One seed of hot pepper is better than a basket full of cucumbers.

We learned in the Mishna:

The halakhot of Shabbat

are like mountains suspended by a hair:

And we raise an objection: Behold, the halakhot of Shabbat

are written explicitly

in the Torah, and are not merely “suspended by a hair”?!

And we answer:

It is necessary only for the teaching of Rabbi Abba,

for the novel ruling of Rabbi Abba, and the like [Rashi], which is not explicit in the Torah, but is like something “suspended by a hair.”

For Rabbi Abba said: One who digs a pit on Shabbat

in his house or in his courtyard [for if he required the pit itself, he would transgress the labor of building],

and does not need

the pit,

but

digs it only

for its soil,

because he needs the soil and therefore digs—he is

exempt concerning it,

as he explains the reason and proceeds, and this law has only a hint in Scripture, as he explains and proceeds.

And the Gemara explains:

In accordance with whom

did Rabbi Abba state his law, that he is exempt?

Perhaps specifically

in accordance with Rabbi Shimon, who said

[with regard to one who carries out a corpse on a bier on Shabbat in order to bury it]:

a labor that one does not need for its own purpose

[which he would not have undertaken willingly, and did not need, Rashi]—he is

exempt concerning it

if he performed it on Shabbat.

And this person too, who digs on Shabbat for the sake of the soil and does not need the building labor involved in digging the pit, is exempt concerning it according to Rabbi Shimon.

And not in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda, who disagreed with him and maintains that one is liable for a labor that one does not need for its own purpose?

This is not correct.

Rather, this that Rabbi Abba said: one who digs a pit and needs only its soil is exempt concerning it—

even you may say that it is in accordance with Rabbi Yehuda,

who disagreed concerning carrying out the corpse and holds one liable for it even though it is a labor that one does not need for its own purpose. He agrees concerning one who digs a pit that he is exempt, because:

There,

with regard to carrying out the corpse, he

improves

it; but

here,

with regard to one who digs a pit and needs only its soil, he

is damaging it,

his courtyard, and even according to Rabbi Yehuda he is exempt.

And

what is [the meaning of] “mountains suspended by a hair”

[upon what hint is this law supported, and it is nothing more than a hair]?