Nedarim 21a — the Talmud in English

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

The Sages permitted four vows

and

so on.

Rabbi Abba bar Memel said to Rabbi Ami: You told us in the name of Rabbi Yehuda Nesi'a: Who is the tanna

of the Mishna of

four vows? -

It is Rabbi Yehuda, who said in the name of Rabbi Tarfon:

Two people were walking on the road and saw a third person, and one of them said: I shall be a nazirite if this is so-and-so, and the second said: I shall be a nazirite if this is not so-and-so -

neither of them is ever a nazirite, because

they made their naziriteship dependent upon a condition in something that was uncertain to them, and any naziriteship undertaken in uncertainty is not naziriteship, since

naziriteship was given only for explicit declaration.

For when accepting naziriteship, one must express something explicit and definite, and not something uncertain.

And the same is true of vows, since vows were compared with naziriteship: they do not take effect when they are made in an uncertain manner, and since they made their vow conditional upon the price of the sale and did not make it a definite matter, the vow did not take effect.

Rava said: You may even say that our Mishna is also according to

the view of

the Rabbis,

who hold that naziriteship and a vow take effect even conditionally; nevertheless, here their vow did not take effect, because the Sages assessed their intention: they did not intend a vow at the time that they vowed, but said this in order to urge the other side to agree to their price.

For

does it teach “both

wanted” now, that they ultimately agreed upon three dinars, despite the fact that at first each stood by his own position, and then they vowed!?

now, after they ultimately agreed on three dinars, despite the fact that at first each maintained his position, and it was then that they made their vows!?

“Both

want

three dinars

it teaches!

For this was also their intention from beginning to end, and they stated their vow only in order to urge the other side.

Ravina

asked

Rav Ashi:

If

he said to him

—the seller—that the price was

more

than a sela, and

the other

, the buyer,

said

a price that he was prepared to pay

less

than

a shekel -

is it

a vow, or merely urging

alone

is it?

For a sela contains two shekels, and if the seller said that he demanded more than a sela and the buyer was prepared to pay less than a shekel, it turns out that the difference between them was more than double, so is this also considered a vow of urging, or do they intend their vows seriously?

He said to him,

Rav Ashi,

we learned,

it is possible to resolve your question from the words of the beraita:

For it was taught:

If one was importuning his fellow to eat with him, and said to him: “

Konam, your house: I enter it,” or “Konam,

a drop of cold water that I taste,”

he is permitted to enter his house and drink cold water from it,

since

this one did not intend

that he vowed to prohibit benefit

but only

to

refrain from

eating and drinking

literally. Although in his words he said that he would not benefit from it at all.

And why

is he permitted to drink cold water from it?

But

even “

a drop of cold water”

he said, meaning that he vowed not to drink from it!

meaning that he vowed not to drink any of it!

Rather, people speak this way,

this is how people speak, and they do not intend to prohibit something by a konam even when they speak in such an extreme manner, that they prohibit even a drop of water to themselves; their intention is not prohibition.

Here too,

although there is a great difference between them, for this one demands more than a sela and that one agrees to less than a shekel, their intention is not specifically to vow, but

people speak this way!