Nedarim 23b (כג:) — the Talmud in English

And we answer:

The Mishna is lacking and should read

in the Mishna,

and this is what it teaches:

1.

One who wishes his fellow to eat at his home, but presses him and renders him forbidden by a vow—

these are vows of exhortation.

2.

And one who wishes that his vows should not take effect throughout the entire year should stand on Rosh HaShana and say: Any vow that I am destined to utter—

shall be null!

Provided that he remembers this declaration at the time of the vow.

And we raise an objection:

If

he

remembers

at the time of the vow the stipulation that he made on Rosh HaShana, then now, when he vows knowingly,

he nullifies

thereby

his stipulation

that he made on Rosh HaShana,

and validates his vow!

Abaye said: Teach

in our Mishna the reverse:

Provided that he does not remember this at the time of the vow.

For if he remembers at the time of the vow the declaration that he made on Rosh HaShana, and nevertheless vows, he thereby nullifies that declaration, and his vow takes effect.

Rava said: Actually

it should be taught

as we initially said: “

Provided that he remembers this at the time of the vow.”

And indeed, if he completely forgot his declaration on Rosh HaShana at the time of his vow, Rava agrees with Abaye that his vow is null. Rather, in order not to alter the wording of the Mishna, Rava explains that the Mishna stated two laws:

The first: If at the time of his vow he does not remember at all his declaration on Rosh HaShana, his vow is null.

The second: If he remembers his declaration only partially,

and

what are we dealing with here?—

For example, he stipulated on Rosh

HaShana

that he was nullifying certain vows—for example, he nullified in advance his vow concerning bread or his vow concerning wine, which he might utter during the year—

but he did not know

at the time of his vow

what he had stipulated

on Rosh HaShana: whether he had declared then that he was nullifying his vow concerning bread or nullifying his vow concerning wine,

and now he is uttering a vow.

Therefore,

if he remembers at the time of the vow

his stipulation on Rosh HaShana,

and says: I am vowing subject to my original intention—

meaning that he remains committed to his declaration from Rosh HaShana and is not retracting it, except that he does not now remember which vow he nullified, and he is now vowing on the understanding that if he nullified a vow of this type, he is not retracting it, and his vow is null.

And afterward he remembers that on Rosh HaShana he nullified a vow of this type—

his vow has no substance,

for his vow has no substance, since on Rosh HaShana he issued a declaration nullifying it, and now too, at the time of his vow, he declared that he remained committed to that nullification [although he did not remember what he had nullified].

But if he

did not say “

I am vowing subject to my original intention,”

but merely vowed without qualification—

he nullifies

he nullifies at the time he vows

his stipulation

that he made on Rosh HaShana,

and validates his vow.

For if he wished to remain committed to his stipulation, he would have had to declare this at the time of his vow, since he remembered his declaration on Rosh HaShana, although he did not remember what he had stipulated.

Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana considered expounding this

as a halakhic ruling publicly

in the public lecture,

in a lesson in the beit-midrash: that one may stand on Rosh HaShana and stipulate the nullification of vows throughout the year.

Rava said to him:

For the

tanna conceals this ruling completely

in our Mishna and does not state it explicitly,

so that people should not treat vows lightly.

And

if

this—

would you expound it publicly?

They raised a dilemma before them:

Does

the Rabbis’ opinion dispute that of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

in our Mishna,

or not?

And if you say that they dispute him,

there is an additional uncertainty:

Is

the halakha in accordance with his opinion,

that of Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

or not?