Nedarim 23b — the Talmud in English

And we explain:

“Something is missing”

in the Mishna,

“and this is what it teaches”:

1.

“One who wishes that his fellow should eat with him, and presses him, and imposes a vow upon him”—

“these are vows of urging.”

2.

“And one who wishes that his vows should not be fulfilled throughout the entire year should stand on Rosh Hashanah and say: ‘Every vow that I am destined to vow’”—

“shall be annulled!”

“Provided that he remembers it at the time of the vow.”

And we raise an objection concerning it:

If

he

remembers

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

has uprooted

by this

his stipulation

that he made on Rosh Hashanah,

and upheld his vow!

Abaye said: Teach

in our Mishna the reverse:

“Provided that he does not remember it at the time of the vow.”

For if he remembers at the time of the vow his declaration on Rosh Hashanah, and nevertheless vows, he thereby uproots his declaration, and his vow takes effect.

Rava said: Always

it should be taught

as we said at first: “Provided that he remembers it at the time of the vow.”

And this means that if indeed he completely forgot his declaration on Rosh Hashanah at the time of his vow, Rava agrees with Abaye that his vow is annulled. 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 Hashanah, his vow is annulled.

And the second: if he remembers his declaration partially.

And

and

in what case are we dealing here—

for example, that he stipulated on

Rosh Hashanah

that he was annulling certain vows, such as that he annulled in advance his vow concerning bread or concerning wine, which he would vow during the year,

but did not know

at the time of his vow

what he had stipulated

on Rosh Hashanah, whether he had then declared that he was annulling his vow concerning bread or annulling his vow concerning wine,

and now he is vowing.

Therefore,

if he remembers at the time of the vow

his stipulation on Rosh Hashanah,

and said: “On the basis of the first understanding I am vowing,”

meaning: I remain with my declaration from Rosh Hashanah, and I am not retracting from it, except that I do not now remember which vow I annulled; and I am now vowing on the understanding that if I annulled a vow of this type, I am not retracting from it, and my vow is annulled.

And afterward he remembers that on Rosh Hashanah he annulled the vow of this type—

his vow has no substance,

there is no substance to his vow, since on Rosh Hashanah he made a declaration concerning its annulment, and now as well, at the time of his vow, he declared that he remains with his annulment [except that he did not remember what he had annulled].

But if he

did not say

“On the basis of the first understanding I am vowing,”

but vowed without specification—

he uprooted

he uproots at the time when he vows

his stipulation

that he made on Rosh Hashanah,

and upheld his vow.

For if he wished to remain with his stipulation, he should have declared this at the time of his vow, since he remembers his declaration on Rosh Hashanah, except that he does not remember what he stipulated.

Rav Huna bar Hinena considered expounding it

this law publicly

in a discourse,

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

Rava said to him:

Behold, the

tannai concealed it completely

in our Mishna, this law, and did not state it explicitly,

so that people should not treat vows lightly.

And

if

you—

would you expound it publicly?

It was asked of them:

whether

the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

in our Mishna,

or not?

And if you should say that they disagree,

there is an additional uncertainty to consider:

Whether

the halakha is according to him,

according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

or not?