Nedarim 24a — the Talmud in English

Come and hear a proof:

from

as we learned

below, 63b]:

One who says to another ![](pamud.bmp "

")

“It is forbidden to me to benefit from you if you do not take

from me

a kor of wheat and two jugs of wine for your son”—

this

is what he said to him:

he can

indeed

have his vow dissolved without the authorization of a Sage.

Because

he can say to him: Did you say

this

only

for my honor,

so that people would see how honored I am in your eyes?

But now

this is my honor

in the eyes of the people: that I do not take anything from you. In this way your desire has been fulfilled, and the vow is automatically dissolved, since you made it only to fulfill your desire to honor me!

The Gemara analyzes this:

The reason

that his vow is not a vow is

that he said,

the other man,

“This is my honor.”

If not for this—

it is a vow.

Who is the author of this statement,

and which early Sage taught this Mishna?

If it is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

then according to his view, in our Mishna, anyone who refuses his fellow’s request and imposes a vow on him

has made a vow intended to pressure him!

Rather, conclude from this: the Sages disagree with him.

The Mishna below is according to their view.

The Gemara rejects this:

Actually,

the Sages do not disagree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov, and the Mishna below too is according to the opinion of

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov.

And Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov concedes in this case

that if the other man does not say, “This is my honor, that I do not take anything from you,”

it is a genuine vow,

and it is not a vow intended to pressure him.

Because

he says to him,

the one who imposed the vow, who benefits from his fellow and asks that his fellow benefit from him as well:

“I am not a dog,”

I am not like a dog, which only benefits and does not provide benefit,

“for I benefit from you,”

whereas you

“do not benefit from me.”

But our Mishna is speaking of a case in which the one providing the benefit is also the one imposing the vow, and not the one receiving the benefit; therefore, it is a vow intended to pressure him.

Come and hear a proof

from the continuation of that same Mishna below:

One who says to another: “It is forbidden to me that you benefit from me if you do not give my son a kor of wheat and two jugs of wine”—

Rabbi Meir says:

he is forbidden

until he gives them.

And the Sages say: This person too can have his vow dissolved without the authorization of a Sage,

because

he can say,

“I am as though I had received it,”

and your desire has been fulfilled. The vow can no longer take effect, since you made it only to fulfill your desire, and that desire has been fulfilled.

The Gemara analyzes this:

The reason is that he said,

“I am as though I had received it.”

If not for this—

it is a vow.

Who is the author of this statement?

If it is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

then such a vow

is a vow intended to pressure him!

Rather, is it not the Sages

—

And

this proves that

they disagree

with him!

The Gemara rejects this:

No; actually,

the Sages did not disagree with him, and this Mishna too is according to the opinion of

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov

—

And Rabbi Eliezer concedes in this

vow that

it is a genuine vow.

Because he says to him,

the one who imposed the vow:

“I am not a king, who provides benefit to you while you do not provide benefit to me.”

Mar Kashisha, son of Rav Ḥisda, said to Rav Ashi: Come and hear a proof

from the Mishna below, in our chapter [27a]:

Vows made under coercive circumstances, which do not take effect—

what are they?

If one’s fellow imposed a vow on him

in order

that he eat at his house, and he or his son became ill, or a river detained him,

this is a vow made under coercive circumstances, and it does not take effect.

If not for this—

it is a vow.

Who is the author of this statement?

If it is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

then in his view the vow

is a vow intended to pressure him!

Rather, is it not the Sages

—

and

this proves that

they disagree

with him!

The Gemara rejects this:

Actually, it is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov,

and the Sages did not disagree with him.

But do you think that it was the host who imposed the vow on the guest,

meaning that the person inviting him to the meal imposed the vow on the invited guest?

No,

that is not what happened. Rather,

the guest

is the one who

imposed a vow on the host,

the one who invited him.

For he said to him,

the guest said to the host:

“Are you inviting me to your meal?”

He said to him,

the host:

“Yes.”

The guest then said to the host: Impose

this vow upon yourself

that if you do not feed me at a meal, you will be forbidden to benefit from my property,

and he imposed the vow,

the host, because the guest pressed him to do so.

And

now

he became ill,

the guest,

or his son became ill, or a river detained him,

and he cannot come to the meal—

these are vows made under coercive circumstances,

and not vows intended to pressure him. For the host did not make this vow because he wanted to pressure the guest; he made it only because the guest asked him to impose it.

Come and hear a proof

from a beraita in the Tosefta [chapter 2]:

“Moreover, Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov said: One who says to another, ‘It is forbidden to me to benefit from you if you do not stay as a guest at my house, eat hot bread with me, and drink a cup of hot wine with me,’ and

after all this

the other man became angry with him in return

and did not come—

these too are vows intended to pressure him.

But the Sages did not agree with him.

The Gemara analyzes this:

What does the phrase

“But the Sages did not agree with him” mean?

Is it not