Nedarim 63b — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara supports Abaye’s statement:

And it was taught

[as an agreeable proof]:

If he said, “

Until the first of Adar,”

he is forbidden

until the first of the first Adar.

And

if it was

a

leap year,

he is forbidden

until the first of the second Adar.

But this presents a difficulty against the wording of the beraita in its latter clause: “And if the year was a leap year”:

By inference from the first clause

[and is it so that the first clause]

does not deal with a leap year?

Yet we are dealing with a year in which there are two Adars!?

Rather,

infer from it:

This —

the latter clause of the beraita —

is obvious

to him that the year is intercalated

[it is obvious to him that the year will be intercalated], and therefore he is forbidden until an unspecified Adar, which is the second Adar, in accordance with the view of Rabbi Meir.

This

the first clause

is where he did not know

that the year would be intercalated, and therefore he is forbidden only until the first Adar.

Mishna:

Rabbi Judah says:

One who said:

“Konam: I shall not taste wine until it is Passover.”

We do not say that he is forbidden until Passover has passed, even though he said “until it is” —

Rather,

he is forbidden only until the night of Passover,

for we assess his intention

that he did not intend

to forbid wine to himself

except until the time when people customarily drink wine.

That is, on the nights of Passover, for the four cups.

And likewise if he

said: “Konam: meat that I shall not taste until it is the fast”

[Yom Kippur] —

We do not say that he is forbidden until the fast has passed.

Rather,

he is forbidden only until

the concluding meal of

the night

of the

fast, for he intended only until the time when people customarily eat meat,

and on the eve of Yom Kippur, at the concluding meal, people customarily eat meat.

Rabbi Yose his son —

of Rabbi Judah —

says:

Even one who said:

“Konam: garlic that I shall taste until

it is Shabbat” —

he is forbidden only until the night of Shabbat.

Because

he intended only until the time when people customarily eat garlic,

and on the night of Shabbat Ezra ordained that they eat garlic.

One who says

to his fellow: “Konam: I shall derive benefit from you”

[konam, what I derive benefit from yours],

“if you do not come and take for your sons

[for your sons]

one kor of wheat and two jars of wine” —

This —

the fellow of the vow-maker —

can release his vow without [the ruling of] a sage, and say to him

the vow-maker:

Did you say it except because of my honor,

that I should be honored through you before people, who would see that I am important in your eyes, since you wish to give me a gift — and if so,

this is my honor,

that I am honored more when they see that you wish to give, while I do not wish to accept.

And likewise one who says to his fellow: “Konam: that you derive benefit from me, if you do not come and give my son one kor of wheat and two jars of wine”:

Rabbi Meir says:

the one prohibited by the vow

is forbidden

to derive benefit from the one who imposed the vow

until he gives.

And the Sages say: this one too —

the one who imposed the vow —

can release his vow without [the ruling of] a sage, and say to him: “It is as though I have been received.”

And if

Reuben was

refusing

him

[pressing]

to marry his sister’s daughter,

to Simeon,

for it is a mitzva to marry her,

and

Simeon said,

Simeon:

“Konam: that she derive benefit from me forever” —

And likewise one who divorces his wife and says: “Konam: my wife — \-

whom I am divorcing now —

shall derive benefit from me forever” —

these women are permitted to derive benefit from him.

Because

he intended only with regard to marriage,

that is, that he should not marry her or take her back.

And likewise if he

was urging his fellow to eat at his house,

and

his

fellow said:

“Konam: I shall enter your house.”

Or he said: “

A drop of cold water that I shall taste from you —

he

is permitted to enter his house and drink cold [water] from it.

Because

he intended only for the sake of eating and drinking.

We shall return to you, chapter “Konam: Wine]]

Introduction

In this chapter the laws of the annulment of vows are explained.

In tractate Chagigah [10a], the Mishna says that the annulment of vows is among the matters that “fly in the air,” and they have nothing upon which to rely, since they are not explicit in Scripture; rather, they are learned from expositions of the verses.

The Gemara brings several expositions, among them the exposition from the verse, “He shall not profane his word”: he does not annul his word, but others annul it for him.

And from here the Sages learned that one who makes a vow and wishes to annul his vow must come before a sage and ask about his vow, so that the sage may annul it for him.

And we find in the words of the early authorities two ways by virtue of which the sage can annul his vow for him:

a. Through

regret,

that the one who made the vow regrets that he made the vow.

b. Through

an opening,

whereby the sage finds for him an element of error in the vow: that if he had known, he would not have made the vow.

And there are those who maintain that the regret itself is an opening of error regarding the vow, for had the one who made the vow known that he would regret his vow, he would not have made it.

And in the Mishna below it will be explained that Rabbi Eliezer and the Sages disagreed whether it is possible for a sage to annul the vow also through an opening based on an unforeseen matter, called “nolad,” as will be explained in the Mishna.