Nedarim 66a — the Talmud in English

To say that they do not tear up her marriage contract

when he has nothing with which to repay it, and even if he has nothing except to sell the hair of his head, rather, the debt remains forever, until he is able to repay it.

And the novelty in this matter is that we learn from Arakhin only the arrangement for a creditor, but we do not learn from there another halakha stated in Arakhin: that they assess the possibility of collecting from the debtor, and collect whatever can be collected, and through this he is completely released from his debt; and even if he subsequently becomes wealthy, he need not repay the Temple the remainder of the debt.

And our Mishna informs us that with a marriage contract, and likewise with other debts, they merely arrange matters for the debtor; but if he becomes wealthy, he is obligated to repay the remainder of the debt.

Mishna:

One who vowed for a certain period of time to fast during it, or not to eat meat during it,

they open

for him an opening of regret for his vow

on Festivals and on Shabbatot.

And they ask the one who vowed: Had you known that it is forbidden to suffer on Shabbatot and on Festivals by abstaining from food, would you have vowed? And if he said, “No,” they release him.

would you have taken the vow? And if he says, “No,” they release him from the vow.

At first they would say:

only

those days,

the Shabbatot and the Festivals,

are permitted,

because only for these days is there an opening for his vow,

and all the other days are forbidden,

for with regard to them the vow was not released.

Until Rabbi Akiva came and taught: A vow that was released

in part

from its entirety—

has been released in its entirety!

How

does the principle operate that a vow whose part was released has been released in its entirety, and likewise a vow whose part did not take effect did not take effect in its entirety?—

1. If

he said

to several people, in a single vow:

“A consecration: I may not derive benefit from all of you!”

For when

the vow was released

with regard to

one of them,

all of them have been released

for him

to derive benefit from all of them.

that is, to derive benefit from them.

2. But if he said in a single vow: “A consecration”

“I may not derive benefit from this one and from that one.”

Only if

the vow was released

with regard to

the first,

all of them have been released

for him

to derive benefit from all of them, since he made the prohibition against deriving benefit from the second dependent on the prohibition against deriving benefit from the first, and so on.

But if

the vow

was released

with regard to

the last,

only with regard to

the last is it permitted

for him to derive benefit from him,

and all of them are forbidden

for him to derive benefit from them.

3. And if he specified his vow with regard to each one of them, and said:

“I may not derive benefit from this one”

as something forbidden to me

as a sacrifice, and

likewise

“from this one” [A0077]his benefit is forbidden to me] as

as something forbidden to me

a sacrifice—

an opening is required for each one individually,

separately, in order to release his vow with regard to each one of them, since a vow worded in this manner consists of several separate vows with regard to each and every one.

4. If he said:

“A consecration: wine that I taste,”

because

wine is bad for the intestines.

They said to him: But

the wine

that has aged is good for the intestines!

He has been released

because of his mistake

with

wine

that has aged,

as is the law of a mistaken vow, which does not take effect and requires no release at all, since he made his vow dependent on wine being bad for the intestines.

And it was not released only with regard to aged wine, but with regard to all wine,

because a vow that does not take effect with regard to part of it does not take effect in its entirety.

And likewise if he said:

“A consecration: an onion that I taste,”

because

onions are bad for the heart.

They said to him: But

the onion

of the kofa variety is good for the heart!

He has been released with regard to

the onion of the

kofa variety.

And he was not released with regard to

the onion of the

kofa variety alone, but with regard to all the onions.

There was an incident

involving a man who vowed against onions, and said in his vow that he was forbidding them to himself because they were bad for the heart.

And Rabbi Meir released him with regard to all the onions.

Since the onion of the kofa variety is good for the heart, with regard to it his vow was a mistaken vow, which does not take effect, since he made his vow dependent on the onion being bad.

And therefore all the onions were also released, because a vow that did not take effect with regard to part of it did not take effect in its entirety.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

“One who said, ‘A consecration: I may not derive benefit from this one and from that one,’ making one dependent on the other: if

his vow was released

with regard to

the last,

only his vow with regard to

the last is permitted, and all of them are forbidden.”

If he said: “I may not derive benefit from this one—as a sacrifice—and from that one—as a sacrifice”—an opening is required for each one individually.

And it is demonstrated from the words of the Mishna, which mentions “sacrifice” with regard to each and every one, that only if he divided his vow and mentioned with regard to each and every one of the people that he was forbidding their benefit to himself as a sacrifice is his vow considered, with regard to each one, a separate vow requiring a separate opening for it.

But if he says that he is forbidding their benefit to himself as a sacrifice, from this person and from that person [whether he says this with the conjunction “from this person and from that person,” or whether he says “from this person, from that person”], since he included them all in one statement of “as a sacrifice,” this is one vow, and if part of it was released, it was released in its entirety.

And the Gemara explains:

Who is the Tanna,

who is the Tanna who holds this view, since we find a dispute among the Tannaim concerning this matter?

Rava said: It is Rabbi Shimon.

For he said

this in tractate Shevuot [38a] concerning one oath directed to several people.

Five people who were demanding money from one person, and he falsely swore to them that he did not owe them money, is obligated to bring a sacrifice for having denied money through an oath.

And the Sages and Rabbi Shimon disputed the case where he said in the wording of the oath: “An oath: I do not owe money neither to you nor to you”—is he obligated to bring two sacrifices or one sacrifice?

According to the Sages, since the wording of his oath was directed toward five people [“to you and to you”], it is as though he swore five separate oaths, one to each individually, and is obligated to bring five sacrifices for them.

But Rabbi Shimon says:

He is obligated to bring only one sacrifice, since he included them all in the wording of a single oath,

until he says

the wording of

an oath

separately

for each and every one.

We learned in the Mishna:

“A consecration: wine that I taste,”

because wine is bad for the intestines. They said to him: But aged wine is good for the intestines.

And the Gemara asks: Why is it necessary to say that aged wine is good for the intestines?

And let it emerge from this,

for is it not sufficient

that it is not

bad

for

the intestines, so that his vow should not take effect with regard to old wine?

Rabbi Abba said:

This is what the Tanna intends to say:

First, aged wine is not bad for the intestines.

And furthermore,

not only is it not bad for the intestines, but

it is good

for them—

This is how

the Tanna states

it in the Mishna.

And likewise we learned in the Mishna:

“A consecration: an onion that I taste, because the onion

is bad for the heart. They said to him: But the kofa variety is good for the heart.”

And here too the Gemara asks:

And let it emerge from this,

for is it not sufficient

that

the onion of the kofa variety is

not bad

for the heart, and why was it necessary to say to him that it is good for the heart?

Rabbi Abba said: “

And furthermore, it is good”;

the Tanna states

it, as with aged wine.

Mishna:

They open for a person

who prohibited his wife to himself until he divorces her,

based on his own honor and the honor of his children—and so

they say to him:

Had you known that tomorrow people would say about you

men:

“Such is the practice

the way

of so-and-so,

that he

divorces his wives!”

And concerning your daughters they will say: Daughters

of women

who are divorced are they!

And then they will add and say:

“What did the mother of these see to be divorced?”

Why did her husband divorce her? It is nothing other than that he found in her an indecent matter!

And it follows that through this vow of yours you give your sons and daughters a bad name, that they are the children of a woman who committed adultery while married!

And

if

the one who vowed said:

“Had I known that this is what

people would say about my sons and daughters,

I would not have vowed”—

this person is permitted,

and we need not be concerned that perhaps he lied because of embarrassment.

And if he said:

“A consecration: I will not marry so-and-so,”

because she is

ugly.

But she is beautiful.

Or he said: “A consecration: I will not marry a certain woman,” because she is

dark-skinned.

But she is fair-skinned.

And likewise if he vowed because she was

short, but she is tall.

In all these cases,

he is permitted to her.

And the Mishna explains that the basis of the permission is

not

because she

was

ugly

at the time of his vow

and became

afterward

beautiful, or that she was

dark-skinned

dark-skinned

at the time of the vow

and became fair-skinned

afterward, or that she was

short

at the time of the vow

and became

afterward

tall.

afterward.

For in such a manner it is impossible to release the vow, even through an opening, since this is “a new circumstance,” because it is not the way of women to change from ugly to beautiful, or from dark-skinned to fair-skinned, or from short to tall.

Rather,

the entire permission is

that the vow was a mistake,

and at the time he vowed she was already beautiful, or fair-skinned, or tall. And since it was a mistaken vow, it requires no release by a Sage at all.

And there was an incident involving one who vowed against deriving benefit from his sister’s daughter,

because she was ugly, and he did not wish to marry her.

And they brought her into Rabbi Ishmael’s house, and they beautified her.

Rabbi Ishmael said to him

to the one who vowed:

“My son,”

did you

from

a beautiful woman

vow

benefit?

He said to him: “No!”

And Rabbi Ishmael released him

to marry her, since it is possible to make an ugly woman beautiful, and this is not “a new circumstance.”

At that moment Rabbi Ishmael wept and said: All the daughters of Israel are beautiful,

all of them,

but poverty makes them unattractive.

And when Rabbi Ishmael died, the daughters of Israel carried a lament and said: Daughters of Israel, weep for Rabbi Ishmael!

And so it says concerning Saul [A0262] [2 Samuel 1]:

[II Samuel 1]:

“Daughters of Israel, weep for Saul.”

Gemara:

And the Gemara asks: Behold, the

incident

with Rabbi Ishmael, who released the case of an ugly woman who became beautiful, came

to contradict

the words of the Mishna, which says that if she became beautiful afterward, this is “a new circumstance” that cannot be used for release; and it is not the way of the Tanna to bring an incident that contradicts his words, but only an opinion that disagrees.

And we answer:

The Mishna’s wording is incomplete,

in the wording of the Mishna,

and this is how it states:

Rabbi Ishmael

disagrees, and

says: “Even if she was ugly and became beautiful, dark-skinned and became fair-skinned, short and became tall,”

it is possible to release her vow, for this is not “a new circumstance.”

And

there was an incident involving one who vowed against his sister’s daughter, and they brought her into Rabbi Ishmael’s house, and they beautified her.

And so forth.