Nedarim 77a — the Talmud in English

It was taught there in tractate Shabbat [157a:

in tractate Shabbat [157a]:

The husband and the father may annul

vows

on Shabbat,

when they hear them on Shabbat.

And

everyone

may seek release

from their vows, for they come to a Sage, and he releases their vow for them, even on the day of Shabbat—only

for vows that are needed for Shabbat.

They raised a dilemma before them:

It is explained in the Mishna that one seeks release on Shabbat concerning vows only when the seeking of release is needed for Shabbat.

But it is not explicitly explained in the Mishna whether the words of the Mishna also concern the annulment of vows. Therefore, the question arises:

Is the law that

the father and the husband may annul

vows

on Shabbat,

applicable only to vows that are

needed

for Shabbat.

Or perhaps

they may annul vows on Shabbat

even when not needed

for Shabbat, since the day of hearing will pass at the conclusion of Shabbat, and the vows will then take effect, without there being the ability to annul them on Shabbat?

And the Gemara brings a proof from an explicit beraita:

Come and hear

from this,

as Rav Zuti of the school of Rav Pappi taught:

The father and the husband may not annul

vows

on Shabbat

on Shabbat,

except for what is needed for Shabbat.

Rav Ashi said: We did not learn so

in our Mishna!

For we learned in it:

If she vowed as it was growing dark

[near the onset of darkness at the conclusion of Shabbat],

he annuls it before it grows dark.

And if you say

that also with regard to the annulment of vows, only

when needed for Shabbat is it permitted

to annul, but

when not needed

for Shabbat,

not

do they annul on Shabbat—

if so,

why specifically,

why did the Mishna say, “he annuls it before it grows dark,” because if

it grew dark,

when Shabbat ended, he cannot annul?

For when she vowed close to nightfall—

even during the day,

before it grew dark—he also

cannot

annul it.

For

this is the annulment of a vow that she made at the end of Shabbat, and certainly its annulment is

not needed

for Shabbat!?

And the conclusion of the Gemara is:

It is a dispute between tannaim

[this law depends on a dispute between tannaim]:

As we learned in tractate Shabbat [157a]:

The annulment of vows is for the entire day,

until evening.

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar bar Rabbi Shimon said:

twenty-four hours, which is the period called

“from one time of day to the same time of day.”

And the Gemara explains that the issue of whether they annul on Shabbat when not needed for Shabbat depends on this dispute between the tannaim:

According to the one who says

that the annulment of vows is

for the entire day

until evening,

yes,

they do annul in this way, but

more,

more than this,

no,

once evening arrives, it is no longer possible to annul—

even

vows

not needed for Shabbat

he also

annuls.

Because the Sages were lenient in this law, since if he does not annul them on Shabbat, he will again be unable to annul them at the conclusion of Shabbat.

And

according to the one who says

that it is possible to annul throughout the entire

twenty-four-hour period,

only vows that are

needed for Shabbat are permitted,

and thus he may annul them on Shabbat. But vows

not needed for Shabbat, he may not.

Since he can wait until the conclusion of Shabbat and annul them then, for the period of “twenty-four hours” has not yet passed.

And now the Gemara explains the words of that Mishna in tractate Shabbat:

We learned:

And one may seek release concerning vows that are needed for Shabbat.

They raised a dilemma before them:

Did the Sages permit seeking release on Shabbat concerning vows that are needed for Shabbat specifically

when they did not have time

to seek release on the eve of Shabbat concerning these vows?

Or perhaps

even

when they did have time

on the eve of Shabbat, the Sages permitted seeking release concerning them on Shabbat.

And we resolve it from an incident that occurred—

Come and hear

from this,

that the Sages attended to him

[they attended to discuss the release of his vow],

the son of Rav Zutra, the son of Rav Zeira.

And this incident occurred on Shabbat,

and even concerning vows regarding which they had time

to seek release

during the day

[before Shabbat].

Rav Yosef thought to say,

that what the Sages said,

one may seek release

concerning

vows

that are needed for Shabbat

on Shabbat—

with a single expert, yes—

the Sages permitted releasing the vow only through a single expert.

But to release a vow

through three laymen—

no,

the Sages did not permit it on Shabbat,

because it appears as a judicial proceeding

[this resembles conducting a legal proceeding on Shabbat, and it is forbidden to judge on Shabbat].

Abaye said to him: Since we hold

that the release of vows, even when it is through three laymen, is not a judicial proceeding, for it does not require all the laws of judges; rather, it is possible to release

even

when the judge is

standing

[whereas in an ordinary legal proceeding the judge must sit],

and

they release

even through

judges who are

relatives

[who in an ordinary legal proceeding are disqualified from judging],

and even at night

[whereas in an ordinary legal proceeding they judge only during the day]—

if so,

it does not appear as a judicial proceeding,

the release of vows does not appear as a judicial proceeding, and therefore it is permitted to release vows on Shabbat.

Rabbi Abba said that Rav Huna said that Rav said: The halakha is—

they may annul vows at night!

And we challenge this: What novelty is there in Rav’s statement?

But the Mishna,

our explicit Mishna,

is,

which says:

If she vowed on the nights of Shabbat—

he should annul it on the nights of Shabbat!?

And we answer:

Rather, say,

say that Rav said as follows:

The halakha is that one may seek release

to release vows through a Sage

at night.

The Gemara below follows the version of the Ran

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Huna:

Is it indeed so that

Rav said this,

that this is the halakha?

He said to him

Rav Huna to Rabbi Abba: What is the intention of this question?

Do you accept that Rav said this, and

you said, “I shall give you to drink,”

you intended to give me a cup of wine as a sign of appreciation if I tell you that Rav indeed said this?

Or

you do not accept this law, and you wonder whether Rav indeed said this law, and

you said, “I shall silence you,”

your intention in your question being to silence me.

[According to the version of the Ran, the statement of Rav Ika bar Avin is a statement in its own right and has no connection with the preceding discussion.]

Rav Ika bar Avin said: Rav attended to Rabba

[Rav released Rabba’s vow]—