Nedarim 77a (עז.) — the Talmud in English

We learned there in Tractate Shabbat

[157a]:

The husband and the father may annul

the vows of the woman under their authority

on Shabbat,

when they hear them on Shabbat.

And

everyone

may seek

the dissolution of his vows, by coming to a sage, who releases him from his vow, even on Shabbat—but only

for vows that are necessary for Shabbat.

They raised a dilemma before them:

It is explained in the Mishna that one may seek the dissolution of vows on Shabbat only when the matter is necessary for Shabbat.

But it is not explicitly explained in the Mishna whether this statement of the Mishna also applies to the annulment of vows. Therefore, the question arises:

Is the law that

the father and the husband may annul

the woman’s

vows on Shabbat

applicable only to vows that are

necessary

for Shabbat?

Or perhaps

they may annul vows on Shabbat

even when they are not necessary

for Shabbat, since the day on which they heard the vow will pass at the conclusion of Shabbat, and the vows will then take effect, without there being any possibility of annulling them on Shabbat?

The Gemara brings a proof from an explicit beraita:

Come and hear

from that

which Rav Zutra of the school of Rav Pappi taught:

The father and the husband may not annul

vows

vows

on Shabbat,

except for those necessary for Shabbat.

Rav Ashi said: We did not learn this way

in our Mishna!

For we learned in it:

If she made her vow as darkness fell

[shortly before nightfall at the conclusion of Shabbat],

he may annul it before nightfall.

And if you say

that also with regard to the annulment of vows, only

when it is necessary for Shabbat is it permitted,

but

when it is not necessary

for Shabbat,

it is not

permitted to annul vows on Shabbat—

if so,

why specifically

did the Mishna say, “He may annul it before nightfall”? It would mean that if

nightfall came,

when Shabbat had ended, he could no longer annul it.

But when she made her vow shortly before nightfall—

even during the day,

before nightfall—he

cannot

annul it.

For

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

not necessary for

Shabbat!?

And the Gemara concludes:

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 possible throughout the entire day,

until evening.

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, said:

twenty-four hours, which is the period called

“from time to time.”

The Gemara explains that whether vows may be annulled on Shabbat when this is not necessary for Shabbat depends on this dispute between the tannaim:

According to the one who says

that the annulment of vows is possible

throughout the entire day,

until evening,

yes,

they may be annulled, but

beyond that,

more than this,

no,

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

even

vows

that are not necessary for Shabbat

he

may annul.

This is because the Sages were lenient in this matter: if he does not annul them on Shabbat, he will no longer be able to annul them at the conclusion of Shabbat.

And

according to the one who says

that it is possible to annul a vow throughout the entire

twenty-four-hour period,

only vows that are

necessary for Shabbat may

be annulled on Shabbat. But vows

that are not necessary for Shabbat may not.

This is because he can wait until the conclusion of Shabbat and annul them then, since the period of “from time to time” has not yet elapsed.

The Gemara now explains the statement of that Mishna in Tractate Shabbat:

We learned:

And one may seek the dissolution of vows that are necessary for Shabbat.

They raised a dilemma before them:

Did the Sages permit seeking the dissolution on Shabbat of vows that are necessary for Shabbat only

when they did not have time

to seek their dissolution on the eve of Shabbat?

Or perhaps

even

when they did have time

on the eve of Shabbat, the Sages permitted them to seek their dissolution on Shabbat.

And we resolve the question from an incident that occurred—

Come and hear

from that

the Sages attended to

[to deliberate the dissolution of his vow for]

the son of Rav Zutra, son of Rav Zeira.

This incident took place on Shabbat,

even though the vows were ones concerning which they had time

to seek their dissolution

during the day

[before Shabbat].

Rav Yosef thought to say

that what the Sages said,

one may seek the dissolution

of

vows

that are necessary for Shabbat

on Shabbat—

with a single expert, yes—

the Sages permitted the vow to be released only through a single expert.

But to release a vow

through three laymen—

no,

the Sages did not permit this on Shabbat,

because it appears like a court case

[this resembles adjudicating a case on Shabbat, and it is forbidden to adjudicate on Shabbat].

Abaye said to him: Since we hold

that the dissolution of vows, even when performed by three laymen, is not adjudication—for it does not require all the laws governing judges, and it is possible to release a vow

even

when the judge is

standing

[whereas in an ordinary court case the judge must sit],

and

they may release vows

even through

judges who are

related

[and in an ordinary court case they are disqualified from adjudicating],

and even at night

[whereas in an ordinary court case cases are adjudicated only during the day]—

if so,

it does not appear like a court case,

and therefore it is permitted to release vows on Shabbat.

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

vows may be annulled at night!

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

But our Mishna,

our explicit Mishna,

is

the one that says:

If she made her vow on Friday night—

he may annul it on Friday night!?

And we answer:

Rather, say

that this is what Rav said:

The halakha is that one may seek the dissolution

of vows through a sage

at night.

The Gemara below follows the version of the Ran

Rabbi Abba said to Rav Huna:

Did Rav indeed

say this,

that this is the halakha?

He said to him

Rav Huna to Rabbi Abba: What do you mean by this question?

Do you accept that Rav said this, and

are you saying, “I shall give you to drink,”

meaning, you intend to give me a cup of wine as a token of appreciation if I tell you that Rav indeed said this?

Or

do you not accept this law, and are you surprised that Rav actually said it, and

are you saying, “I shall silence you,”

meaning that your intention in asking the question is to silence me?

[According to the version of the Ran, the statement of Rav Ika bar Avin is an independent statement and is not connected to the preceding discussion.]

Rav Ika bar Avin said: Rav attended to Rabba

[Rav released Rabba from his vow]—