Nedarim 78a (עח.) — the Talmud in English

“This is the matter” —

A Sage may release a vow, but a husband may not release it.

And

it was taught in another beraita:

“This is the matter”—

A husband may annul a vow, but a Sage may not annul it.

For it could be argued

that one might derive this by means of a kal va-chomer:

And if a husband, who cannot release a vow,

nevertheless

may annul it,

then with regard to a Sage, who may release a vow,

is it not all the more so that he should be able to annul it!?

The verse therefore states, “This is the matter”—

A husband may annul a vow, but a Sage may not annul it.

The beraita adds further laws that are derived from “This is the matter.”

It is stated here

in the passage concerning vows,

“This is the matter.”

And it is stated there

“This is the matter,”

with regard to

the prohibition of

slaughtering outside the Temple.

And we derive a gzera shava:

Just as with regard to slaughtering outside the Temple,

this passage was stated concerning

Aaron, his sons, and all Israel—

as slaughtering a sacrifice outside the Temple was prohibited to all of them—

so too, the passage concerning vows

was stated

concerning Aaron, his sons, and all Israel—

as they are all able to release vows.

And just as here,

in the passage concerning vows,

the heads of the tribes

so too there,

with regard to slaughtering outside the Temple,

the heads of the tribes.

The Gemara explains the words of the beraita.

With regard to the passage concerning vows, for what halakhic purpose

does the beraita intend to teach that all Israel are qualified to release vows?

Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said:

The beraita’s intent is

to qualify three laymen

to release vows; Torah scholars are not required.

And we raise an objection:

But it is written, “the heads of the tribes.”

“The heads of the tribes” refers to Torah scholars, so how can it be said that even laymen are qualified for this?

We answer:

Rav Ḥisda, and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan, said:

This law—that specifically the heads of the tribes are required—applies only

when one individual

releases the vow; in that case, he must specifically be

an expert.

But when three people release the vow, even three laymen are effective.

The Gemara explains the conclusion of the beraita:

What we said in the beraita,

“the heads of the tribes,”

applies also

to slaughtering outside the Temple—

for what halakhic purpose?

What law is derived from this?

Rav Sheshet said:

This teaching is intended

to say that

there is also a law of the heads of the tribes in the passage concerning sacrificial offerings. Just as in the passage concerning vows there is the possibility of releasing vows through the heads of the tribes, so too, in the passage concerning sacrificial offerings,

there is

a possibility of

inquiry

and release by a Sage

with regard to consecrated property.

And we raise an objection:

According to

the opinion of

Beit Shammai, who say that there is no

possibility of

inquiry

and release by a Sage

with regard to consecrated property,

the question returns:

“The heads of the tribes,” which is written with regard to slaughtering outside the Temple—for what halakhic purpose?

What law is taught by the fact that the law of the heads of the tribes appears in the passage concerning slaughtering outside the Temple?

We answer:

Beit Shammai

disagree with the words of the beraita, and

do not accept this gzera shava,

which compares the passage concerning vows with the passage concerning slaughtering outside the Temple.

According to Beit Shammai, who do not expound this gzera shava, the verse

“This is the matter” in the passage concerning vows—for what purpose is it written

what do they derive from this verse?

The Gemara explains: This verse was written

to say

that only

a Sage may release

vows using the language of release,

but

a

husband may not release

his wife’s vows using this language.

Likewise, only

a husband may annul

his wife’s vows using the language of annulment,

but

a

Sage may not annul

vows using this language.

According to Beit Shammai, we raise an objection:

The verse

“This is the matter”

with regard to

the passage concerning

slaughtering outside the Temple—for what purpose is it written

what do they derive from this verse?

The Gemara explains: This verse was written

to say

that only

for slaughtering

a sacrificial animal outside the Temple is one

liable, but one is not liable for pinching

a bird offering outside the Temple.

And we raise an objection:

But according to Beit Shammai,

according to Beit Shammai,

from where do they derive the qualification of three laymen

for the annulment of vows

? From where do Beit Shammai learn that when three people release a vow, Torah scholars are not required, and even three laymen are effective?

From where do Beit Shammai learn this law, that when three people release a vow, Torah scholars are not required, and three ordinary people are also effective?

We answer:

They derive it

Beit Shammai derive this law

from the teaching of Rav Asi bar Natan.

The Gemara explains what the words of Rav Asi bar Natan are—

As it is written

Numbers 23:

“And Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord”

“to the children of Israel.”

And it was taught

with regard to this verse:

“The appointed times

of the Lord

were stated”

in the passage concerning the appointed times,

but the primordial Shabbat was not stated

with them

the day of Shabbat is called “the primordial Shabbat,” to distinguish it from the seventh year, which is called “the Shabbat of the Land.”

Ben Azzai says: “The appointed times

of the Lord

were stated”

in the passage concerning the appointed times,

but the passage concerning vows was not stated with them.

Rav Asi bar Natan found this beraita difficult

he found the explanation of the beraita difficult,

so he came to Nehardea to Rav Sheshet, but he did not find him

in his place.

He followed after him

and came after him

to the city of

the city of

Meḥoza.

And he said to him

to Rav Sheshet: Why does the beraita say,

“The appointed times of the Lord were stated, but the primordial Shabbat was not stated with them”?

But

indeed

Shabbat is written with them,

with the appointed times, in the passage of Emor, in which Shabbat and the appointed times are stated!

And furthermore

he added another difficulty:

Why does the beraita say,

“The appointed times of the Lord were stated, but the passage concerning vows was not stated with them”?

But at the end

of the passage,

it is written

the passage concerning vows as well!

Indeed, after the passage of Pinḥas, which discusses the sacrifices of the appointed times, the passage of Mattot, which discusses matters of vows, is stated.

Rav Sheshet said to Rav Asi bar Natan: This is how it is taught—