Nedarim 78a — the Talmud in English

“This is the matter” -

A sage releases, but a husband does not release.

And

it was taught in another [beraita],

“This is the matter” -

A husband annuls, but a sage does not annul.

One might have said

for it would have been possible to say a kal va-chomer]:

And if a husband, who does not release,

nevertheless

annuls.

A sage who releases -

is it not all the more so that he annuls!?

The verse therefore says, “This is the matter” -

A husband annuls, but a sage does not annul.

And the beraita adds to derive additional laws from “This is the matter”.

It was said here

in the passage of vows] “

This is the matter”.

And it was said there “

This is the matter”,

in

the prohibition of

slaughtering outside [the Temple].

And we derive a gzera shava:

Just as with slaughtering outside [the Temple],

this passage was stated concerning

Aaron, his sons, and all Israel -

for slaughtering an offering outside the Temple was prohibited to all of them.

So too, the passage of vows

was stated

concerning Aaron, his sons, and all Israel -

for all of them can release vows.

And just as here

in the passage of vows]

the heads of the tribes -

so too there

in the passage concerning slaughtering outside [the Temple]]]

the heads of the tribes.

And the Gemara explains the words of the beraita.

In the passage of vows, for what halakhic purpose? -

What does the beraita intend to derive from the fact that all Israel are qualified to release vows?

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said:

The beraita intends

to qualify three ordinary people

to release vows, and Torah scholars are not required.

And we raise an objection:

But “the heads of the tribes” is written.

And “the heads of the tribes” means Torah scholars; how can one say that even ordinary people are qualified for this?

And we answer:

Rav Ḥisda said, and some say Rabbi Yoḥanan:

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

to one person

who releases the vow, in which case he must specifically be

an expert.

But when three release the vow, it is effective even with three ordinary people.

And the Gemara explains the end of the beraita:

What we say in the beraita, that

“the heads of the tribes,”

is also

with regard to slaughtering outside [the Temple] -

for what halakhic purpose?

What law is derived from this?

Rav Sheshet said:

This derivation is in order

to say that

even in the passage concerning sacred offerings there is a law of the heads of the tribes. And just as in the passage of vows there is the possibility of releasing vows through the heads of the tribes, so too in the passage concerning sacred offerings there

is

the 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 objection returns:

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

What law is stated by the fact that there is a law of the heads of the tribes in the passage concerning slaughtering outside [the Temple]?

And we answer:

Beit Shammai

disagree with the words of the beraita, and

do not accept this gzera shava

that compares the passage of vows with the passage concerning slaughtering outside [the Temple].

And according to Beit Shammai, who do not expound the gzera shava, then the verse

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

what do they derive from this verse]?

And the Gemara explains: This verse was written

to say

that only

a sage releases

vows with the language of release,

but

the

husband does not release

his wife’s vows with this language.

And likewise, only

a husband annuls

his wife’s vows with the language of annulment,

but

the

sage does not annul

vows with this language.

And according to Beit Shammai we raise an objection:

The verse

“

This is the matter”

in the

passage concerning slaughtering outside [the Temple]—for what purpose is it written

what do they derive from this verse]?

And the Gemara explains: This verse was written

to say

that only

for the slaughtering

of an offering-animal outside [the Temple]

is one liable, but one is not liable for pinching

of a bird-offering outside [the Temple].

And we raise an objection:

But according to Beit Shammai

according to Beit Shammai]

, to qualify three ordinary people

for the annulment of vows,

from where do we know it? -

From where do Beit Shammai learn this law, that when three release the vow, Torah scholars are not required, but it is effective even with three ordinary people?

And we answer:

They derive it

Beit Shammai learn this law]

from [the teaching] of Rav Asi bar Natan.

And the Gemara explains what the words of Rav Asi bar Natan are -

As it is written

Leviticus 23]:

“And Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord” -

“to the children of Israel.”

And it was taught

concerning this verse:

Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: “The appointed times

of the

Lord” were stated

in the passage of the appointed times,

but Shabbat Bereshit was not stated

the day of Shabbat is called “Shabbat Bereshit,” to distinguish it from the seventh year, which is called “the Shabbat of the land”]

with them.

Ben Azzai says: “The appointed times

of the

Lord” were stated

in the passage of the appointed times,

but the passage of vows was not stated with them.

Rav Asi bar Natan found this beraita difficult

its explanation was difficult for him],

He came to Nehardea to Rav Sheshet, but did not find him

and did not find him] in his place.

He came after him

he followed him]

to

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 Shabbat Bereshit 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 were stated!

And furthermore

he added another objection to him]:

Why does the beraita say

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

But at the end

at the edge of the passage]

it is written

also the passage of vows!

For after the passage of Pinḥas, which deals with the offerings of the appointed times, the passage of Matot was stated, which deals with matters of vows.

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