Nedarim 78b — the Talmud in English

The appointed times of the Lord -

require the sanctification of the court.

For the court sanctifies the beginning of the month, and accordingly it is established when the appointed time will occur.

But

the primeval Shabbat -

does not require the sanctification of the court.

Rather, it is fixed and established from the day of the creation of the world.

And likewise,

the appointed times of the Lord require

a court

of experts,

ordained judges who will sanctify the month, and through this it is established when the appointed time will occur.

But the matter of vows does not require an expert

to dissolve the vow, and

even an ordinary court

can dissolve the vow.

And from these expositions Beit Shammai learn that three ordinary people can dissolve vows.

And we object:

Is this [so] concerning the matter of vows -

“the heads of the tribes” is written,

and the heads of the tribes are Torah scholars; so how is it possible to say that even ordinary people are fit for this?

And we answer:

Rav Hisda said, and some say Rabbi Yohanan:

This requirement of “the heads of the tribes” for the dissolution of vows was stated

with regard to an individual

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

an expert.

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

Rabbi Hanina said:

A husband

who remains silent

on the day on which he heard the vow

with the intention of vexing

[his wife] -

may dissolve it even from then until ten days.

For his silence is not considered silence that establishes the vow, since his intention was to dissolve it afterward.

Rava objected,

from the earlier beraita concerning an engaged young woman, whose father and husband dissolve her vows in partnership.

For it was taught:

When did they say that, if the husband dies, the authority

of the fiancé is transferred

to the father,

and the father can alone dissolve the vows that she vowed during the engagement period? Only

when he did not hear

the husband hear the vow before he died,

or when he heard and remained silent, or when he heard and dissolved it, and he died on that same day

on which he heard it.

But

if

the husband heard

the vow

and upheld it, or heard and remained silent

through the day on which he heard it,

and died on the day

after it,

this is considered upholding.

The

father

cannot dissolve

after the husband’s upholding.

And Rava proves from the words of the beraita that the husband’s silence with the intention of vexing is considered upholding, contrary to Rabbi Hanina:

Is it not

that the beraita, which says, “The husband heard and upheld it, or heard and remained silent, and died on the day after it; the father cannot dissolve,” is speaking

of one who remains silent with the intention of vexing?

For if it is speaking of one who remains silent with the intention of upholding, this is “he upheld it,” which was already stated earlier in the beraita.

And if so, it is proven that even silence with the intention of vexing is considered silence that establishes [the vow].

And the Gemara rejects:

No.

The intention of the beraita is

one who remains silent,

and thinks in his heart

with the intention of upholding

the vow.

But the Gemara wonders about the rejection:

If so, this is

what the beraita said at first:

“or he heard and upheld it.”

And according to your words, it is difficult: why did the beraita repeat and state twice the same manner of upholding?

Rather,

the objection to Rabbi Hanina from the beraita must be resolved in another way:

The beraita is speaking

of one who remains silent without qualification,

who did not think in his heart either to uphold or to dissolve.

Therefore, nothing can be proven from this beraita concerning the law of one who remains silent with the intention of vexing.

Rav Hisda objected

from another beraita concerning Rabbi Hanina’s ruling.

For it was taught: There is

a stringency with upholding

greater

than with dissolving.

And there is a stringency with dissolving

greater

than with upholding.

The stringency with upholding

than with dissolving -