KOL

KINTIYEI

CHAPTER

The Mishnah stated:

- As for..rauirra'ruooaroyou" etc. [R'Akiva
struggled with this case, ruling stringentlyJ.
R'Akiva's opinion is clarified:

ut !b rtN it1tp

l!'1 n'rth - R'

'1t!_( rE$ - Abaye said: nrirbp ltfy? N:ri7y
regarding
agrees
lashes,
nprb
t:rxur
^{kiva
- that [the
vowerl does not incur lashes for violating this vow. I.e. R' Akiva
ruled stringently out of doubt, not because he concluded that "I
am menud,eh to

you" is avalidneder,' therefore, he would not hold

violator liable to lashes.Eq

Abaye proves his point:
II trl.l - For if it was so, that the vower is liable to lashes, rlnrl
lrhnli Ntri?y rlt - let [the Mishnah] state simply: "R' Akiva
rules stringently." Since it states that he struggled toward
a

ONE

NEDARIM

7a3

stringency, we learn that even when ruling stringently he remained in doubt.

The Mishnah implies that the Rabbis disagree with R' Akiva
and rule leniently. The Gemara analyzes their dispute:t2o]
xgp ll rD$ - Rav Pappa said: tlrh Nllr! - Regarding the
ttl am hereby detached,(nadina) from you,"
case where one says,

rluryl rrrbs xb xrpby rbl::'t - all agree that [the vower] is

forbidden to derive benefit from his fellow, for this is clearly a
valid neder.t2t) Ilrh Nlr-rEUp - Regarding the case where one
says, "I am hereby excommunicated from you," xl,rby rlq5!
rltrl - all agree [the vower] is permitted to derive benefit from
his fellow, since this is definitely not ayalidneder.t22) rlrbE

rxn!

Regardingwhat do they disagree?

NOTES

Ran. [Since "I ammenudeh to you" is at best apartial declaration, 21. And if he violates hisnederhe incurs lashes. However, this pertains
and the Gemara implies that if R'Akiva had been certain it is aneder only if the vower added, "in that which I eat of yours." Saying, "I am
he would have imposed lashes, we learn that ordinarily one incurs detachedfromyou," IlltpN;!-til isthesameassaying, "Iamdistanced
lashes even for violating a neder undertaken through ayad (Ran; see 4b from you," [:lD).'liztr]r].r1, and as we Iearned above (4b),this tpe of neder
note 10).1
is effective only if the vower specifies what he means to forbid (Ron' cf.
Tosafos, Rosh, Rashba).
20. By way ofintroduction, let us note that the expression l?'r-S nlup, I
ammenud,ehtoyou,canbeinterpretedintwoways. Ontheonehand, 22.Even if the vower adds, "in that which I eat of yours." "Excommenudeh can be understood as meaning "detached," for it is related to munication" does not connote being restrictedby a neder (Ran), and
a1), niddah, which Targum Onkelos (Leuiticus 15:33) renders as "de- benefit from the property of one who is excommunicated by his fellow
tached" (referring to a menstruant woman's separation from her is not forbiddet (Ran ,n)utl ir"r). [For discussion of whether the
husband; see&ad.ak,Shorashim 'r-rr). [See alsoGenesis 4:12: n1i15'r-1 rr. vower must act towards the other person as though he was excomY1\1, a uagrant and a wanderer shall you be on the earth (?osofos ).J On municated (e.g. must refrain from coming within four omos of him),
the other hard,,menudei can be understood as meaning "excommuni- see Tosolos N)nhuh a't; Rambam, Hil. Nedarim 1:23 and Raauad
cated," for it is related to rrrr), nidui, i.e. excommunication (Ron below). ibid. 1:24.1
19.

rl

7bl

KOL

KINTIYEI

CHA.PTT,R ONE

1l tlx ;rlr:nl - It is specifically regarding the case where one

says, "I ammenudeh to you."t1l NJlir:i x;urrb r;g NpPl, l!'!J

- For R'Akiva holds that lmenudehl is an expression of

"detachment," and he therefore rules stringently and considers
this avalidneder, x!il NlnEUp!'t x:urb rt:p lfll1 - whereas
the Rabbis hold that it is an expression for "I am excommuni.
cated," and they therefore do not consider it a valid neder.t2)
The Gemara cites a variant interpretation of these Tannaic

NEDARIM

and the Rabbisl disagree regarding the case where one says,
am excommunicated from you."trl

"I

xlir

opinions:

,l

NTpn lll xl'tbbl - But the interpretation of Rav Chisda

disputes that of Rav Pappa. .]D$:t Nlll xlili-l:l - For there
was a certain person who said: :'li ilr"l:i i1t9?l? Ntn)eun
Nl!-r It n:E"ll - "I am excommunicated regarding the
possessions of the son of Rav Yirmiyah bar Abba." N{t$
N:Jgn :ll irttpizS - He came before Rav Chisda to inquire

whether he was restricted by his declaration from deriving benefit

from those possessions, ilt? tD!,. - [Rav Chisda] said to him:
Nfri?!, rlri xa? n? ur[i ntb - "Nobody is concerned for the
opinion of R' Akiva,lsl and accordingly, your declaration is not
considered a nedert" rrrbo x;nErzFl rlgi? - We may infer
from Rav Chisda's response that he maintains that [R' Akiva

The Gemara digresses to discuss certain laws regarding excommunication:t5l

t'l'1h$ NtrNl!"1 rni.. - R' I'llasaidinthenameofRav: tirJt

Itlp? - If they excommunicated someone in his presence,
DIF+ Nh.( tb 11166 px - they may not annul the excommunica'

tion for him except in his presence.l6r !r:l! NbV/ ln1: - If they
excommunicated him not in his presence, ll+l IU tb p1r;6
l:5! NbV, pl - they may annul the excommunication for him
both in his presence and not in his presence.t?r
The Gemara mentions an infraction that calls for excommunication:
:.'l 1r6x lrln f I thN - Rav Chanin said in the name of Rav:
t.'lr)D rEB trWn nl}lil yn'iur,l - One who hears a mention of the
Name ofGodinvainfromhisfellow'smouth tnt:r;b T1y - 15
required to excommunicate him.t8r tirJrs sf uX: - And if he
didnotexcommunicate [theoffenderJ, tt:tr:1 Nilr lhvy fiti'r he himself shall be in a state of excommunication.ler

NOTES

And adds, "in that which I eat ofyours" (Ran onTa).

2. I.e. R' Akiva holds that since menud.eh can mean "detached," when
used in the context of a neder we treat it stringently and rule it
effective. The Rabbis, however, hold that in normal conversation people
1.

employ menudeh exclusively in reference to excommunication, and

therefore, this term does not effect, aneder (Ran on 7a; see also Tosafos
and Rosft.).

[In explaining the Sages' position, the Gemara states: $n4rzn=l xlu.r']
[I am menudeh] is an expression for "I am in shamta (excotnmunicated)." Thus, the Gemara equates the category of excommunication
known as .ln\, nidui [n=ilrD], with the one known as x44ui, shamta
[$npUn]. Rambam. (Hil. Talrnud Torah 7:2) maintains that nidui and
sham,ta are in fact s)4ronymous (see Beis Yosef, Yoreh Deah 334:l),
However, .Booua.d, krtedby Rosh, Moed, Katan 3:8, and Tur Yoreh Deah
ibid.) distinguishes somewhat between these terms, explaining that
whereas nidui involves only excommunication, shamta additionally
includes a crrrse on the offender (see also Tosafos on 7a xmnun n"r).
For discussion of Raaua.d's view, see Beis Yosef and, Both ibid. There is
another level of excommunication, known as tr':![, cheirem, which is
xln,

tharnidui or shamta (seeMoed Katan 15a andRosh ibid.),

elucidating the following Gemara, we have not distinguished between tttrr: and NfEqr, but have translated both as "excommunication."l
more severe

In

3. I.e. although R' Akiva would consider your declaration aneder,

therc

is no sage who applies his stringent ruling in practice. Rather, the

halachah clearly follows the Rabbis who overruled him (see Shifaft.

it was imposed in 1:-.

and his presence is necessary for r:.

annulled except in his presence, because since

presence it is more severe

annulment. However, .Roz rejects this view, and explains the Gemar,
as meaning that those who imposed the excommunication should r, :
annul it unless he is present. The reason is that ifthey annul it withc-:
his knowledge and then treat him as an ordinary nonexcommunicat-person (e.g. they enter within four omos of him), he may suspect the:
oflaxity regarding the laws ofnidui. [This might lead him and other: :
take nidui lightly (Rosh; Shach, Yoreh Deah 334:46).1Accordingll'. ,
they inform him of their action, they are permitted to annul the nzr..
without his being present. And if they annulied it without informi:,:
him, their action is valid after the fact (Ran; see also below, 65a, n-::
Ron x,:n ir"-r; cf. Rosh, who maintains that even after the faci ::.
annuiment is invalid).
[Others explain that since those who imposed nidui caused '.:.person an extra degree of embarrassment by doing it in his prese.-:
they should accord him an equal degree of honor by annulling the n ri,
in his presence. According to this explanation, they are certainly ob,. :
annul it without his presence (Tosafos, /iosft.,' see Si.aclr ibid. r--.Chidushei R' Ahiua Eiger).)
7. There is no basis for the concern that he might suspect them of la-,::'
because lupon observing them disregarding his niduil he will rea. :
that just as they imposed the nidui without his presence, so too. :: annulled it without his presence (Ron).

Mekubetzes).

8. This refers to a case where the offense was committed intentiol,

(Rambam, Hil. Sheuuos t2:L0; Yoreh Deah 334:38). The prohibr:,

4. According to Rav Chisda, B' Akiva agrees that m.enudeh mear$

against expressing the Name

"excommunicated," but he maintains that the phrase "I am excommunicated" can be used to express a neder prohibiting benefit - because
people [are required toJ distance themselves from one who is excommunicated lalthough technically benefit from him is permitted]. [Thus "I
am excommunicated from you" implies "I am detached and unable to
benefit from yot"1 (Ran on 7a; see there for discussion of laws
pertaining to the treatment of an excommunicated person; see also
Yoreh Deah 334:2).
lSince the Gemara ruled that the halachah does not follow R'Akiva,
ifone says either, "I artmcnudeh to you in that which I eat ofyours,"
or "I am excommunicated from you in that which I eat ofyours," he has
not effected a z eder (Ran; cf . Rambam, Hil. Nedarim t:23-24; see Yoreh
Deah 206:3 wrth Rarna and, Shach; see also Rashba).1

(Deuteronotny 10:20):

5. A person is liable

lo nidui for certain transgressions.

See Rambam,

for a complete list of

these infractions. It is not necessary that a court imposenidui onthe

Hil. Talmud. Torah

6:14, andYoreh Deah 334:43,

offender; rather, anyone may do so (Rarnbam ibid; Yoreh Deah 334:17).

It is also unnecessary that the offender be present for the imposition of

nidui

(see below).

6. Some explain this as meaning

that the excommunication cannot be

xln

in vain is derived from the r'=:..

;ynbN 'il-n|-(, Hashem, your God, shai,

fear (Ran, citingTemurah 3b).

lRambam (ibid. $9) and Shulchan Aruch (Lbid.. $37) wriie tha: : Gemara's rule applies also to one who hears his fellow swear false.'
utter a blessing in vain, since that person violates the prohib-. (Exodus 20:7): xlgl :ltiltN 'ir-ori-n{ xpr:r Nt, You shall not expre:. ''
Name of Hashem., your God, in uain (as stated in Berorhos 33a :further, Magen Auraham 2!5:6 with marginal gloss of Eishel At'rc'; ,and Mishneh Berurah $19-20. See also Orach Chaim 206:6 -.
Teshuuos R' Ahiua Eiger *25.)
9. This does not mean that the listener is automatically in a s::.:.
decree of the Sages], for since even the original offende: :

nidui [by

not automatically enter this state, the listener certainly doe.

"-

Rather, it means that he is deserving ofnidui (8oz; see also f-.here, to Kiddushin 28a xrtpn n": and to Niddah 13b nupni', - Lechem Mishneh, Hil. Talmud Torah 6:14; see also Maggid IIi.; Hil. Isurei Biah 2l:L8). [Although nidui is imposed for various rethe Gemara singles out this infraction because it is the on11' c.-=
which a bystander who fails to impose the nidui also incurs r: :- below nn'n tx n":; cf. Chidushei R' Aryeh Leib $22).1

7b2

KOL KINIIYEI

The Gemara explains why even the listener deserves excommu-

nication:

I
t

irJlyn EUil n'ftlnP trtPF 5Iv, - For ever5rwhere that the

mention of the Name in vain is prevalent, ittrra nt!':y trt, there poverty is prevalentltLor ilDrn! nlilyl - and poverty is
considered like death, "trrt ltl1-bt Inh'r!,, lD1.1tP - as it is
stated: for all the men who seek your life haae died.ttlr Since
these men were actually still alive, the verse noust mean that
they became impoverished, and it refers to this as '(death."l12l
N:ilrl - And it was taught in a Baraisa: trrhln llUV trlp4 5t
EilTtrlY

WHEREVER THE SAGES SET THEIR NYES

with

Con.

demnation, r:ty lN inrh !N ETTHER DEATH oR povERry

resulted.lBr Thus, we see that poverty is considered the equivalent
of death.llal
A related incident is cited:
NT$ rI'! lE$
I
R'Abba said: Nf:lil
ilrni2 NtnrNi?

f'!i

lll[ N[nr$ Il? nVnU

was standing before Rav Huna iri?EsI

n?p:? np1 n:I!r-l - when he heard a certain woman express a
mention of the Name in vain. ilp!-{? U?}-(? il? Nlgr! rllrpri He excommunicated her and then immediately annulled the

for her in her presence. nh irltn ypq this: illtn ypq - Firstly, learn from it
tn,i:r;b 11y ttut:! tFn trrD'il nl?li_t lt?turi_l - one who hears

excommunication

Learn three laws from

that

NEDARIM

CHAPTER ONT

a mention of the Name in vain from his fellow's mouth is

required to excommunicate him; ;15t6 yBtr! - and secondly.
learn from it that nlgl Nh( tb prrnn IrN 1u!! lillrrl - if they
excommunicated someone in his presence, they may not lift
the excommunication for him except in his presencelttsl ypul
iqn - and thirdly, learn from it that t*b1 nlp1b r!ir) Ir! IrN

trtbp

- there is no required interval at all

between

an

excommunication and its revocation.rlol

The Gemara mentions another law regarding excommunication:

r: -tE$ btr.l :: iD$ - Rav Gidel said in the name of Rav:
r,ityyb isrnt 'inyyl ilTIh np,: 'rrn5n - A Torah scholar may
excommunicate himself and then revoke the excommunicatior-

for himself.ll?l
The Gemara asks:
- This is obvious!1181 - ? The Gemara explains the novelty:

ill?turP

Nhrn? titD

You might have said

that

lhyy

'1,'IrB E tfn !r.\

Ir-'ttDt(il nrln - "A prisoner cannot release himself from

jail!"usr I? yDqE Ni? - [Rav Gidel] iherefore informs u-.

that the Torah scholar can in fact revoke his own excommunica-

tion.

NOTES

from God's declaration in Scripture (Exodus 20:21):

lYhereuer I permit My Name to be mentioned, I will com.e to you and
bless you. Since a mention of the Name in a proper setting ushersin
God's blessing, which promises wealth, it follows that a mention of the
Name in vain brings the curse of poverty in its wake. Alternatively, it
may be derived from the Scriptural statement (Zechariah 5:4) that a
false oath destroys [one's home] with its wood and s-tone,s, for
mentioning the Name in vain is equated with swearing,l*",Y.1:::
Temurah Sbl. At any rate, since the mere mention of the Name in vain
brings a curse to this prace, a risrener
susceptible to punishment no less than the initial
10. This is derived

*h"..;;;;;;;;;

also Tosafos and Rosh; cf . Meromei

i

LL.

Sad*h).

"#;rd"r'd;;;

Exodus 4:19. God said this to Moses, who had fled Egypt because of

athreattohislife,informinghimthatthetimewasappropriateforhim
to return there.
12. The Gemara below, 64b, identifies the men who had initiated the

threat to Moses' life by slandering him to Pharaoh as Dasan and

Aviram. This is derived from the fact that Scripture (ibid. 2:13)
describes the men as trrv:, fE hting, and, this expression always refers to
these two evildoers. Now, Dasan and Aviram were alive even after the
I
I

!'t

Exodus from Erypt, since they are mentioned as participants in

Korach's revolt (Numbers 16:1). Perforce, when God told Moses before
the Exodus that they had died, He meant this figuratively. We must
conclude that they had become paupers, thus entering a state that is
tantamount to "death."
One might ask: The Gemara (ibid.) states that there are four people
who are figuratively considered as though they have died - a pauper, a
blind person, arnetzora and one who has no offspring. How do we know
that Dasan and Aviram were afflicted with poverty and not one of the
other conditions that are analogous to death? The answer is that they
could not have been blind, because during Korach's uprising they
declared to Moses, "Even ifyou would gouge out [our] eyes, we shall not
go up [after you]" (see Numbers 16:14), implying that their eyes were
healthy. They could not have been metzorairn, because Scripture states
that in the aftermath of Korach's rebellion they died in the midst of all
of Israel (Deuteronoml 11:6), and a metzora is banished from the camp.
And God could not have meant that they had no children, because this
would not have eliminated the threat to Moses' life, since their lack of
children would not have diminished their influence in Pharaoh's court.
The only possible explanation of God's words is that they were reduced
to poverty and no longer in a position to instigate Pharaoh against
Moses. Thus, we see that poverty is considered like death (r\an,' see
Tosafos; see also Maharatz Chayes, Mitzpeh Eisan and, Shalmei

14.

Ran; cf. Mefaresh.

15. It is unclear how the fact that Rav Huna happened to lift t:.
woman,s excommunication in her presence proves-tiat he could r_:
have lifted it without her being present! Merimei Sodeh explains tt.:
R, Abba meant that Rav Huna detained the woman until he annuL-:
her excommunication, thus indicating that her presence was need.:
SeeparashasNedarim foranalternaiiveexplanation.
the nidui may be lifted the moment the offender repe:.:.
^"
;;' Rather,
rajsethedirricultvtr':
',1::u^:::!:!:^!:!:y!I:rah^1:t3)'rosafos
t-tt,'t to contradict the Gemara in Moed Katan (16a)' which stai"
ll:
that a nidui imposed because of intransigence in a monetary disp.^:=
16.

may be lifted as soon as the offender makes amends, but a nlcimposed because of insolence must remain in force for at least thr..
days. Seemingly, one who mentions the Name in vain is in the lar:=:
categoryl? Tosafos (as cited by Ran) explain that in our case the nicis not imposed as a rebuke for the past insolence, but rather, a. --,
intimidation, to deter the offender from repeating the offense in ::=
future. Since it is imposed only for this purpose, it may be Li::-:
immediately. However, Rif (Moed Katan lbid..) and Rambam ,E'
Talmud Torah ibid,.) understand our Gemara as disagreeing with ::,.
view stated in Moed Katan, and they rule in accordance with ,-.-Gemara that even a nidui imposed because of insolence may be 1i::.immediately (^Eoz).
lElsewhere (Hil. Sheuuos l2:9), Rambam writes that in our spec'icase the excommunication must be lifted immediately, because the .--,
of mentioning the Name in vain is too prevalent for us to allow er-=:

offender to remain in a state of nidui indefrnitely! Thus,.Eamc:*

seems to understand our Gemara as referring specifically to this r-..
and not every nidui (l,echem Mishneh ad loc.). For a reconciliatiorRambam's two rulings, see Meromei Sadeh. See further, Keren Or:'
and. Chidushei R' Aryeh Leib $22).1
17. Ran cites Rashba, who explains that this pertains only to a ci.where the scholar was not really deserving of nidui, but excommu:-.
cated himself because of the honor of his fellow scholar - as in ::=
incident that will be cited shortly. If he was truly deserving of nidui . :-.
may not revoke it himself. However, -Borzbarn (Hil. Talmud Torah | '-'rules that a scholar who placed himself in nidui may revoke it him:=in all cases (cf. Raauad ad loc.). [Regarding the method of revocatii:.
see Roslr 'l!!hl ir"-r and Beur HaGra, Yoreh Deah 228:15.1
18. Since every person is authorized to lift a nidui that he him.=:

!l

imposed on another (Ran to 8a nrnnu 1xn

able to lift the one he imposed on himsell?

n,,:), why should he

nor -

Nedarim).

19. Thus, the revocation of nidui would be similar to the annulmen: . .

a neder, which cannot be done by the subject himself even when he -. .

13. See.Rosh, who cites several such instances.

Torah scholar who is qualified to annul vows made by others (Eo..i

KOt

7b3

KINIIYI,I

CHAPTER.

ONE

NEDARIM

The Gemara proceeds to clarify the circumstances to which Rav

Gidel refers:

academy.r2u ill5q? 5r:V tlJ Then when [Mar Zutra] Ieft the
academy and entered his home, ilrb r1q r.!I! ;rrurs:b r:V
h"

rht r:ril - What is the

would annul the excommunication for himself, and then annul

it for [the student].tzzl

case in which a Torah scholar might

excommunicate himsell?t2o1 N-rrDn NJUU 'rB:l N[ t! - It is a case

such as that of Mar Zutra Chasida, who adopted the following
practice: Nr,rnu ll r! i! frlEh r! - When a student of the
academy incurred excommunication, xutllr i:tllr!: nlnq? -

[MarZutra]wouldexcommunicatehimselffirst, nEUn rU!

and then excommunicate the student of the

f'l r! iI -

Having mentioned a ruling of Rav Gidel in the name of Rav, the

Gemara cites another of his teachings:

:'!

1B|,.

Rav:

l:r.l :'1 .rp!,(l - And Bav Gidel

said in the name of

ri

NOTES

20. The elucidation follows Mefaresfr. According to Rashba cited in

note 17, the intent is: "What is the case in which a scholar is authorized
to revoke his own excommunication?" See fton for further discussion of
Rashba's

iew.

ofa Torah student tarnishes the honor

of Torah, Mar Zutra was loath to carry it out, despite its deserved21. Since the excommunication

ness. As a demonstration of his reluctance, he would accept excommu-

nication upon himself before proceeding to impose it on the student.

Alternatively, Mar Zutra did this to ensure that he would not forget
to lift the student's excommunication - for he would certainly

li

remember to

lift his own and this would remind him to lift the student's

well (Tosolos, Rosh).

22. He would annul his own excommunication before entering L
home, so that his family should be allowed to interact with him (Bar
as

Only when absolved of his own excommunication would he annul tha:

ofthe student, so that "one who is [already] pure should atone for or-=
who is hecomingJ pure" (Tosafos, Rosh).
[Eoz infers from here that when one is in nidui even the mer.
bers of his immediate family are required to distance themselr'..
from him. See there for discussion of whether this includes h wife. Cf. Nimukei Yosef; Rosh, Moed Katan 3:8; see Yoreh Dec;.
334:2.1

KOL

KINIIYEI

CHAPTI,R.

ONE

8ar

NEDARIM

may swear to fulfill a mitzvah?tIr ilEliztll ritylqf,, iD$iq

"l?]Y ri?glPli rhurb - For it is state dz I swore, and I will fulfill,

rrl i7'lP ilfqxl trrurr!_r lratN,l - One who says, "I will arise early
and study this chapter," 'iI NIrlgB ilfqt-< - or "I will study
this tractate," bxliur r;ibxb rlt b'i1l 't.tl - has vowed a great
vow to the God of Israel.l6l

''r,:,r lnty't ylllrth Ntill - But [the swearer] stands

under oath from the time of the Reveiation at Mount Sinai to
fulfill all the mitzvos,rsl and this precludes his personal oath from
takingeffect.r4l ?

xtirrr-lty'! yTrZrr: xbir: - But [the vower] stands under oath

from the time of the Revelation at Mount Sinai to study Torah,
ilYl:u by ilh ilYllti IrN! - and an oath cannot take effect
upon another oathlt?r I? yEqD xi? rN,? - What could [Rav
Gidell possibly mean to inform us here? NEbV? trtil ttr!$! -

illYEi-r n!-( trrii?b ltvllultP

IIIF

From where is it derived that we

to heep Your righteous ordinances,t2l

Understanding this as meaning that the oath is fully effective,
the Gemara objects:

xtil rlrp

- -

The Gemara therefore revises its understanding of Rav Gidel's

teaching:
I? yEqB Np !r,l N?N - Rather, this is what [Rav Gidel] informs
us: ilrtD'5l tlt-Ul urrlxb nrb rlt?J - That it is permitted for a
person to stimulate himself to fulfill a mitzvah by making an
oath to do so.lil

rl

Another teaching of Rav Gidel in the name of Rav:

''rB$ b'lrl :'! tp$j - And Rav Gidel said in the name of Rav:

The Gemara asks:

Does he mean that an oath may be employed even merely for the
purpose of stimulating oneself to perform a mitzvah?t8l lrrlil
Nltt'lEiz b:rl :'ltt - But that is the very lesson contained in the
first teaching of Rav Gidel! Why would he have repeated it in this
manner?
Rav Gidel's teaching is explained:
I? yEqB Ni? Nit - This is what [Rav Gidel] informs us with his

lyl r$J lttl - Since if [the personl wanted he could exempt himself from the Sinaitic oath
latter teaching: ilrt{rpl tpp

NOTES
Understood simply, Rav Gidel would seem to mean that if a person citestheverse - inwhichKingDavidattestsproudlytohisownpractice
swears to fulfiIl a mitzvah (e.g. he swears to put on tefillin), he is bound of swearing to fulfill mitzvos - as evidence lhat it is proper to swear in
by his oath, in addition to being obligated by the Torah to fulfrll the this manner. Thus, even scmpulous people who normally avoid making
mitzvah. Thus, ifhe does not do as he swore, he is liable to a variable oaths (see Mishnah 9a) are encouraged to utilize oaths as a means of
chatas offering (rrt'1 nltv llli?; see Leuiticus 5:4-6) for his false oath. spurring themselves to the fulfrllment of mitzvos (Ran; see Einayim
[Without the oath, there would be no such liability for failing to perform LaMishpat).
the mitzvahl (Ran; cf. Ritua).
Others expiain that an oath to fulfrll a mitzvah does not take effect
2. psalms 119:106. Rav Gidel apparently derives from the verse that an even in regard to the prohibition against desecrating one's word. The
oath can take effect regarding u .orn*urra.a act just as it can take effect Gemara means that it is merely a means of stimulating oneself to fulfill
a mitzvah, but has no further legal signifrcance. When Rav Gidel teaches
regarding a voluntarJiac t (Ran).
1.

t1"1:1"
- :l:i
Name oI uoo rn varn'
who T:]t^l",1fit:1j:^:*t^':t':,P::1".'I
does so ls not regarded as expresslng tne *^:t^"ln:

nation
incruding generations yer unborn
enteredacovenantandtookanoathatMountSinaitoobserveallofthe
B. The entire Jewish

Torah's precepts (see Deuteronomy 28:69, sheuuos

and. Bamidbar Rabbah

g:b4).

is", sr#'slr-l1

4. [The Mishnah in Sheuuos (27a) teaches that if one swears to fulfill

mitzvah and does not fulfill it, he is exempt fromthechatas offeringthat

the swearer is to be commended for invoking God's Name over

of a mitzvah. for although the oath is legally ineffective,
the person will be stimulated to perform the mitzvah out ofreverence for
the Name (Ram.ban, in his commentary to Numbers B0:B [cited by
Gilyon Hashasl andin Milchamos Hashim to Sheuuos, end of Ch. B as explained by Aftheiyamvol.I $86 and Kehillosyaahou $g; see also

}"iT''
the performance

is normally incurred by one who swears falsely.l The Gemara there

explains - and proves - that when Scripture imposes a chatas on one Tosafos, Rosh'aniMeiri; Rambam, Hil. Sheuuos b:11,16, 11:B; Teshuuos
whoswearsfalselyio dobadortodogood(Leuiticus 5:4),itreferstoa Aunei Miluint $12). [For further analysis of both approaches, see
uoluntary "bad" or "good," not an act that is either forbidden or com- Chid,ushei R, Akiua Eiger. For an alternative explanation of Rarnban,s
manded by the Torah (see there for elaboration). Thus, an oath does

not

takeeffectregardinganythingforwhichaperson..standsunderoath
from Mount sinai." How, then, can Rav Gidel ."r. ti"Iiiir
.irlti".i
"th"'ffi
Now, one might respond that Rav Gider conceJe,
;;
. -:;--^-;;--*';^':
pertlnenr ro a
rnelrecllve ln regaro Io cnatas naDillty, Decause lI, ]s nor.
-t"#;;;;-ir.tu
voluntary,tad or good,,,but he maintains ihut
essentia[y valid - for scripture stated the q""]ifi.;li;;;',,ilai;;
good" only in regard to chatas liability. Thus, Rav CrJli-"*rJr*."

;:-::--;::- -';;:
[olnIo[nustnallneoa[nlseIIec[IvelnregarqIorenoenng[ne
person subject to the prohibition (Numbers 30,;;,-;;--;i;ii
.,;,.

.'-""t
word - ano De lraDle to lasnes ror a vlorauon:'';'.-;'.'
I ne kemara
in sheuuos (2Ea) actually makes this distinction t" ;;;;-;;;;;;
"
other categories of oaihs. However, this cannot #;. ;;.; R;;
Gidel's intent, If it was, he should have said, "Although an oath
regarding a mitzvah was excluded from engendering liability to achatas,
it was not excluded from the prohibition he shall not deseuate his
word." Why does he need to cite the verse I swore, and I will
aesecrate nB

fulfill,

to heep Your righteous ord.inances? Y{lnen the Gemara in

Sheuuos

(ibid.) disiinguishes between the offering and the prohibition, it does

not resort to a special Scriptural source, but bases its distinction on
the fact that the exclusion is written in the passage dealing with the
offering. Rather, it seems clear that Rav Gidel means to inform us
that an oath regarding a mitzvah is fully effective - and he cites the
verse I swore etc. as evidence. But this contradicts the fictum that an
oath regarding a mitzvah is ineffective (Eon; see Tosafos and. Keren
Orah).
5. [I.e. Rav Gidel certainly concedes that the oath does not take effect
insofar as engendering liability to a chatas. Furthermore,l he concedes
that the verse is not needed to teach that the oath is effective insofar as
imposing the prohibition against desecrating one's word. Rather, he

view, see Ketzos HaChoshen 7B:b.l

Although Rav Gidel uses the term r1;' neder' he must actually mean
person made an oath. As we learned previously (2b note 5),
lhe to perform a certain act is never effective, since nedarim
lhat
a neder
6,'

take3ffectonlvontangibleobjects; onlythroughanoath canoneobligate himself to perform an action. Perforce, Rav Gidel refers to a case
where the person said explicitly' "I swear that I will arise earlv and
study this chapter." and Rav Gidel calls this declaration "a great r11, i.e.

yolt 'We often frnd the term rrt used even in reference to an oath' as
in the Mishnah below,9a l,Ron,'see also ?osafos; cf. Rosh, Ritua,

y7*"7'i

Yosefi

see

Beur HaGra' Yoreh Deah 206:18 and 213:7' and end

ofnotell)'
T.SinceBavGidelsaidthatthepersonmadeagreatvow,heimpliesthat
- even in the regard that the swearer is liable
loachatasifheviolatesit! ButeveryJewisalreadyunderaSinaiticoath

the oath is fully effective

tostudyTorahconstantly,totheextentofhiscapabilitylasScripture
states (Josfruo 1:8): n!;11 n4:,

tl

;t'11t, yoa sftoll contemplate it by day and

bynightl.Furthermore,Scripturestates(Deuteronomy 6:7):o!)lql,And
you shall teach them thoroughly, and the Gemara (Kiddushin end' of
30a) expounds this as requiring that one be thoroughly knowledgeable
intheentireTorah[see8osfrithere1,511,1',',nntn'n"randDibrosMoshe
11:431. Thus, it would seem that the personal oath cannot take effect
(Ran; see also Rosh and Mefaresh; Yoreh Deah 245:6, 246:4; Birkas
Shmuel, Kiddushin2T:2).

will explain that Rav Gidel actually holds the oath

in regard Lo chatas liability, and when he ca]ls it a
"great" vow he means that this is a praiseworthy vow - because it is
commendable to stimulate oneself in this manner (Ran; cf. Tosafos,
8. I.e. perhaps you

does not take effect

Rosh).

KOt

KININEI

CHITPTER

ntl'U1! nr1[tg yDU n!'ri?! - by merely reciting the Shema

morning and evening, illby ilV1lli Srrn rtir trtu,A - therefore,
the personal oath takes effect upon him.lel

llltl

8a2

NEDARIM

The Gemara returns to the subject of excommunication:

tlDtr r: rES - Rav Yosef said: nibnl tnt:rrl - If they

excommunicated someone in his dream,tl3l ru ir'llr!, Irry

tl
Yet another teaching by the same Amora:
:'I iBN brtl :'t ttol1pg111 And Rav Gidel said in the name of
Bav irt irID iilrrf1 trrlurl tirr6? rn'iNit If one says to his fel.
low, "Let us arise early and study this chapter," trrlurnb t+V
it is incumbent upon him to arise early i.e. earlier than his
fellow.tril rE15lV For it is stated: trri, (DTN It) rlf{ rnNU,,
. . . IDix
trPl ilYi?ft_t-5f. xy and He said to nte, "Arise,
go out to the valley, and there I will speah with you , ,
Ny$l
,,'rny ,ir'rl!l EV'ilIir! rlyi?It_1'bf{ and I went out to the aalley,
and behold there the Glory of Haslwm wat stand,ingltn)

ONE

rrnl_? tr1x

he needs ten people to annul the excommunica-

tion for him.t14l xD;lA IUil Ntirl - And this refers to ten
people who study Talmudic law, tID Nbl tt5p l?{ - but
people who merely recite Mishnah but do not study Talmudic
Iaw, and certainly people who do not even recite

Mishnah, Nb -

fit to annul the excommunication.tlsl l:r.rl xlrb rxt

N!??il - And if there are not ten people available who study
are not

Talmudic law, l:4 xbt ttlrp tbt5X - then even ten who recite
Mishnah and do not study Talmudic law may lift the excommunication. xlrb rxt - And if there are not even ten people who
recite Mishnah available, trr)l:t nplp!_. :ngr brrb - let him

9. This does not mean that one can fulfrll his obligation of Torah ,rril,Ot'r?ra or an oathl? The explanation is that (according to Ran)a pledge
by merely reciting the Shema twice daily. As stated above, one must togivecharityortoperformamitzvahis,strictlyspeaking,nolaned,er,
study Torah day and night, to the full extent of his capability, and since there is no object on which it takes effect. Nevertheless, we derive
become thoroughly versed in every area of Torah law. Obviously, from:1r!J, withyourmoufD,thatwhenapersonacceptsuponhimseifto
consummate knowledge is unattainable through the mere recitation of donate a certain sum to charity (or to perform another mitzvah in a
lhe Sh.ernat Rather, the Gemara means that although one does not fulfrll certain manner), his utterance is binding. For with your mouth teaches
the obligation as expounded unless he studies Torah constantly and that, in regard to mitzvos, whatever commitment emerges from a perthoroughly, he can fulfill the explicit commandment of Torah study by son's mouth must be fulfilled! (rion, as understood by ?esft uuos Chasam
reciting the Shema morning and evening. For in setting down the Sofer,YorehDeah222:2;seealsoRambaninSeferHaMitzuosAsei$94;
parameters of the commandment, the explicit words that the Torah Teshuuos Maharit vol. II Yoreh Deah 928; and Yad Shaul 203.8).
statesare(ibid.):1Bl;z:ll??V;t.,.tr?D't!''tl,you shallspeakofthern... Accordingly, above, where Rav Gidel called the declaration "a great
whenyou retire and. whenyou orise. [Thus, the Torah states explicitly 't11," Ran explained that the person actually uttered an oath
- for a
the minimum requirement of Torah study, which is applicable even to commitment to perforrn the mitzvah a certain way cannot be called a
one who must be constantly occupied with eking out a living: At a t-11, whereas an oath can be called a'rl). Here, however, where Rav Gidel
minimum one must recite the Shema morning and evening. However, merely says, o'rr41! r'!y, it is incumbent upon him to arise early, Ran
the exposition conveys the full requirement, which is applicable to one explains that this obligation takes effect even without an expiicit vow,
who is able to find the time: Optimally, one must occupy himself with but through the mere utterance to do the mitzvah this way (Chidushei
Torah day and night, and learn it thoroughly in its entirety (see Ritua, R' Reuuen $7 xnunt n-'t; however, see there for a variant understanding
artd, see Menotlros, end of 99b; see also 8orz6 arn, Hil. Talmud Torah l:8
of the derivation from the verse with your mouth; cf . Meromei Sodeh) .
and 3:6, with l*chem Mishneh to 1:8, and Keren Orah),)
For alternative views regarding the efficacy of an utterance to give
The principle that an oath cannot tahe ffict upon a Sinaitic oath charity or perform a mitzvah, see Rosfr here )t'rr rr: n,"r and to l-0a n,,'r
means only that an oath does not take effect on something that is com- lilrnf -r-u; Ritua herc and to beginning of 2a; Nimuhei Yosef; Rambam,
manded explicitly in the Torah. It can, however, take effect on some- Matnos Aniyim 8:l; Ramban to Numbers 30:3; Baal Ho,IVIaor and,
thing that is required by the Torah but not commanded explicitly. Since Milchamos Hashem to Baua Kamma 36b. See aJso Yoreh Deah 258:L,6;
the requirement of Torah study beyond the twice-daily Shenzo recital is Beur HaGra, Yoreh Deah 206:18, 213:7 .l
not explicit in the Torah (seeMefaresh), an oath to arise early and study L2. Ezekiel Z:22-28. God,s Sfr.ec hinah anived,before the prophet, because
lor to study a certain subjectl is fully effective - eve-1 i1 r9e1{ t9 re- He had suggested the meeting (Ran, Tosafos, Eosh,. see Eashi:, Exodus

quiringanofferingforitsviolation(Ran; seefurther, ChidusheiHaRan,

Sheuuos 23b; see Shaagas Aryeh $l arfi. Kuntres Acharon lhere).

lothers explain the Gemara as meaning that the JirJt*

a*.

""it day).
not require the person to sturly any particular chapter (on that
Since he could study any chaiter--- frguratively speakirrg, he could
"recite the Sherna" - his vow to devote himselfb-a rp".ili. chapter
that day is bin ding (Ritua, Nimukei Yosef; see also ?osofos; see further,
YadShaut2\S:g,ParashasNed,arim).seeMeiriandshitahMehubetzes
for yet another

explanation.l

10 Emendation rorowsMeso

ras

Hashas

1g:16).

13 [Le' a person dreamed that he was being placed in nidui')

14. This is because it is possible that he was placed'innidui by agency of
the Omnipresett (Ran) and the dream was a message about what
transpired Above, since dreams occasionally contain quasi-prophetic
visions (?osalo s; see Berachos 57b). The reason ten people are required
for the dissolution is that when ten worthy people are assembled the
Shechinah joins them (Ran), and' so the quorum for dissolution is

*ffi?i"';:;JffJ*:ilil":1fl,'fiij:f*HtrftJf,lfti.u,.,d-u,,

11. By saying "Let us arise early," the person committed himself to be the person must actually observe the laws of nidui, e.g. tell people not
the one who will initiate their study in the morning, just as he was the to come within four amos of him. This is because from a halachic
standpoint dreams are generally considered inconsequential (see
onewhoinitiatedtheideanow(fton).
RavGidelactuallyinformsusoftwopoints.First,althoughtheperson Sanhedrin 30a). Thus, whereas the person must seek annulment to
did not state a neder or oath, since he undertook to perfoim a mitzvah protect himself, because of the possibility that his dream means he is in
he is automatically bound to fulfill it. The declaration that he witl danger ofDivine punishment (see ?osolos), perhaps he is not required
perform a mitzvah is analogous to a declaration to give charity. And halachically to observe ni.d.ui (Aruch HaShulchan, Yoreh Deah 334:28;
rin.u u charitable pledge is binding - as derived-from thJ verse seefurther,NidreiZerizin).However,Shoth(YorehDeah334:54)infers
(Deuteronomy 23:24) 1,i5, with youi mouth (see 7a notes 6-7)
- it fromotherRishonimthatthepersonmust infactobservenidui.l
follows that a pledge to perform any mitzvah is similarly binding. ls.Fortheyarenotworthyofhavingthe Shechinahrestintheirmidst
Second, Rav Gidel informs us that when one initiates the idea of (see ?osofos and,AruchHashulchan ibid. $29).
performing a mitzvah mutually with his fellow, he is obligated to initiate Ran cites another version of the text, which reads: xr;r??i:r uIBI xrnl
its performance when the appointed time arrives, as we learn from the And, this refers to ten people rufro tea.ch [Talmudic] law, wlD x5l l:g tl5
following verse (Ran; cf. Rambam, Hil. Ned.arim 1:29, as explained by x'5 - but ten people whn mercly study but do not teach arc not frt, for
Ritz in Shitah Mehubetzes; see ?os. Yeshanim).
they are not sufficiently worthy. [According to this version, r:4 and t:np
[Raz wou]d seem to be contradicting himself. In regard to Rav Gidel's both pertain to Talmud, i.e. Gemara, but r:p refers to studying whereas
previous niing, Ran wrote (see note 6) that since a neder to perform a tl,frp refers to teaching. According to our version, however, t:n refers to
certain act is not binding the person must have made an oath - yet here, study of the Talmud, i.e. Gemara, whereas r:np refers to recitation of thgRon writes that the person is bound without having uttered either a Mishnah.l

\_

KOt
go and sit at a

KINTIYEI

crossroads illtpq f]? NE?ur:tirrl

CHAPTER

and give a

greeting of"Peace" to ten passersby, so that they will respond to

him with "Peace unto you." This will protect him from harm ly
NIrI?ir tl)elT n"lVV nrb ry?iZrr:T - until ten people niho study
Talmudic law arrive and lift his excommunication.ll6l

ONT

NEDARIM

excommunicate [the dreamer], they made [this person] an

agent, nttq, ilurtt4 xb nr? tlqtn? - but to lift the excommunication for him, they did not make him an agent.rq
Another related inquiry:
l:? N[!_r l.! ilrh rDS - Rav Acha said to Rav

tt iS

A related inquiry is cited:

lI? Nnll ir'rb rpl5 - Ravina said to Rav Ashi: INh yl:
- If he knows who excommunicated him in the dream,
irrb r:uirbl rilE - what is lthe law] with regard to [that
rpf(

ilrI,,?tu

person'sl lifting the excommunication for himrna

Bav Ashi rgsponds:

ilr?

.tpt *-He

said to

[Ravina]: nrlu' i:tt''!rg ilrnthgb -

To

8a3

Ashi:

irllrpU

iltph+

nr5 l"rgJ - If they excornmunicated [a person] and

annulled the excommunication for him in his dream, rNE what is the law? Can he in fact consider it annulled?
Rav Ashi responds:

irrf rpt - He said to [Rav Achal: I?F !(tl r;? rV?$ t$q u1p?
- Just as it is impossible to have grain without chaff mixed
within it,

NOTES
distance from a town to a crossroads * in search of ten scholars (see
with "Peace," Lhe nidui is autcmatically litted (.Rosh, Rash.ba; see Kesef Ldishneltadloc.:cf.Bach,Yore-hDeah334;35; seeShulch.anAruch
Nidlei Zerizin for elaboration). At any rate, the Gernara impiies that r,vith Iiamo there).
under no circumstances should the person rely upon ten uniearned iT"Thatis,ifthepersondreamedthathewasplacedinn,idulbyacertain
peopie for dissr:lution of bis n"idtt,i (8os,l ).
living man, is that man empowered to annul the nid,ui by himself,
Ramham (HiL. Talntud Torah.7:12t, apparently following a variant without a qu,rrum of ten? (R' Aurah.am Min l{aHar). Ordinariiy,
versicn cfihe text, ruies that in the absence often people rvho can recite whoever imposes nidui has the power to lift it (see Moed Katan l7a).
h{ishrrah, ten who are able lo read Scripture ouf{ice; in their absence, ten Does this apply when the nidui was irnpcsed in a dream? (i?on )"
i.gnorant, people suffice: in their absence, three suffice. Further"more. 18. Since our coneern is tltatthe niriui rvas imposed lrom Above, the one
fr,aml;*m seems ir.r understand the directive lo "-*it at a crossroacls" as who carried out the decree rvas no more than an agent of Heaven, and
rrquiring ihe perscn ic tlavei uti La atrtarsrL,h. - whicir is ccmmcnly ti-re Hea-rsn did not appoint: him to annul the nidui. i,see Ran.).
t6. Tosafos,.Eon. Others explain that once ten iearneri people greet

him

gbr
tr,'bu! Errl:T

xbl nt5nl rgrp$

r$

a dream that imports meaning

.l,lp

KOL

KINIIYEI

it is impossible to

so

without

CHAPTER
have

some senseless matters

mixed within it.r1l

ONE

NEDARIM

to a sage or a panel ofthree laymen and seeking annulment on her

bshall?tar

Rav Ashi replied:

- He said to [Ravina]: Irlf:n t$ - With respect to petitioning a panel of laymen, if they were previously assembled,
Ir$ - a husband may indeed act as his wife's agent, Nb t$ iltt lB$

The Gemara cites an incident:r2r

tirnrfl5 Nl'Il

Nl:i -

Ravina's wife had made anedcr

f.lI ilrniz? NI$ _ [Ravina]
came before RavAshi,
- and said to him: tilD byt
lnu!.{ ntrlEl [rfP nt{Y:lq - lVhat is the law regarding a
husband's becoming an agent for conveying his wife's regret

that

.-I?

ilJiI

she wished annulled.{3r rtrr$

ilt? -18$

1. [Le. even a meaningful dream is a mixture of "g?ain" and

but

if

they were not previously assembled and he needs to ashimself, xb - he may not act as his wife's agent.t5r

semble them

The Gemara remarks:

nln nlr: ypq -

Learn three things from this incident: yDIp

NOTES
prerogative of the husband or father if he disapproves of the ned,er. In

"chaff,"

combining substantive elements with nonsensicai flights of imagina- contrasttoasage'sannulment,whichuprootslhenederrctroactivelyon

tion.l Thus, perhaps the nidui was meaningful and the annulment was the basis of the regret, the husband's or father's revocation cancels the
neder from this point forward (see Keszbos 74b ail.Nazir 22a).1
senseless matter, so that the nidui remains in force (Rosh).
Rav Ashi's response is derived from the verse (Jererniah 23:28):

x':lil

,i.r-Bxlr?il-nxlln?-nDnn$r'1J:l'ullin!(!'tJ:trtPxlntbt:lrDplntbntnx-iqs,

Ravina's wife's ned,er was not revocable by him, either because it did

not affect him or cause her physical suffering, or

because

he had

word approved of the neder whenhe initially heard it and thereby forfeited his
- right of revocation (Tosafos,,Roslr ), or because he had let the first day
thus says Hashem. In the simple meaning of the verse, Jeremiah passby (Mefaresh). Thus,theonlyoptionwasforhertopetitionasage
disparagingly contrasts the empty "prophetic" dream of the false forannulmentonthebasisofherregret.
prophet to real prophecy seen by a true prophet' [He thus denigrates the
4. [I.e. may I serve as my wife's agent in this matter.] As a rule, the one
falseprophetsofhistime - thosewhoofferedemptywords"ofsolaceto ,..t"g annulment
-,rrt pr.r"rrt the petition in person; he may not
the masses, proclaiming that God wo,ld not destroy
,Jerusa]em.l ;p;i"; an agent for this prrrpo... Ravina inquired whether a huiband

The prophet with a dream tells [his] dream, but the one with My
speahs My word of Truth. How can the chaff compare to the grain?

I?! can also be read: t!-e c,na( npetle.r i.'il.."ry.ru.rifred as his wife;s ,,agent,,, and ineligible to petition on her
with the grain. The Gemara in Berachos (end of 55a) adopts,this L.t"ftfif..u"yotherrepresentatiie.dr,perhapsl*esay-,,One,sspouse
alternative reading, according to which the verse seems to associate both i, fif" fri. own person,,, and a husband i, th.r&or" q,ruiifiud to peiition
"grain" and "chaff'with dreams. On thebasis of this association,the fo,a.rrrrrt-".rtinpiaceofhiswlfe(Ran,basedonRombam,Hil.Shnuuo,
Gemara derives the lesson quoted here by Rav Ashi:.,Jrrst as it is
o,+f se" followin! note for an alternative expranation). [For possible
impossible to have grain without chaff mixed within it, so it is impossible
;;;", why the petitioner must ordinarily appear in person, see
to have a dream that imports meaning without some senseless
TujPf R;;;"r, Hii. Sheiuos 6:4; Korban Nesazel- g60i yad Siaul 228:21;
However, the expression ]Jil-n!.(

in Uiiorrt, Chayes; see also Keren Orah.l

in 5. That is, although we generally do say "One's spouse is like his own
one person," we do not apply this principle universally. Rather, we allow a

mixed within it. Thus, one cannot rely upon the annulment of anidui
his dream (see Ran; Tosafos and.Eosh on 8a).
.Eoz states that although the Gemara requires one placed in nid,ui
a dream to have the nidui annulled, we may not infer from this that
who makes aned,er in his dream must also have it annulled. Reeardine
nidui, we are concerned for the possibility that the dream was i
of his being excommunicated inHeaven (see 8a note 1B). Regarding

visioi
a

husband to represent his wife before a panel of laymen only in a

situation where the panel was already in place. But ifthe panel needs to
be assembled for the purpose of annulment, the wife herself must be

ned,er,however,thisisinapplicable[sinceavowmustbeutteredbythe present. The reason is that ideally a vower ought not send an1
person's mouth and accompanied by his lucid intent, and neither representative for the purpose of annulment. Although we adopt a
condition exists in a dream; Teshuuos ilaRosh 8:111, Nevertheless, when lenient attitude in regard to a husband, this annulment is considered
itoccurred in&ashba'stimesthatsomeonemadea ned.erinhisdream, somewhat irregular, and we do not allow him to assemble a panel
Rashba required him to have the neder anransfled, as a matter of initiallyforitspurpose(-Bon, andBiuash$370,followingRambamibid.:
stringency (see Teshuuos Rashbal:668,Ill:331). Some explain .E ashba's see ,Rosh [Pesakim] $7 , Re'eim in Shitah Mekubetzcs, and Tur Yoreh
reason as follows: Since a person generally dreams aboulthings ihat

he

Deah 234:56, for different explanations of the reason).

thoughtofwhileawake,w-earecorrc"rr,"dthutthedreamindilatesthat Others interpret Ravina's inquiry in the opposite fashion. Thel'

thepersonactuallyintendedforthis ned.erdtxingtheday.Accordingly,
,BosDbotruleappliesonlytovowsregardingcharityortheperformance
ofmitzvos, sincelhese take effect on the basis ofintent even without an
utterance [see 7a note 8] (Hagahos Yauetz; Teshuuos Chasam Sofer,
Yoreh Deah 222:3; cf . Bach, Yoreh Deah 210:3, Shach 210:5; see

NimuheiYosef,KerenOrah).

further,

2. It is uncrear why this incident is cited here. Because of tlis aijrrcylfv,

Rashbam (cited in Tosafos i'Inhlh trnrt i'r"'r) emends the text so that the

it is generally permitted for a vower to petition for

annulment through an agent. However, Ravina entertained the
explain that

possibility that a husband, speciflrcally, is disqualifred from acting as his

wife's agent. This is because a husband might be overly distressed by his
wife's neder, and in his eagerness to have it annulled he might embellish
her reason for regretting it, thus misleading the sage or panel into

ff:Ii',1*#*fffi,]ih}t;::19l#:rTg f"ffil:r:,tf lltr,f

.""""y fri,

wife,s feelings faithfully. But

if

he had to go tirrough the

r.-++ffI;"nt,*;:Tillfr"li,{,:w :^;::;";}1il"i*:,'f"ft ffif,5iri,"#ilTil},::#Tl:ktl*1*m;:r.u*l;

is cited here because after deriving several laws frol
the.Gemara

i."Jiri*toexaggeratehiswife,s regret(Ran,citingTosafos;,Rosh; see

1t,

concludes with related laws regarding the annulment of

nidui.

3. When a married woman makes a neder, therc are two methods

of

in. *.rio"

preJJnted by Tosafos themselves).

cites R' Shirnshon, who maintains that a vower is nor
even required to be represented by an agent, but may petition for
annulment in writing. In his opinion, once it is known that the vower

fioz further

dissolvingit.Thefrrstmethod,whichisactuallyavailabletoallvowers,
is annulment lir-i4ill. That is, if the vower regrets having made the
neder,he(orshe)maypetitionanexpertsageorapanelofthreelaymen regrets his ned,er, a sage or panel of laymen may actually annul lt
to annul it, and the sage or laymen may declare it null and void on the without the vower's knowledge! See further, Rosh fPesakim] $7; Yoreh
basis of the vower's regret (see further, 21b and note 7 there). The Deah 228:.16 with Taz; Mishneh LaMelech, Hil. Sheuuos 6:4; Keren
second method, which is available specifrcally to women, is revocation
[n-rg;1]. That is, if the neder involves matters that would affect
woman's relationship with her husband, or it involves a restriction
would cause her physical suffering, the husband has the right to revoke
it on the day he hears about it (Numbers 30:11-14; see below, 79a, 81b).

a
that

lSimilarly, the nedarim of an unmarried girl who has not reached

adulthood may be revoked by her father (ibid. vs, 4-6). A husband's or

father's revocation is not based on the vower's regret, but is the personal

Orah; Shalmei Nedarirn.

[Rav Ashi did not impose any qualification on a husband's representing his wife before an expert sage [as no assembly is necessary in the
case of a single sageJ. Now, presumably, Rav Ashi was such a sage and
could have annulled the neder himself. However, since Ravina did not
ask him to do so, but rather, asked him for a halachic ruling regarding
a husband's representing his wife, Rav Ashi responded in kind (?osafos
lrnhl,! ''l!nil il"'r; see there for an alternative explanation).J

gb2

KOt

KINTIYEI

CHAPTER

iUth - Learn from it that tntil.( ngl4b ntbq, iltpq: byt - a

husband may become an agent for conveying his wife's regret
to a sage or a panel ofthree laymen. illE ypurt - And learn

it that irt!'l:r

x1l; rruurb r.ru, Nb - it

ONE

NEDARIM

name of R' Meyashah, rxylrry "r! ilJti'rr lr"r:r irrhErtl

reported in the name of R' Yehudah bar

"('lll

ili?rv urltlu) tnui

t!-{"1! tr??

i1l:t"ll!,,

- who
Il'ai: frn)T rND

lVhat is the meaning of

is not
permittedrGr for a sage to annul a ncder in the locale of his
teacher.tTl ;1116 yBurt - And learn from it that when annulment is sought from a panel ofthree, rhi lrEU ltpf:4 rI - then
wheu they were previously assembled it is acceptable for the

that which is written:t11r An d it shall shine for you - those who

fear My Name - (a sun of righteousness etc, [with healing in its

husband to act as his wife's agent, but when he needs to assemble

in vain.

them this is unacceptable.tsl

The Gemara proceeds to expound the latter portion ofthe verse:

, .. a sun of righteousness, with healing
"NE"!D'I ili?lY u,Fq,,
in its rays. tll!-( .tB$ Abaye said: ,-rp)r ypq Learn from

from

NJITN+

The Gemara continues with a related ruling:

!.4?t4l - But as for the annulment of an excommunication,
irr!.!i NJII$? rbrl$ - a sage may perform this even in the locale
of his teacher.iel
The Gemara concludes with another related law:
lrr.{htg !]V ifl-r,l!,! lrnr! - And a single enpert sage may annul an

excommunication.llol

Since we learned above (7b) that one who expresses the Name
of God in vain incurs excommunication, the Gemara discusses

here the virtue ofthose who avoid this transgression:

rrll ''l! ttyhtu r!'r -rhx - R' Shimon bar Zevid said r!'1 lBB
xhp rl iTtry? - in the name of R'Yitzchak bar Tavla, rE$
x[t_( tl] rt:r N!r'r$ Nr"E rl-l - inthename of R'ChiyaArichaof
the academy of R'Acha, NirI r!1 rES - in the name of R'
Zeira, rlf?$ rf : lE$ - in the name of R' Elazar, ''t'! rb!,.
x:U[ - in the name of B'Chanina, ilqxl4 U'! rD],( - in the

raysl)? I.e. to whom does the verse refer as "those who fear God's
tru, Ntvlilb lu5l? Iitq tr'l!,( !I+ rbx - These
are the people who are afraid to express the Name of lleaven

Narne"? n?q:? ntng

this

that

Nhui Nlln

the dust of the sun heals.ra

The Gemara notes that there is a dissenting interpretation of
rE,6

the verse:
uti?? I? Ity,rtu tl.t! NrrbEt - But the interpretation of [Abaye],
that the verse refers to the daily rays ofthe sun in our times, is in

disagreement with that of R' Shimon ben Lakish, tD$! who said: N+,1 tr?'iy? trIi'I"t IrN - There is no Gehinnom in the

World to Cometl1sl iri?rn'.lltr n,et] xryl]:r J(rir :]!Il Utrp; xlx Rather, the Iloly One, Blessed is IIe, will take the sun out of
its sheath; "-r+ It!.{ElIl)? trri?rTy - the righteous will be healed
by it, il! Irllirl trrvgJl - whereas the wicked will be
punishedthroughit. " '!rt lrhti tnq t!-{"!t tri? ilF.'ll';,, rD15iP The righteous will be healed by the sun, as it is stated: And it
shall shine for you - those who fear My Name - etc.la sun of
righteousness, with healing in its rays).trt)

NOTES

,fs1x5, it is not proper (see also Arzclz, cited by of three laymen may annul the nidui (Rambanl., Hil. Talmud TorahT:7-9
Gilyon HaShas, and see Yad,os Nedaritn for discussion of this reading). as explainedby l*chem Mishneh; see Ran, end of xnnut n"1 cf. Ba,ch
Yoreh Deah 334:15). [For further details regarding this law, see Raauad
See further, Bambarn, Hil. Sheuuos 6:3 vith Kesef Mishneh
6. .Eaz has the reading

Hil. Talmud Torah ibid', andTur aI'd shu.lah'an Aruch ihid- $24-27. See
7. Or any other superior sage (Rambam ibid.), since this is a slight to
that sage's hon or (ilanto2Bq end of u,'r'r: rnlilr ir.-r). otrr..*is", n'ai"u also E'Auraham Min HaHar, who discusses this matter at length'l
wouldhaveannulledhiswife'sned,erhimselflOnemightwo"i.rlo*t. Ran cites an opinion that a sage is considered "expert" only if he
received semichah li.e. the ordination that was granted in Eretz Yisrael
could have done this, when we learn in a Mishnah lN"gaii irslilrat a
husband is disqualilied from annulling [as opposed io.*otirrg] irir inTannaictimesl.However, Ranxgo-esthatsemichahisunnecessary.
vife's ned,arim. The answer is that the Mishnah means to disquiify u Rather, any eminent sage who is thoroughly versed in the laws of

ned.arimtyrrir"r"rr,iri"ir*
*ltf, nu". noi it ao..
"ot
apanelof
asquairyirimfromparticiladngintheannulmentaspartof
husbandonlyfromannullinghiswife,s

expert sage, Lecause he mighi be overly leniert

-honor

of Rav Ashi, his-teacherjRavina

three. Thus, were it not for the
could have performed the annulment in his hom" *itf, t*o oifr.r puopf.
(Ran; see iso Rau to Negaim ibid.). Alternatively, we Inuy.*pul" it .
l".u".i ;;o"J.
Mishnah as meaning to [isqualify a husband
""ii""tv,
spouse is like his owi person." Nevertheless, if not for Rav A.hi;, horo.,
Ravina could have requested three ofhis students to do the annulment
(Ran; see there for elaboration of the issue of a husband's disqualification). lShulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 234'5T rules that,a husband is
disqualified even from participating with two others in the annulment
of his wife's ned'arim'l
[Since the restriction against annulling a neder in.the locale^of a
greater sage is based merely on concern for that sage's^honor, if one
violated it his annulment is effective post facto (Ran to 23a ibid.).1

text,
may
a neder in a

8. The elucidation follows fiosh. Note that in .Rosh's version of the

this rule is stated second, immediately after the rule that a husband

his w.ife's agent, and the rule about annulling

teacher's locale is stated last. See also Roshash.
become

9. Because the teacher might not be immediately available to perform

the annulment, and [once the offender becomes eligible to have
excommunication annulled (see following note)l we wish to.extract

his
him

nedarimisqualifredtoanntranederornidui. lNiduiisaformofneder;
see Ean' I Ran cites several proofs to his position here, and further
discusses this at length below, 23a E!'l't) tnri'll n-'r and 78a-b:'n't n-'r
nnntn. See also Tosafos to Bechoros 36b otptr: n"r' Nevertheless, the
Bishonim write that nowadays (i'e. in post-Talmudic times) nobody is
knowledgeable e19gsh to be- considered an "expert" sage (see Tosafos
ib^id'-punn"'r,'Bosh[Pesahim]below,3:3, andshulchanAruchYorehDeah
228:1 with Be'er HaGolah $5; see further, Shath' Yoreh Deah 334:42)'

ll. Malachi

3:20.

,,The
12.
dust of the day,, refers to the tiny dust particles that are visible
in a ray ofsunlight streaming through a window (gaz). Abaye under-

stands the u"r."-u, meaninglhat th-e rays of the sun have a curative
oower (?osafos r5x n-r). ISei.Boslz, who wonders why Abaye attributes
ih" h.ulirrg io the ,,dust,,, and not the sun itself. Fir possible resolutions, see ?osafos x.,n a,,-t, Maharsha in Chid,ushei Aggad,os, a.'d

Shalmei Ned.arim.)
Afterlife, for the wicked certainly descend
to Gehinnom upon their deaths! Rather, it refers to the world that will
exist after the Resurrection of the Dead. The truly wicked will arise at
that time to suffer continued retribution for their sins, as stated in
Daniel l2:2 (see ftosh Hashanah 16b-17a). However, their punishment
13. This does not refer to the

willnolongerbemetedoutinthepurgatoryof Gehinnom(Eoz).

14. According to Reish Lakish, the verse means that the sun will heal the
from the state of excommunication with alacrity. Regarding a neder, righteous in the World to Come, not that it can heal people nowadays.
however, there is no great loss in waiting until the more promi"l"t^tury RIish Lakish actually concedes that the sun has natural curativ. po*.rs
becomes available (Tosafos D"vn n"-1; see also .Bosh and Yoreh Deah even in our times, as stated in Baua Basra l6b. However, he does not

334:24)'

understand the verse as refering to this power (Tosafos;.cf . Mefaresh,

10. That is, when a person 1ryas excommunicated because of a eertain Shitah Mehubetzes).
infraction and he repented, thus becoming eligible for annulment
[The verse teaches only that the sun will heal the righteous, not that
7b note 16), any expert sage may perform the annulment. It is not neces- it will afflict the wicked. This is derived from another verse, as stated
sary for the one who imposed the nidui to revoke it. Similarly, a panel below.l

(see

lill
ili

gb3

KOL KINTIYEI

Reish Lakish continues:

N5! And not only this, but

ily

CHAPTER

NEDARIM

Reish Lakish concludes:

furthermore, Ittty4np

N?N

- [the righteous] will even delight in [the unsheathed

sunl, "prJD rbrvl trnur!! trnxyr!,, .rD15fq - as it is stated
further in that selfsame verse: and you (those who fear My
Name) will go out and flourish lihe calves lfattened] in the
stall.
n1

ONE

ii!

Irtl:rrl trtlrp"l,ll - And the wicked will be punished through

[the unsheathed sun], ,, ,1r rr4! ry! Nl trIili_ll irlil,, 'rp15lq
- as it is stated in the preceding verse:ttsJ Behold! The dary is
coming, burning lihe an oaen etc, [when all the wicked people
and all the euildoers will be lihe straw; and that coming day will
burn them up - says Hashem, Master of Legionsl.tel

I
I
I

i
t

ll
tl
rl
:(

it
I

:ll

NOTES
future, as described in the next verse (v. 20). See Maharal for elucidatior
of what is meant by the unsheathing of the sun and why this will affec:
16. The "coming day" refers to the unsheathed sun that will shine in the
the righteous and the wicked differently.
15.

Malachi ibid. v.

19.