Which Tanna is the authority for the following dictum of the Rabbis? If one vowed simultaneously not to benefit from five men, if he is absolved in respect of one of them, he is absolved in respect of all; but [if he stated,] 'Except one of them,' that one is permitted, but the others are forbidden [to him]. According to Rabbah, the first clause agrees with R. Akiba [only], and the second clause with all.3 According to Raba, the second clause agrees with the Rabbis [only], and the first clause with all.
MISHNAH. VOWS [BROKEN] UNDER PRESSURE: IF ONE SUBJECTED HIS NEIGHBOUR TO A VOW, TO DINE WITH HIM,4 AND THEN HE OR HIS SON FELL SICK, OR A RIVER PREVENTED HIM [FROM COMING TO HIM] — SUCH IS A VOW [BROKEN] UNDER PRESSURE.
GEMARA. A man once deposited his rights5 at Beth din, and declared: 'If I do not appear within thirty days, these rights shall be void.' Subsequently he was unavoidably prevented from appearing. Thereupon R. Huna ruled: His rights are void. But Rabbah said to him, He was unavoidably prevented, and the Divine Law exempts such, for it is written, But unto the damsel shalt thou do nothing.6 And should you answer, the death penalty is different,7 but we learnt: VOWS [BROKEN] UNDER PRESSURE; IF ONE SUBJECTED HIS NEIGHBOUR TO A VOW TO DINE WITH HIM, AND THEN HE OR HIS SON FELL SICK, OR A RIVER PREVENTED HIM [FROM COMING TO HIM] — SUCH IS A VOW [BROKEN] UNDER PRESSURE!8
Now, according to Rabbah, wherein does this differ from what We learnt: [If one said to his wife,] 'Behold! this is thy divorce, [to be effective] from now, if I do not come back within twelve months', and he died within the twelve months, the divorce is valid?9 Yet why so? was he not forcibly prevented! — I will tell you. There it may be different,
Nedarim 27bbecause had he known that he would die, he would have decided and given the divorce so as to take effect immediately.1 And how does it differ from the case of the man who declared, 'If I do not come within thirty days from now, let it be a divorce. 'He came [on the last day], but was cut off through [the lack of] a ferry. [Yet though] he cried out, 'See! I have come; see! I have come!' Samuel ruled, That is not called coming.2 But why: surely he was unavoidably prevented? — Perhaps an accident that can be foreseen is different, and [the lack of] a ferry could be foreseen.3
Now according to R. Huna, let us see; It is an asmakta,4 and an asmakta gives no title?5 — Here it is different, because he had deposited his rights.6 And where they are deposited, is it not an asmakta? But we learnt: If one repaid a portion of his debt, and then placed the bond in the hands of a third party, and declared, 'If I do not repay [the balance] within thirty days, return the bill to the creditor,'7 and the time came and he did not repay, R. Jose maintained: He [the third party] must surrender the bond to the [creditor]; R. Judah maintained: He must not surrender it. And R. Nahman said in the name of Rabbah b. Abbahu in Rab's name: The halachah is not as R. Jose, who ruled that an asmakta gives a legal claim.8 — Here it is different, because he had declared, 'These rights shall be void.'9 Now the law is: an asmakta does give a legal claim, providing that no unavoidable accident supervened and that a formal acquisition was made10 at an authoritative Beth din.11
MISHNAH. ONE MAY VOW TO MURDERERS,12 ROBBERS,13 AND PUBLICANS THAT IT [THE PRODUCE WHICH THEY DEMAND] IS TERUMAH, EVEN IF IT IS NOT,14 OR THAT IT BELONGS TO THE ROYAL HOUSE, EVEN IF IT DOES NOT. BETH SHAMMAI MAINTAIN: ONE MAY MAKE ANY FORM OF VOW,
- To Next Folio -