Nedarim 60a: The Temporal Boundaries of Vows

Sugya Map

• Issue: The precise temporal scope of vows concerning time periods (day, week, month, year, cycle), and the interplay between vow duration and calendrical divisions (nightfall, end of week, New Moon, Rosh HaShana, Shmita year).
• Nafka Mina: Determining when a vow expires, particularly at the cusp of calendrical transitions, and the application of rabbinic decrees to prevent confusion regarding vow durations.
• Primary Sources:
  • Nedarim 60a-b: Mishna and Gemara discussing vow durations and their termination points.
  • Nedarim 63a: Discussing the impact of leap years on yearly vows.
  • Arakhin 21b: Discussing the concept of "gifts to the altar" and the severity of vows.
  • Shabbat 15a: Discussing the definition of a "day" for certain Shabbat prohibitions.

Text Snapshot

MISHNA: If one vows: Wine is forbidden to me as if it were an offering [konam], and for that reason I will not taste it today, he is prohibited from drinking wine only until nightfall. If one vows not to drink wine this week, he is prohibited from drinking wine for the entire remainder of the week, and as Shabbat is considered part of the week that passed, i.e., it is the end of the week, he is prohibited from drinking wine on the upcoming Shabbat. If one vows not to drink wine this month, wine is forbidden to him for the entire remainder of the month; and as the New Moon of the following month is considered part of the next month, he is permitted to drink wine on that day. If he vowed not to drink wine during this seven-year Sabbatical cycle, wine is forbidden to him for the entire remainder of the seven-year cycle; and as the Sabbatical Year is considered part of the cycle that passed, he is prohibited from drinking wine during the upcoming Sabbatical Year. All this applies if he said that he would not drink wine on this day or this week, but if he said that wine is forbidden to him for one day, or one week, or one month, or one year, or one seven-year cycle, he is prohibited from drinking wine from the day and time he took the vow to to the same time the next day, or week, etc. If he takes a vow that wine is forbidden to him until Passover, it is forbidden to him until Passover arrives. If he said: Until it will be Passover, it is forbidden to him until Passover ends, as he may have intended for the vow to apply as long as it was still Passover (Rosh). If he said: Until before Passover, Rabbi Meir says: It is forbidden to him until Passover arrives. Rabbi Yosei says: It is forbidden to him until it ends.

GEMARA: We learned in the mishna that if one says: Wine is forbidden to me as if it were an offering [konam], and for that reason I will not taste it today, he is prohibited from drinking wine only until nightfall. Rabbi Yirmeya said: Even when darkness falls he is not permitted to drink wine immediately; rather, he is required to request that a halakhic authority dissolve his vow.

Insight 1: The "Today" Vow and Nightfall

The Gemara's initial statement about the "today" vow expiring at nightfall is straightforward. However, Rabbi Yirmeya's addition, requiring a request for dissolution even after nightfall, introduces a rabbinic layer. This suggests a concern that the vow's termination might not be perfectly clear-cut, or perhaps a desire to imbue the process of vow-release with greater formality.

Insight 2: Rabbinic Decrees on Vow Duration

Rav Yosef explains Rabbi Yirmeya's requirement as a gezeira (decree) to prevent confusion between a vow for "today" and a vow for "one day." If a vow for "today" ends at nightfall, someone might mistakenly believe a vow for "one day" also ends at nightfall, when its actual duration is 24 hours. Abaye challenges this logic, arguing that a decree should also be made for the "one day" vow to prevent confusion with the "today" vow. Rav Yosef's response highlights the asymmetry: a "today" vow expiring at nightfall is more likely to be confused with a "one day" vow than vice-versa, as the latter has a longer, more defined duration that might be truncated by the former's shorter, more immediate boundary.

Insight 3: Rabbi Natan's Perspective on Vows

Ravina attributes Rav Yirmeya's ruling to Rabbi Natan. Rabbi Natan views any vow as akin to building a personal altar, a forbidden act in itself, and fulfilling it as akin to offering sacrifices on that forbidden altar. This paints a picture of vows as inherently problematic, and even after their formal expiration, there's a spiritual benefit to formally annulling them, as if they never existed.

Insight 4: "This Week" and Shabbat Inclusion

The Gemara clarifies that the phrase "this week" in a vow encompasses Shabbat. This is necessary to prevent the interpretation that the vow applies only to weekdays. The explicit teaching ensures that the entire calendar week, including Shabbat, falls under the vow's prohibition.

Insight 5: "This Month" and Rosh Chodesh

The Gemara further clarifies that "this month" includes Rosh Chodesh, the New Moon. This is particularly relevant for a deficient (29-day) month, where Rosh Chodesh can be ambiguous, being the 30th of the previous month and the 1st of the new. The teaching emphasizes that Rosh Chodesh is considered part of the upcoming month for vow purposes, preventing the vow from expiring prematurely on the last day of the previous month.

Insight 6: "This Year" and Rosh HaShana

Similarly, the Gemara states that "this year" includes Rosh HaShana. This is to ensure that Rosh HaShana, the beginning of the new year, is considered part of the upcoming year, not the year that just ended. This prevents a vow taken at the end of the year from expiring on Rosh HaShana itself.

Insight 7: "A Day" vs. "Today" - A Dilemma

A significant dilemma arises: Is a vow of "a day" equivalent to "today" (ending at nightfall) or "one day" (lasting 24 hours)? The Gemara explores this by examining the Mishna's structure. It initially seems that since "today" is explicitly mentioned with nightfall, "a day" might default to the 24-hour duration of "one day." However, the Gemara rejects this inference, highlighting the ambiguity and lack of a clear resolution from the Mishna alone.

Insight 8: The Ambiguity of "A Day"

Rav Ashi's attempt to resolve the dilemma by referencing Nedarim 63a concerning leap years indicates that the precise definition of temporal units in vows remains a complex area, with potential for differing interpretations based on subtle linguistic distinctions and rabbinic concerns.

Readings

Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba and the Formal Dissolution of Vows

The Gemara begins with a nuanced point regarding a vow taken for "today." The Mishna states that such a vow terminates at nightfall. Rabbi Yirmeya, however, adds a crucial layer: "Even when darkness falls he is not permitted to drink wine immediately; rather, he is required to request that a halakhic authority dissolve his vow."¹ This is not a simple statement about temporal duration, but a pronouncement on the process of vow termination.

Tosafot grapples with the rationale behind this requirement. They first cite Rashi on the initial teaching: "תרומה - דאין גידולי היתר מעלין את האיסור" (Terumah - that permitted growths do not elevate the prohibition).² This initial context, though seemingly unrelated to vows, establishes a principle: some things, even if mixed with permitted elements, retain their prohibited status. However, the Gemara's discussion shifts to vows, not terumah.

Tosafot then addresses the "growths of growths" discussion briefly, noting it as a separate sugya, but their primary concern here is Rabbi Yirmeya's ruling. They explain Rabbi Yirmeya's requirement by referencing the opinion of Rabbi Natan. Ravina states, "Ravina said: Mareimar said to me: Your father said as follows, in the name of Rav Yosef: In accordance with whose opinion is this halakha taught by Rav Yirmeya bar Abba? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Natan, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says: Anyone who vows, it is as if he has built a personal altar...³"

The implication of Rabbi Natan's view is profound. A vow is not merely a personal declaration; it is akin to a prohibited act in itself – building a private altar. Fulfilling it, even after its temporal expiration, is like offering on that forbidden altar. Therefore, even when the vow's time is up, there's a lingering impurity, a spiritual residue. To truly be free, one must actively seek annulment, a formal act of undoing the vow's very essence, as if it never existed. This transforms the simple expiration of a vow into a process requiring a halakhic intervention, highlighting the seriousness with which the Sages viewed nedarim. This is not about the timing of the vow ending, but about the completeness of its removal from one's life. The need for a she'elah (request) to a hakham (sage) underscores the idea that some vows, even when their temporal limit has passed, require a formal hattarat nedarim (annulment of vows) to be fully nullified, mirroring the concept that even after a forbidden action, seeking forgiveness and annulment is paramount.

The Temporal Boundaries of "This Week," "This Month," and "This Year"

The Gemara then delves into the precise meaning of temporal vows like "this week," "this month," and "this year."

The Mishna states: "If one vows not to drink wine this week, he is prohibited from drinking wine for the entire remainder of the week, and as Shabbat is considered part of the week that passed, i.e., it is the end of the week, he is prohibited from drinking wine on the upcoming Shabbat."⁴ The Gemara asks, "Isn’t it obvious that this is the case?"⁵ The Gemara answers: "It is necessary, lest you say that he said the days of the week, i.e., he meant for his vow to apply only on the weekdays. The tanna therefore teaches us that the phrase this week includes Shabbat."⁶

This clarification is critical. The term "week" could conceivably be interpreted as merely the seven weekdays, excluding Shabbat. The Mishna's explicit inclusion of Shabbat ensures that the entire seven-day cycle is encompassed. This is not an arbitrary extension; Shabbat is intrinsically linked to the week, marking its culmination and transition. For the purpose of a vow encompassing "this week," Shabbat is understood as the final day of the current week, and therefore subject to the vow.

The Gemara then addresses "this month": "If one vows not to drink wine this month, wine is forbidden to him for the entire remainder of the month; and as the New Moon of the following month is considered part of the next month, he is permitted to drink wine on that day."⁷ Again, the Gemara asks, "Isn’t this obvious?"⁸ The Gemara explains: "When it was necessary to teach this halakha it was for for a New Moon preceding a deficient, twenty-nine-day month... This is lest you say that the first day of the New Moon is part of the previous month, and therefore the vow should expire at the end of that day, and wine should not be forbidden to him during the upcoming month. The tanna therefore teaches us that since people call it the New Moon of the upcoming month, it is viewed as part of the upcoming month, and the vow applies to the new month."⁹

This ruling is particularly nuanced. Rosh Chodesh, the New Moon, is the transition point between months. In a deficient month, the 30th of the previous month is also Rosh Chodesh. The Mishna clarifies that for vow purposes, Rosh Chodesh is considered the beginning of the new month. This prevents a vow ending "this month" from expiring on the 29th (the last day of a normal month), if Rosh Chodesh falls on the 30th of the preceding month. The vow extends to the end of the current month, and Rosh Chodesh is defined as the start of the next month.

This principle is extended to "this year": "If he vowed not to drink wine during this seven-year Sabbatical cycle, wine is forbidden to him for the entire remainder of the seven-year cycle; and as the Sabbatical Year is considered part of the cycle that passed, he is prohibited from drinking wine during the upcoming Sabbatical Year."¹⁰ The Gemara doesn't explicitly ask if this is obvious, but the logic follows the pattern. Rosh HaShana, the New Year, is considered the start of the upcoming year. Therefore, a vow encompassing "this year" extends through the end of the current year, and Rosh HaShana, marking the commencement of the new year, is not included in "this year."

The critical insight here is the Sages' meticulous attention to calendrical transitions. They understood that terms like "week," "month," and "year" are not simply abstract durations but are tied to specific observances and communal perceptions. For vows, the start of a new period (Rosh Chodesh, Rosh HaShana, Sabbatical Year) is definitively marked as belonging to the following period, ensuring that the vow's duration is clearly defined and does not prematurely terminate at the cusp of a new calendrical epoch. This prevents the vow from expiring on the last day of the previous period if the transition is marked by a day that is also the beginning of the next.

The Ambiguity of "A Day" vs. "Today"

A significant point of contention arises concerning the interpretation of "a day." The Gemara poses a dilemma: "If one said: Wine is konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste it for a day, what is the halakha in his case? Is it considered as though he said today, and he is prohibited from consuming wine until nightfall, or is it considered as though he said one day, in which case the vow takes effect for a period of twenty-four hours?"¹¹

The Gemara attempts to resolve this by referencing the Mishna. It first considers the clause: "If one says: Wine is konam for me... and for that reason I will not taste it today, he is prohibited from drinking wine only until nightfall."¹² From this, it infers that if the word "today" is used, the vow ends at nightfall. Therefore, if one says "a day," it might be comparable to "one day," implying a 24-hour duration.

However, the Gemara immediately rejects this inference by pointing to the latter clause of the Mishna: "but if he said that wine is forbidden to him for one day, he is prohibited from drinking wine from the day he took the vow to to the same time on the following day."¹³ This clause explicitly defines "one day" as a 24-hour period. The Gemara's argument is that if "a day" were equivalent to "one day" (24 hours), then saying "today" would also imply a 24-hour period, which contradicts the Mishna's statement that it ends at nightfall. Conversely, if "a day" were interpreted as "today" (ending at nightfall), then the explicit statement about "one day" lasting 24 hours would be redundant or confusing. The Gemara concludes: "Rather, no inference is to be learned from this mishna."¹⁴

The dilemma remains unresolved by direct textual inference. The subtle linguistic distinction between "today" (היום - hayom) and "a day" (יום - yom or יומיא - yomia in Aramaic) or "one day" (יום אחד - yom echad) is critical. "Hayom" implies the current, present day, with its natural temporal boundaries. "Yom echad" or "yomia" implies a duration of 24 hours, a full day-night cycle, irrespective of the specific calendar day. The Gemara's struggle highlights how sensitive vow interpretation is to precise wording.

Rav Ashi then proposes to resolve this by referencing Nedarim 63a, concerning leap years. This reference suggests that the underlying issue might be about how to handle ambiguous temporal units, especially when they intersect with larger calendrical cycles. The unresolved dilemma underscores the complexity of vow interpretation and the need for precise language, as well as the potential for rabbinic pronouncements to clarify ambiguities.

Friction

The Paradox of Rabbinic Decrees: Preventing Confusion or Creating It?

The Strongest Kushya: The Gemara presents a fascinating dialectic between Rav Yosef and Abaye concerning the rationale behind Rabbi Yirmeya's requirement to seek hattarat nedarim (vow annulment) even after the temporal expiration of a vow made for "today." Rav Yosef posits that this is a rabbinic decree (gezeira) to prevent confusion between a vow for "today" (ending at nightfall) and a vow for "one day" (lasting 24 hours). The concern is that if the former ends at nightfall, people might mistakenly believe the latter also ends at nightfall. Abaye counters this by asking: "If so, the Sages should likewise decree in the case of one who takes a vow for one day that he must keep the vow until nightfall of the following day, due to the confusion that might be caused in a case where one said that his vow applies today."¹⁵

Abaye's objection is potent. If the goal is to prevent confusion between a vow ending at nightfall and one ending after 24 hours, why is the decree asymmetrical? Why only protect the 24-hour vow from being shortened by the "today" vow's precedent, and not the "today" vow from being lengthened by the "one day" vow's precedent (which would be a less likely confusion, as people generally understand "today" to be more immediate)? Abaye suggests that the Sages should decree that a "one day" vow also ends at nightfall of the next day, thereby creating a more consistent rule for both. This would eliminate the potential confusion by standardizing the termination point for shorter-term vows.

The Best Terutz: Rav Yosef's reply to Abaye is subtle and reveals a sophisticated understanding of how confusion arises and how decrees are implemented: "Rav Yosef said to him: A vow taken for this day might be interchanged with a vow taken for one day, and one might erroneously conclude that a vow taken for one day expires at nightfall. However, a vow taken for one day is not interchanged with a vow taken for today, and there is no concern that one who takes a vow for today will erroneously conclude that it expires in the middle of the day."¹⁶

Rav Yosef's defense rests on the direction and likelihood of confusion. The primary concern is that a vow for one day (24 hours) might be mistakenly shortened to end at nightfall because the "today" vow does. This is a plausible error because people might see the "today" vow ending at nightfall and assume that "one day" also ends at the end of the calendar day, not realizing it extends into the next calendar day.

Conversely, Rav Yosef argues, there is no significant concern that a vow for "today" would be mistakenly extended to 24 hours because of the "one day" vow. The term "today" inherently implies immediacy and the current day's boundaries. The duration of a "one day" vow, while longer, doesn't naturally extend the implicit immediacy of "today." The nature of the "today" vow is perceived as inherently shorter and more tied to the immediate present, making it less likely for it to be erroneously lengthened by a rule governing a longer duration.

In essence, Rav Yosef is arguing that the decree is targeted at the more probable and significant source of error. The risk of shortening a 24-hour vow to a mere evening is deemed more problematic than the risk of lengthening a "today" vow into the next day. The decree aims to preserve the integrity of the longer duration by preventing it from being truncated based on the shorter, more immediate vow's termination point. This distinction between the direction and severity of potential confusion is the core of Rav Yosef's defense.

Intertext

Vows and the Sanctity of Time: Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh

The temporal boundaries of vows discussed in Nedarim 60a resonate with broader halakhic principles concerning the sanctity of time, particularly Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh.

1. Shabbat: The Mishna's ruling that "this week" includes Shabbat finds a parallel in discussions about other time-bound prohibitions or obligations. For instance, in Shabbat 15a, the Gemara discusses the definition of a "day" for certain prohibitions. While the primary definition of a day is sunrise to sunset, many halakhot extend the sanctity of Shabbat beyond this simple diurnal period. The inclusion of Shabbat in "this week" for vow purposes aligns with the principle that Shabbat is an integral, and indeed climactic, part of the weekly cycle, imbued with its own unique sanctity that extends beyond mere temporal duration. The vow functions to extend the prohibition over this sacred time, mirroring how other laws also encompass Shabbat within their scope.

2. Rosh Chodesh: The clarification that "this month" includes Rosh Chodesh, and that Rosh Chodesh is considered part of the next month for vow purposes, highlights the special status of Rosh Chodesh as a marker of temporal transition. This is echoed in Pesachim 106a, where the Gemara discusses the laws of chametz and matzah around Passover. The transition from chametz to matzah is also sensitive to precise timing. Similarly, the laws of chagigah (festival offering) are tied to the calendar month. The principle that Rosh Chodesh initiates the new month for vow purposes ensures that the transition is clearly defined, preventing a vow from expiring prematurely. This reflects a general halakhic concern to maintain clear boundaries around sacred times, especially at their junctures. The Midrashic concept of Rosh Chodesh as a "mini-Shabbat" also elevates its status, making its inclusion in monthly vows logical.

Vows as Personal Altars: Arakhin and the Severity of Nedarim

The attribution of Rabbi Yirmeya's ruling to Rabbi Natan, who likens vows to building a personal altar, connects Nedarim 60a to the broader discussion of the severity of vows found in Arakhin 21b.

In Arakhin, the Gemara discusses the prohibition of offering sacrifices outside the Temple. Rabbi Natan's view, as cited in Nedarim, is that making a vow is akin to constructing a private altar, and fulfilling it is like sacrificing upon it. This is because the Temple is the designated place for all offerings, and by creating a personal commitment that functions like an offering, one is bypassing the central sanctuary. The Gemara in Arakhin states: "Rabbi Natan says: Anyone who vows, it is as if he has built an altar... And one who fulfills it, is as though he burns upon it."¹⁷ This foundational concept underscores why Rabbi Yirmeya, following Rabbi Natan, insists on formal annulment. It's not merely about the temporal aspect of the vow; it's about purifying oneself from the very act of creating a forbidden personal sanctity. The emphasis is on the act of vowing and fulfilling, not just the duration. This perspective imbues the entire process of vow management with a seriousness that transcends simple timing, extending to a need for spiritual cleansing and formal release.

Psak/Practice

The intricate analysis of temporal vows in Nedarim 60a, particularly the distinction between "today" and "one day," and the precise definition of "this week," "this month," and "this year," has direct implications for contemporary psak halakha.

Firstly, the explicit rulings regarding "this week" encompassing Shabbat, and "this month" and "this year" incorporating Rosh Chodesh and Rosh HaShana respectively, are normative. When one vows not to consume something for "this week," it is understood to include Shabbat. If the vow is for "this month," it extends to the end of the month, with Rosh Chodesh of the following month being considered part of the new month. Similarly, a vow for "this year" concludes at the end of the current year, with Rosh HaShana marking the commencement of the subsequent year.

Secondly, the ambiguity surrounding "a day" versus "today" and "one day" necessitates careful wording when making vows or seeking annulment. In practice, halakhic authorities would advise extreme caution. If one intends a vow to last 24 hours, they should explicitly state "for twenty-four hours" or "for one full day and night." If they intend it to end at nightfall, they should say "today." The Gemara's unresolved dilemma means that relying on the term "a day" alone is problematic and would likely require a she'elah to a competent authority for clarification and potential annulment.

Thirdly, Rabbi Yirmeya's ruling, supported by Rabbi Natan, emphasizes the importance of hattarat nedarim (annulment of vows) even after the temporal expiration of a vow. While modern practice might not always require a formal request to a sage for every expired vow, the underlying principle of seeking annulment, especially for significant or unclear vows, remains relevant. Many batei din (rabbinical courts) offer formal sessions for hattarat nedarim, particularly before Yom Kippur or Pesach, reflecting the enduring understanding that vows carry a spiritual weight requiring formal release. This practice, though not always mandated by the exact scenario of "today" ending at nightfall, derives from the broader concept that vows, like personal altars, require deliberate annulment for complete liberation.

Takeaway

The precise temporal boundaries of vows are meticulously defined by the Sages, not just by abstract duration, but by their intersection with sacred calendrical markers. Even after a vow's time expires, the underlying severity of vowing, akin to building a personal altar, may necessitate formal annulment for complete spiritual liberation.