Nedarim 60

Hook

Imagine you're at a gathering, and you declare, "I swear I'm never eating chocolate again!" Perhaps it's a New Year's resolution, a moment of frustration, or a spontaneous promise. A few days later, a decadent dessert appears, and you find yourself wrestling with that declaration. Was it a firm promise, a fleeting thought, or something in between? And what happens when the words we speak, sometimes impulsively, carry real weight and consequences, not just socially, but spiritually and legally?

This isn't just a modern dilemma. For thousands of years, Jewish tradition has grappled with the profound power of human speech, particularly when it takes the form of a vow or an oath. Our words, the Sages teach, are not merely sounds; they are potent forces that can bind us, shape our reality, and connect us to, or distance us from, the Divine. Today, we're going to dive into a fascinating section of the Talmud, Tractate Nedarim, which meticulously explores the intricate world of vows – how they're made, how they're interpreted, and how they might, sometimes, be undone.

Context

The Talmud, a monumental work of Jewish law, ethics, and lore, is divided into 63 tractates (Masechtot). Our focus today is on Nedarim, which literally means "vows." This tractate is part of Seder Nashim, the Order of Women, primarily because many vows discussed in ancient times were related to marital obligations or could be annulled by a husband for his wife. However, its scope extends far beyond that, delving into the general laws of vows for all individuals.

At its core, Tractate Nedarim explores the biblical injunctions concerning vows, primarily found in Numbers Chapter 30 and Deuteronomy Chapter 23. These verses emphasize the seriousness of vows, stating that "When a man makes a vow to the Lord, or takes an oath imposing an obligation on himself, he shall not break his pledge; he must carry out all that has crossed his lips." This immediately establishes a high bar for verbal commitments.

The Talmudic discussions in Nedarim are designed to unpack the nuances of these biblical principles. What constitutes a vow? What language makes it binding? How long does it last? What if the circumstances change? What if one regrets it? These are not mere academic questions; they are vital for daily life, impacting everything from business dealings to personal piety, and even dietary restrictions.

The specific text we are examining from Nedarim 60 delves into two seemingly disparate, yet subtly connected, areas. It opens with a brief, intricate discussion about agricultural laws concerning teruma (a priestly offering) and its "growths," particularly how they might be nullified or retain their sacred status. While this might seem like a tangent, it introduces us to a foundational rabbinic principle concerning nullification and the persistence of prohibition, which helps us appreciate the careful legalistic thinking applied to all areas of Jewish law, including vows.

Immediately following this, the text shifts its primary focus to the laws of vows themselves, specifically examining how vows are interpreted when they include temporal limitations like "today," "this week," or "this year." This section reveals the meticulous attention the Sages paid to the precise wording of a vow and the various factors that determine its duration and scope. It also introduces the critical concept of Hatarat Nedarim – the annulment of vows – a spiritual safety net for those who, for various reasons, find themselves unable to fulfill a vow.

Text Snapshot

permitted neutralize the prohibition? But didn’t we learn in a mishna: The growths of teruma are teruma, indicating that they do not neutralize the prohibition of the original part of the plant? The Gemara answers: We are speaking of the growths of growths. Rabbi Yannai permits the teruma, not due to the majority of direct growths of teruma; he permitted it due to the majority of growths that sprouted from its growths. The Gemara asks: We already learned that too: The status of growths of growths of teruma is that of non-sacred produce. The Gemara answers: This teaches us that the growths of growths are permitted even in items whose seeds do not cease, e.g., onions.,The Gemara asks: But didn’t we learn in a mishna: With regard to untithed produce, its growths are permitted in items whose seeds cease; however, concerning items whose seeds do not cease, the growths of growths are forbidden. The Gemara answers: It teaches us that if the increase of the growths of growths exceeded its primary, original part, that original part is permitted.,,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 the conclusion of that day at nightfall, and not for a twenty-four hour period. 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 this year, he is prohibited from drinking wine for the entire remainder of the year; and as Rosh HaShana is considered to be part of the upcoming year, not the current one, 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 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.,The Gemara poses a question: What is the reason that he must request the dissolution of the vow once it has already expired? The Gemara answers that Rav Yosef said: The Sages issued a rabbinic decree in the case of one who said that his vow applies today, due to the confusion that might be caused in a case where one said that his vow applies for one day, and is therefore forbidden to drink wine for twenty-four hours. There is a concern that if one who said that his vow applies today is permitted to drink wine that night, one who took a vow for one day will think that his vow also expires as soon as it is nightfall. Abaye said to him: 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. If the vow expires in the middle of the day, twenty-four hours after he took the vow, people might think that if one takes a vow in the morning and applies it to this day, it also expires in the middle of the day.,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.,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, which is forbidden because one must bring all offerings to the Temple. And one who fulfills the vow, is as though he burns portions meant for the altar in the Temple upon it, i.e., the personal altar, thereby increasing his sin. Consequently, even after he has fulfilled the vow, it is preferable for him to ask a halakhic authority to annul it entirely, so that it will be as if he never took a vow.,§ The mishna stated that one who says: Wine is konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste it this week, is prohibited from drinking wine for the entire remainder of the week, including Shabbat. The Gemara poses a question: Isn’t it obvious that this is the case? 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.,The mishna stated: If one says: This month, it is forbidden to him for the entire remainder of the month, and the New Moon is considered part of the next month. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? The Gemara answers: When it was necessary to teach this halakha it was for a New Moon preceding a deficient, twenty-nine-day month. In such a case the New Moon is celebrated for two days, the first of which is the thirtieth day of the previous month and the second of which is the first day of the new month. The case here is one where he took the vow on the first day of the New Moon.,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.,§ The mishna states that if one says: This year, it is forbidden to him for the entire remainder of the year, and that Rosh HaShana is considered part of the upcoming year.,A dilemma was raised before the scholars: 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?,The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof from the mishna: 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 the conclusion of that day, at nightfall. The Gemara infers that this halakha only applies if he said the word today; therefore, if he said the vow applies for a day, it is considered comparable to a case where he said one day, and the vow is in effect for twenty-four hours.,The Gemara rejects this proof: But say the latter clause of the mishna: 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 the same time on the following day. This indicates that it is only if he said: One day, that the vow takes effect for twenty-four hours; but if he said it takes effect for a day, it is comparable to a case where he said today, and the vow takes effect only until nightfall. Rather, no inference is to be learned from this mishna.,Rav Ashi said: Come and hear a resolution to this question from the following mishna (63a): If one vowed: Wine is konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste it this year, then if the year was extended, i.e., declared to be a leap year, he is prohibited from drinking wine in it and its intercalated month. The Gemara inquires: What are the circumstances?

The Big Question

The overarching question that emerges from this portion of Nedarim 60 is: How do we reconcile the unwavering sanctity and binding nature of vows in Jewish tradition with the nuanced, often forgiving, realities of human intention, error, and regret?

On one hand, the Torah is crystal clear: "You shall not break your word; you shall carry out all that you have uttered with your mouth" (Numbers 30:3). This bedrock principle establishes vows as serious, almost sacred, commitments. They are not to be taken lightly, for they invoke the Divine Name, or at least the seriousness of a sacred offering (as implied by the term konam, which equates an item to a korban or offering). Our words, the very breath we use to speak, are understood to have immense power, capable of creating spiritual obligations and prohibitions that can profoundly impact our lives and our relationship with Hashem.

The Weight of a Vow

Think of a vow as drawing a line in the sand, but a line with spiritual ramifications. When we say, "This wine is konam for me," we are essentially saying, "This wine is now as forbidden to me as if it were an offering dedicated to the Temple," making it muktzah (set aside) and off-limits. This isn't merely a personal resolution; it's a self-imposed halakhic restriction, a new fence around what was previously permissible. The seriousness stems from the idea that we are using our free will, a divine gift, to bind ourselves. To break such a bond is not just a breach of personal integrity, but a transgression against the very fabric of our verbal covenant with God and with ourselves.

For example, imagine a person who vows to donate a certain amount to charity. This is not just a promise to another human being; it's seen as a promise to God, who facilitated the means for that donation. Failure to fulfill it is a grave offense, as it implies a lack of respect for the Divine and for the power of one's own word. Similarly, a vow to abstain from certain food items, even if permissible, elevates that abstention to the level of a religious prohibition, akin to kashrut laws.

The Nuance of Interpretation

Yet, the Talmud, ever sensitive to the complexities of human experience, immediately introduces layers of interpretation and mitigation. The Sages recognize that people speak in different ways, that intentions can be unclear, and that circumstances change. They understood that an overly rigid application of vow law could lead to unbearable burdens and unintended sins.

Consider the nuances explored in our text regarding temporal vows: "today" versus "one day," "this week" versus "one week." This meticulous parsing of language demonstrates a profound commitment to understanding the speaker's intent within the framework of established linguistic conventions. If someone says "I won't drink wine today," common parlance dictates that means until nightfall, not a full 24 hours. But "I won't drink wine for one day" implies a full 24-hour period from the moment the vow was uttered. This distinction is crucial, as misinterpretation could lead to either inadvertently breaking a vow or unnecessarily extending a prohibition.

Furthermore, the Gemara's discussion about Rabbi Yirmeya's ruling – that even after a vow expires, one needs a halakhic authority to dissolve it – highlights a rabbinic concern that transcends the literal fulfillment of the vow. It suggests a spiritual residue, an ongoing need for purification or rectification, even when the practical prohibition has ceased. This leads to the profound statement of Rabbi Natan, who likens making a vow to building a personal altar and fulfilling it to burning sacrifices on it outside the Temple – a grave sin. This perspective elevates the act of vowing itself to a potentially problematic spiritual act, regardless of its content.

The Balancing Act

So, the big question becomes: How do we balance this profound reverence for the sanctity of speech and the binding nature of vows with the practical need for flexibility and a path for repentance? Judaism doesn't simply say "don't vow" (though that is often the preferred advice). Instead, it provides a sophisticated legal and spiritual framework to navigate this powerful aspect of human expression.

The solution lies in the rabbinic understanding that while vows are serious, they are also an expression of human will, which is inherently fallible. Therefore, mechanisms like Hatarat Nedarim (annulment of vows) exist. These aren't loopholes, but rather structured processes that acknowledge the potential for error, regret, or unforeseen circumstances, allowing an individual to release themselves from a vow, provided certain conditions (like genuine regret) are met and sanctioned by a beit din (rabbinic court) or qualified halakhic authority. This intricate system ensures that the weight of a vow is felt, but also that a person is not irreversibly trapped by their own words, especially if those words were ill-considered or have become detrimental.

Ultimately, the text compels us to reflect on the power of our speech, the importance of intention, and the merciful wisdom of a tradition that both elevates verbal commitment and provides a path for compassionate rectification.

One Core Concept

One core concept illuminated by our text is the rabbinic principle of Gezeirah (Decree) and its role in safeguarding Halakha (Jewish Law).

A Gezeirah is a rabbinic enactment or prohibition designed to "make a fence around the Torah" (Avot 1:1), preventing people from inadvertently transgressing a biblical commandment. It's not a biblical law itself, but a preventative measure. In our text, this principle is vividly demonstrated by Rav Yosef's explanation for Rabbi Yirmeya's ruling: even after a vow taken "today" expires at nightfall, one must still seek annulment from a halakhic authority.

The Logic of the Decree

The logic behind this specific gezeirah is to prevent confusion. If someone who vowed "today" could simply drink wine at nightfall without any further action, people might mistakenly believe that a vow taken "for one day" (which actually lasts 24 hours from utterance) also expires at nightfall. This confusion could lead to inadvertent transgression of the "one day" vow. The Sages, foreseeing this potential for error, instituted a gezeirah that requires annulment for all vows, even those that have technically expired, thereby creating a uniform, safer standard.

Examples of Gezeirah

This concept is widespread in Jewish law. For instance, the biblical prohibition of melakha (creative labor) on Shabbat is specific, but the rabbis decreed additional prohibitions (like not climbing a tree or riding an animal) to prevent actions that might lead to melakha. Another example is the separation of meat and milk: the Torah only forbids cooking a kid in its mother's milk, but the rabbis extended this to all meat and milk, and even to waiting periods between consumption, to create a buffer zone. These decrees, while not biblical, carry significant halakhic weight and illustrate the meticulous care the Sages took to preserve the integrity of God's commandments and protect the Jewish people from transgression. This particular gezeirah in Nedarim emphasizes that even when the letter of the law is fulfilled, the spirit of caution and spiritual cleanliness sometimes demands further action.

Breaking It Down

Let's embark on a detailed journey through our text, unpacking its layers with the help of the accompanying commentaries. We’ll begin with the preliminary discussion on teruma and then dive into the complexities of vows.

The Initial Discussion: Growths of Teruma

The Gemara opens with an intriguing discussion about teruma, the portion of produce given to the Kohanim (priests). Teruma is sacred and forbidden for non-Kohanim to eat. The question at hand is about "growths" from teruma.

Insight 1: The Principle of Bitul B'rov and Teruma

The Gemara asks: "permitted neutralize the prohibition?" This refers to the principle of bitul b'rov, nullification by a majority. Generally, if a small amount of a forbidden substance becomes mixed with a large amount (often 60 times the amount) of a permitted substance, the forbidden item is "nullified" or absorbed, and the mixture becomes permitted. For example, if a drop of non-kosher wine falls into a large barrel of kosher wine, the non-kosher wine is nullified.

The Gemara immediately counters: "But didn’t we learn in a mishna: The growths of teruma are teruma?" This mishna establishes that if a teruma seed is planted and grows, the new growth retains the status of teruma. This implies that the new, permitted growth does not nullify the original sacred status.

Rashi (Nedarim 60a:1:1) clarifies this: "תרומה - דאין גידולי היתר מעלין את האיסור" (Teruma - that permitted growths do not nullify the forbidden). This means that even if the new growth (which itself is permitted if it were from non-teruma) is far greater in quantity than the original teruma seed, it cannot "lift" or nullify the sacred, prohibited status of the teruma. The holiness of teruma is so potent that it transfers to its direct offspring, regardless of quantity.

• Example: Imagine planting a small teruma potato. When it grows into a large potato plant with many new potatoes, all those new potatoes are still considered teruma and forbidden to a non-Kohen, even though the original teruma part is now tiny compared to the new growth. The sanctity is inherent and persistent.
• Nuance: Why is teruma so strict compared to other prohibitions? Teruma is not just forbidden; it's sacred. Its prohibition is tied to its holy status as a gift to God. Other prohibitions (like non-kosher food) are about impurity or moral boundaries. This sacred aspect means its status is not easily diluted or nullified by quantity.

Insight 2: "Growths of Growths" and the Case of the Onion

The Gemara then offers a crucial distinction: "We are speaking of the growths of growths." This changes the game. Rabbi Yannai, the initial authority cited, is not talking about direct offspring, but secondary offspring.

Rashi (Nedarim 60a:1:2) explains: "בגידולי גידולין קאמר - דהכי קאמר גידולי בצל של תרומה שנטעה ורבו גידוליו על עיקרו דהוו להו גידולי גידולין" (We are speaking of growths of growths – meaning growths of a teruma onion that was planted, and its growths exceeded its root, becoming growths of growths). Tosafot (Nedarim 60a:1:1) adds: "בגידולי גידולין - כהך דבצל גופיה הוי גידולין של תרומה" (In growths of growths – like an onion itself is growths of teruma).

The scenario: A teruma onion (the "root") is planted. It sprouts new "growths" (the first generation). These first-generation growths then produce further "growths" (the second generation, "growths of growths"). It is this second generation that Rabbi Yannai permits.

The Gemara then challenges: "We already learned that too: The status of growths of growths of teruma is that of non-sacred produce." This implies that the permission of growths of growths is not a new teaching.

Insight 3: The Novelty: "Items Whose Seeds Do Not Cease"

The Gemara responds: "This teaches us that the growths of growths are permitted even in items whose seeds do not cease, e.g., onions." This is the real novelty.

Rashi (Nedarim 60a:1:4): "אפי' בדבר שאין זרעו כלה - כגון בצל גידולי גידולין מותר" (Even in an item whose seed does not cease – such as an onion, growths of growths are permitted). Tosafot (Nedarim 60a:1:3): "קמשמע לן רבי חנינא דאפילו דבר שאין זרעו כלה גידולי גידולין חולין" (Rabbi Chanina teaches us that even for an item whose seed does not cease, growths of growths are non-sacred). Steinsaltz (Nedarim 60a:1) summarizes beautifully: "דבר זה השמיע לנו: אפילו בדבר שאין זרעו כלה, כגון בצלים — גידולי גידולים מותרים" (This teaches us: even in an item whose seed does not cease, like onions – growths of growths are permitted).

• "Items whose seeds cease": These are plants where the original seed or root essentially dies after producing new growth. Think of a carrot; once it grows, the original seed is gone.
• "Items whose seeds do not cease": These are plants that continually regenerate from the original root or bulb, like an onion or garlic. The original "seed" (the bulb) remains and continues to produce new layers or sprouts.

The novelty is that even for these continuously regenerating plants, the growths of growths are permitted. This is significant because one might argue that since the original teruma bulb (the "seed") is still present and active, its sanctity should always propagate, making all subsequent growths forbidden. The Gemara teaches us this is not the case for the second generation of growth. The connection to the original teruma is sufficiently attenuated.

• Example: If you plant a teruma carrot, the first carrot that grows is teruma. But a teruma onion, when it sprouts new green shoots (first generation) and then those shoots produce a new onion (second generation), that second onion is permitted. This is because the connection to the original teruma onion is now twice removed.

Insight 4: The Condition of "Exceeding its Primary"

The Gemara then introduces another challenge: "But didn’t we learn in a mishna: With regard to untithed produce (tevel), its growths are permitted in items whose seeds cease; however, concerning items whose seeds do not cease, the growths of growths are forbidden." This mishna seems to contradict the previous ruling, stating that for things like onions (seeds don't cease), growths of growths are forbidden if they started from tevel.

Tevel is produce from which teruma and ma'aserot (tithes) have not yet been separated. It is forbidden to eat tevel until the proper separations are made.

The Gemara reconciles this by stating: "It teaches us that if the increase of the growths of growths exceeded its primary, original part, that original part is permitted."

Tosafot (Nedarim 60a:1:2) provides a critical explanation: "ה"ג התם דלא רבו הכא דרבו - פירוש הא דאמר גידולי גידולין אסורין גבי טבל היינו כל כמה דלא רבו גידולי גידולין על העיקר אבל הכא ברבו הלכך מבטלי גידולין לעיקר ובספרים כתוב ריבויא דרבו גידולין על עיקרו מותר קמ"ל ויש לפרש כדפרישית דמלתא דרבי חנינא מיירי דרבו גידולין על עיקרו" (The text there [regarding tevel] is 'where they did not exceed,' here 'where they did exceed' – meaning that which says growths of growths are forbidden regarding tevel is when the growths of growths did not exceed the root, but here [in Rabbi Yannai's case concerning teruma] they did exceed, therefore the growths nullify the root. And in some books it is written: 'The abundance of growths exceeding its root is permitted' – this teaches us, and can be explained as I said, that Rabbi Chanina's statement deals with growths exceeding its root).

This is a key distinction. The permission for growths of growths (even for things like onions) only applies if the growths themselves have grown to a significant degree, specifically, if their increase (the new matter) has exceeded the original prohibited part (ribui al ha'ikar). When the new growth substantially outweighs the original prohibited component, the original component is considered nullified within the larger, permitted mass.

• Example: Imagine a small teruma onion bulb. It sprouts, and those sprouts grow into a new, larger onion. If the new material of the second generation onion is significantly larger than the original teruma bulb, then the original bulb's prohibition is nullified within the new, permitted growth.
• Historical/Textual Layer: This intricate discussion about teruma and tevel highlights the rabbinic method of pilpul (sharp analytical debate). They reconcile seemingly contradictory mishnayot by identifying subtle differences in conditions ("growths" vs. "growths of growths," "seeds cease" vs. "seeds do not cease," and critically, "exceeded its primary"). This approach demonstrates their commitment to a cohesive halakhic system, where every word and every nuance matters. It also shows a practical application of bitul (nullification) even for sacred items, but only under very specific and attenuated conditions.

The Mishna: Vows and Their Temporal Duration

The text now shifts to the core subject: the laws of vows (nedarim), specifically how their duration is determined by the language used.

Insight 5: "This" vs. "One" in Temporal Vows

The Mishna meticulously distinguishes between vows using "this [period]" and "one [period]." This distinction is central to understanding the duration of the vow.

• "This Day / Today": "Wine is konam for me... today." The Mishna states: "prohibited... only until the conclusion of that day at nightfall." This refers to the halakhic day, which ends at sunset.

  • Example: If you vow at 10 AM on Tuesday that you won't drink wine "today," you are forbidden until Tuesday night at sunset.

• "One Day": "If he said that wine is forbidden to him for one day..." The Mishna states: "prohibited... from the day and time he took the vow to the same time the next day." This means a full 24-hour period.

  • Example: If you vow at 10 AM on Tuesday that you won't drink wine for "one day," you are forbidden until 10 AM on Wednesday.

• "This Week": "Prohibited... for the entire remainder of the week. And as Shabbat is considered part of the week that passed, he is prohibited... on the upcoming Shabbat."

  • Example: If you vow on Wednesday that you won't drink wine "this week," you are forbidden until the end of the upcoming Shabbat. The week is understood to end with Shabbat.

• "One Week": Prohibited for a full seven days from the time of the vow.

  • Example: Vow on Wednesday 10 AM for "one week," forbidden until Wednesday 10 AM the following week.

• "This Month": "Forbidden... 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."

  • Example: Vow on the 15th of Nissan that you won't drink wine "this month," forbidden until the end of the 29th or 30th of Nissan. On Rosh Chodesh Iyar, you are permitted. The Mishna considers Rosh Chodesh (the start of the new month) as belonging to the next month, thus ending the "this month" vow.

• "One Month": Prohibited for a full 30 days (or 29, depending on the lunar month) from the time of the vow.

• "This Year": "Forbidden... for the entire remainder of the year; and as Rosh HaShana is considered to be part of the upcoming year, not the current one, he is permitted to drink wine on that day."

  • Example: Vow in Tammuz that you won't drink wine "this year," forbidden until the day before Rosh HaShana. On Rosh HaShana, you are permitted, as it marks the beginning of the next year.

• "One Year": Prohibited for a full 12 months from the time of the vow.

• "This Seven-Year Cycle": "Forbidden... 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."

  • Example: Vow in the 3rd year of a Shemita cycle that you won't drink wine "this seven-year cycle," forbidden until the end of the upcoming Sabbatical Year (the 7th year of the cycle). This is similar to "this week" ending with Shabbat.

• "One Seven-Year Cycle": Prohibited for a full seven years from the time of the vow.

Insight 6: Vows "Until" a Holiday

The Mishna also addresses vows related to specific holidays:

• "Until Passover": "Forbidden... until Passover arrives." (i.e., until the start of the holiday).

• "Until it will be Passover": "Forbidden... until Passover ends." (Rosh explains this means the entire holiday). This implies a stronger desire to extend the vow's prohibition.

• "Until before Passover": Rabbi Meir says "until Passover arrives." Rabbi Yosei says "until it ends." This reflects a dispute over interpretation of ambiguous language. Does "before Passover" mean "leading up to Passover" or "the period immediately preceding and including Passover"?

• Historical/Textual Layer: These fine distinctions highlight the precision required in halakha. The Sages did not rely on loose interpretations. They analyzed common speech patterns (lashon benei adam) and the established calendar to derive the exact duration of a vow. This reflects the seriousness with which they regarded verbal commitments.

The Gemara: Deeper Interpretations and Rabbinic Decrees

The Gemara now delves into the Mishna's rulings, questioning, clarifying, and expanding upon them.

Insight 7: The Lingering Obligation: Annulment Even After Expiration

The Mishna stated that a vow "today" expires at nightfall. But Rabbi Yirmeya adds a critical point: "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."

This is profound. Even though the halakhic prohibition has technically ended, a spiritual residue remains. The individual still needs a hatarat neder (annulment of vow).

Rav Yosef's Reason: The Gezeirah (Rabbinic Decree) The Gemara asks: "What is the reason that he must request the dissolution of the vow once it has already expired?" Rav Yosef answers: It's a rabbinic decree (gezeirah). The Sages were concerned about confusion between "today" (expires at nightfall) and "one day" (expires 24 hours later). If someone who said "today" could drink wine freely at nightfall, someone who said "one day" might mistakenly think their vow also expires at nightfall, leading them to transgress.

Abaye's Challenge and Rav Yosef's Response: Lo Mi'chaleif (Not Interchanged) Abaye challenges: "If so, the Sages should likewise decree in the case of one who takes a vow for one day... due to the confusion that might be caused in a case where one said that his vow applies today." Why not worry about someone who vows "one day" thinking it expires at nightfall, mistaking it for "today"? Rav Yosef responds: "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."

This subtle distinction is key. People are more likely to mistakenly shorten a longer vow (e.g., "one day" mistakenly ending at nightfall like "today") than to lengthen a shorter vow (e.g., "today" mistakenly lasting 24 hours). The greater concern is that someone might inadvertently break a vow by ending it too soon. Therefore, the decree is aimed at preventing the shortening of the "one day" vow.

• Example: Sarah vows at 9 AM on Monday, "No coffee for this day." She is forbidden until Monday sunset. Rachel vows at 9 AM on Monday, "No coffee for one day." She is forbidden until Tuesday 9 AM. The gezeirah ensures that even Sarah, whose vow expired at sunset, still needs annulment. This prevents Rachel from seeing Sarah drink coffee at sunset and mistakenly thinking her own "one day" vow is also over, leading her to transgress.

Insight 8: Rabbi Natan's Profound View on Vows

Ravina conveys a powerful teaching from Rav Yosef, citing Rabbi Natan: "Anyone who vows, it is as if he has built a personal altar... And one who fulfills the vow, is as though he burns portions meant for the altar in the Temple upon it, i.e., the personal altar, thereby increasing his sin."

This baraita (a teaching from the Mishnaic period not included in the Mishna) is a staggering indictment of vows.

• "Built a personal altar": In ancient Israel, all sacrifices were to be brought to the Temple in Jerusalem. Building a private altar for offerings was forbidden, a grave sin, as it undermined the centralized worship and holiness of the Temple. Rabbi Natan views the act of vowing as creating a private, unauthorized spiritual obligation, diverting sanctity from its proper place.

• "Fulfills the vow... burns upon it": Even if one keeps the vow, they are "feeding" this illegitimate altar. They are continuing to engage in a spiritually problematic act. This is why, according to Rabbi Natan, one should seek annulment even after fulfilling a vow. The act of vowing itself is problematic, and annulment serves to retroactively nullify that initial, flawed spiritual construction.

• Historical/Textual Layer: This opinion of Rabbi Natan is extremely influential. It highlights the general rabbinic discouragement of making vows. While the Torah allows vows, the Sages often preferred that people avoid them, except for very specific and constructive purposes (e.g., a vow to give tzedaka to a poor person in need). The power of speech is immense, and for Rabbi Natan, directing that power in a self-imposed, potentially misguided way is deeply concerning.

Insight 9: Clarifying "This Week" and "This Month"

The Gemara continues to clarify aspects of the Mishna.

"This Week" Includes Shabbat: The Mishna stated "this week" includes Shabbat. The Gemara asks, "Isn't it obvious?" The answer: "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 (Mishnaic sage) teaches us that "this week" in common parlance includes Shabbat, unless specifically excluded.

• Example: If someone says, "I'm going on vacation this week," it's understood to include the weekend, not just Monday-Friday. The Mishna clarifies that vows follow this common understanding.

"This Month" and the New Moon of a Deficient Month: The Mishna stated that for "this month," the New Moon of the next month is considered part of the next month, meaning the vow ends before it. The Gemara asks, "Isn't this obvious?" The answer: It's necessary for "a deficient, twenty-nine-day month." In such a month, Rosh Chodesh (New Moon) is celebrated for two days: the 30th day of the previous month and the 1st day of the new month. The question is if the vow was taken on the first day of this two-day Rosh Chodesh. "Lest you say that the first day of the New Moon is part of the previous month... and wine should not be forbidden to him during the upcoming month." The tanna 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." This means if you vowed "this month" and the current month is a deficient one, the vow ends before the two-day Rosh Chodesh begins. The Mishna clarifies that the entirety of Rosh Chodesh, even its first day which is technically the 30th of the previous month, is considered the start of the next month for vow purposes, meaning the old vow has expired.

• Example: If Nissan is a 29-day month. Rosh Chodesh Iyar is celebrated on the 30th of Nissan and the 1st of Iyar. If you vowed on the 10th of Nissan, "No wine this month," you are forbidden until the 29th of Nissan. On the 30th of Nissan (which is the first day of Rosh Chodesh Iyar), you are permitted to drink wine because it's considered part of the next month for vow purposes.

Insight 10: The Dilemma of "A Day"

The Gemara returns to the precise wording of vows with a dilemma: If one says "Wine is konam for me... for a day," what is the halakha? Is it like "today" (until nightfall) or "one day" (24 hours)? This is an ambiguous phrase.

The Gemara attempts to resolve it from the Mishna's ruling about "today" ("prohibited... only until... nightfall"). The inference: if it only applies if he said today, then "a day" must be like "one day" (24 hours). But the Gemara rejects this proof by turning to the latter clause of the Mishna, which discusses "one day" ("prohibited... from the day... to the same time the next day"). The inference there: if it only applies if he said one day, then "a day" must be like "today" (until nightfall). "Rather, no inference is to be learned from this mishna." The Mishna isn't explicit about "a day," leaving the dilemma open.

This shows the rigorous methodology of Talmudic analysis. They try to derive answers from existing texts but are careful to reject proofs that are not definitive.

Insight 11: Rav Ashi's Proof: The Leap Year

Rav Ashi attempts to resolve the "a day" dilemma by bringing a proof from a later Mishna (Nedarim 63a): "If one vowed: Wine is konam for me... this year, then if the year was extended, i.e., declared to be a leap year, he is prohibited from drinking wine in it and its intercalated month."

A leap year (in the Jewish calendar) adds an extra month (Adar II). If someone says "this year," and it becomes a leap year, the vow extends to include that extra month. This implies that "this year" refers to the entire duration of the current calendar year, whatever its length turns out to be.

The Gemara doesn't immediately provide the resolution here, but the implication is that if "this year" (using the demonstrative "this") expands to include a leap month, then perhaps "this day" or "a day" might also be interpreted with similar flexibility or strictness based on the current calendar unit. This sets up a further discussion, showing how different cases shed light on the interpretation of language in vows. The concept of an ibur shana (intercalated year) is a fascinating example of how calendrical decisions affect halakha.

This detailed breakdown reveals the Talmud's profound analytical depth. It shows how the Sages meticulously interpreted language, balanced competing values, created preventative decrees, and even debated the fundamental spiritual nature of the act of vowing itself.

How We Live This

The intricate discussions in Nedarim 60, while rooted in ancient agricultural and legal contexts, offer profound and practical lessons for contemporary Jewish life, particularly regarding the power of speech and the seriousness of commitments.

The Annulment of Vows (Hatarat Nedarim)

The most direct and enduring practical application of our text is the institution of Hatarat Nedarim, the annulment of vows. Rabbi Yirmeya's ruling, reinforced by Rav Yosef's gezeirah and Rabbi Natan's spiritual warning, underscores that even if a vow has technically expired, or one has fulfilled it, a spiritual rectification is still desirable, if not necessary.

The Process of Annulment

• Who can annul? A vow can be annulled by a Beit Din (rabbinic court) of three qualified individuals, or by a single hakham (wise person/rabbi) who is an expert in these laws. The individual seeking annulment presents their vow to the three, or the hakham.
• The Grounds for Annulment: Petiḥah and Ḥaratá
  • Petiḥah (Opening/Reason): The individual must present a "door" or a "reason" why they regret the vow. This isn't just a whim; it must be a genuine change of heart based on new information, unforeseen circumstances, or a realization that the vow was detrimental. For example, if someone vowed not to eat certain foods, and then finds out a doctor recommends them for health, that's a valid petiḥah. Or if they made a vow in a fit of anger and now realize its foolishness. The hakham asks, "If you had known X (the new information/circumstance), would you have made this vow?" If the person says "no," that's the "opening."
  • Ḥaratá (Regret): This is the crucial emotional component. The person must genuinely regret having made the vow. It's not about finding a legal loophole, but about acknowledging the seriousness of the vow and expressing remorse for having made it, or for the negative impact it now has.
• The Annulment Formula: Once the hakham or beit din ascertains genuine regret and a valid petiḥah, they declare the vow "annulled, released, and made void" (mutar, shari, u'patur). This declaration retroactively removes the vow, making it as if it was never made.
• Variations:
  • Public vs. Private: While ideally done before a beit din, in many communities, it's common for individuals to approach a knowledgeable rabbi for annulment. The emphasis is on the spiritual authority and wisdom of the annulment body.
  • Kol Nidre: On Yom Kippur eve, we recite Kol Nidre. This powerful prayer is a preemptive declaration of regret and annulment for any vows one might inadvertently make in the coming year, or any vows made under duress or misunderstanding in the past year. It's important to note that Kol Nidre does not annul vows made knowingly and intentionally with specific intent; those still require a personalized hatarat neder. Rather, it serves as a general expression of a desire not to be bound by unintentional or unfulfilled vows, and to sensitize us to the weight of our words. Its purpose is to help ensure that we enter Yom Kippur free from the spiritual burden of unfulfilled commitments.

Connection to Core Concept

The need for Hatarat Nedarim directly reflects the profound spiritual weight that Rabbi Natan attributes to vows. Even if the practical prohibition of a vow expires, the act of making the vow itself leaves a spiritual mark. Annulment isn't just a legal procedure; it's a spiritual purification, a way of dismantling that "personal altar" and returning sanctity to its proper place. It allows for teshuvah (repentance) and rectification, preventing individuals from being permanently burdened by their verbal commitments.

• Example 1 (Health): David vows not to eat bread for a year to lose weight. Three months later, his doctor diagnoses a condition requiring him to eat whole grains. David approaches a rabbi, explains his regret and the new medical information. The rabbi, seeing genuine regret and a valid petiḥah, annuls the vow. David can now eat bread without guilt or sin.
• Example 2 (Social/Family): Sarah, in a fit of anger, vows never to speak to her brother again. After a few weeks, she deeply regrets this, realizing it's causing immense pain to her family and herself. She goes to a beit din, expresses her sincere regret, and explains that she made the vow out of anger and didn't foresee the lasting damage. The beit din annuls the vow, allowing her to reconcile with her brother.

Avoiding Vows Altogether (Bli Neder)

Another crucial practical lesson is the widespread Jewish custom to avoid making vows in the first place, or to qualify any promise with "Bli Neder" (without a vow). This stems directly from the rabbinic warnings about the severity of vows and the spiritual complications they entail.

The Wisdom of Caution

The verse in Kohelet (Ecclesiastes 5:4) states: "Better not to vow than to vow and not fulfill." This biblical wisdom is amplified by the Talmudic discussions. The Sages understood human nature: we are often impulsive, our intentions can be fleeting, and circumstances are unpredictable. To make a binding vow is to stake one's spiritual integrity on an uncertain future.

• "Bli Neder": This simple phrase, meaning "without a vow," is frequently used in Jewish conversations. If someone says, "I'll call you tomorrow, bli neder," they are making a sincere promise, but explicitly stating that it is not a binding vow. This protects them from the spiritual repercussions should unforeseen circumstances prevent them from fulfilling their word. It allows for flexibility and acknowledges human fallibility without diminishing the sincerity of the promise.
• Example 1 (Daily Life): You tell a friend, "I'll bring dessert for Shabbat dinner, bli neder." You fully intend to, but if something unexpected happens (e.g., you get sick, the store is closed), you haven't committed a sin by failing to bring it.
• Example 2 (Business/Professional): A person commits to a project deadline for a client. While a professional commitment carries its own weight, adding "bli neder" in a personal Jewish context acknowledges that ultimate control is not in human hands and protects against the spiritual consequence of an unavoidable delay.

The Sanctity of Speech

The emphasis on avoiding vows, or using "bli neder," paradoxically elevates the sanctity of everyday speech. If a formal vow is so serious, then even our ordinary promises, commitments, and casual remarks should be treated with respect and care. It teaches us to be mindful of our words, to think before we speak, and to be honest about our ability to fulfill commitments.

• Detailed Application: This means cultivating a habit of conscious speech. Before making a promise, ask yourself: Is this something I can realistically commit to? Do I truly intend to follow through? If there's any doubt, add "bli neder." This practice fosters integrity and self-awareness. It trains us to be deliberate with our utterances, understanding that words are not cheap. This mindfulness in speech extends beyond vows to encompass avoiding lashon hara (gossip), speaking truthfully, and using words to build and uplift rather than to diminish.

The Significance of Calendar and Timing

The Mishna's detailed parsing of "this day," "one day," "this month," "this year," and their respective expiry points (nightfall, Rosh Chodesh, Rosh HaShana) highlights the profound integration of halakha with the Jewish calendar.

• Halakhic Time: Judaism operates on its own calendrical and temporal definitions. A "day" for halakhic purposes often ends at nightfall, not midnight. A "month" begins with Rosh Chodesh. A "year" for many purposes begins with Rosh HaShana. Understanding these definitions is critical for observing mitzvot and for interpreting legal obligations like vows.

• Awareness of Cycles: The text encourages an awareness of these cycles. For someone making a vow, knowing these specific cut-off points is crucial for correctly fulfilling or determining the duration of their commitment. It reinforces the idea that Jewish life is lived within a divinely ordained rhythm of time.

• Example: If you vow to fast "this day," knowing that the day ends at nightfall means you can break your fast then, regardless of the clock. This is a practical application of the Mishna's specific interpretation of "this day."

In summary, Nedarim 60 provides not only ancient legal precedents but a living ethical framework. It teaches us to approach our words with reverence and responsibility, to understand the serious implications of our commitments, and to appreciate the compassionate wisdom of a tradition that provides both a fence to protect us from error and a door to rectify our mistakes.

One Thing to Remember

The most crucial takeaway from Nedarim 60 is the profound power and sanctity of human speech in Judaism, and the corresponding responsibility to use our words with utmost care. Our words are not merely fleeting sounds; they are potent instruments capable of shaping our spiritual reality, creating binding obligations, and connecting us to the Divine. While the Sages provide intricate guidelines for interpreting and, if necessary, annulling vows, their overriding message is one of caution: "Better not to vow than to vow and not fulfill." This encourages us to be deliberate, honest, and humble in our commitments, recognizing that every utterance carries weight, and that true integrity lies in aligning our speech with our deepest intentions and our capacity to follow through. The existence of Hatarat Nedarim is a testament to God's mercy and the Sages' wisdom, offering a path to rectification when our human fallibility leads us astray, yet it never diminishes the initial call to guard our tongue and honor our word.