Nedarim 63

Sugya Map

• Issue: Determining the precise point at which a vow for a specified duration, particularly one tied to a natural event like rain or a calendar date, is considered fulfilled. This also touches on the timing for communal and individual prayer/fasting for rain.
• Nafka Mina(s):
  • The validity of vows tied to seasons or natural phenomena.
  • The practical timeline for communal and individual prayer and fasting for rain.
  • The interpretation of unspecified calendrical terms, especially in a leap year.
• Primary Sources: Nedarim 63a-64a, various Baraitot cited in Nedarim, Mishna of Nedarim concerning vows until a specific time.

Text Snapshot

Nedarim 63a:

מיתיבי: איזהו זמנה של רביעה? הבכירה – בשלשה במרחשון; בינונית – בשבעה; אפילה – בעשרים ושלשה. דברי ר' מאיר. ר' יהודה אומר: בשבעה, ובשבעה עשר, ובעשרים ושלשה במרחשון. ר' יוסי אומר: בי"ז ובכ"ג, ובר"ח כסלו. וכן היה ר' יוסי אומר: אין היחידין מתענין עד שיעבור ר"ח כסלו.

אמרי: מאי טעמא? – משום דתנן: רבי יהודה אומר: עד מתי? עד שיבא ניסן.

אלא מעתה, said Rabbi Zeira, the first rainfall, why did they disagree about its date? For asking for rain. And the third rainfall, why did they disagree about its date? For fasting. But the second rainfall, what is its significance? Rabbi Zeira said: For one who vows until the rain.

• Leshon Nuance: The Gemara's use of "מיתיבי" (we are challenged) signals a direct objection to a prior statement. The terms "בכירה" (early/firstborn), "בינונית" (intermediate), and "אפילה" (late/dark) are evocative meteorological terms for rainfall. The crucial question for R. Zeira is the nafka mina of the second rainfall’s timing, which he resolves by connecting it to vows. The phrase "אין היחידין מתענין" (the individuals do not fast) refers to learned scholars who would initiate fasts preemptively.

Readings

Ran on Nedarim 63a:1:1

The Ran addresses the apparent contradiction regarding when a vow "until the rain" (עד הגשם) expires. He explains that the disagreement among the Tannaim about the timing of the rains is indeed relevant for vows. He notes that the Baraita states that seven consecutive days of rain are counted as the first and second rainfall according to Rabbi Yosei. The Ran then grapples with the case of "עד הקציר" (until the harvest), which, unlike rain, has a less fixed timing. He posits that if the timing of the event is unknown, one relies on the actual occurrence. However, for rain, whose seasons are generally known (זמנה של רביעה), the established dates are significant. In cases where the exact timing isn't precisely known (like the harvest), the vow is only fulfilled upon the actual event.

• Chiddush: The Ran clarifies that the specific timing of rain is known, making the stipulated dates relevant for vows. For events with less predictable timing, the vow is tied to the actual occurrence.

Rif on Nedarim 20b:11

The Rif presents a concise summary of the Gemara's discussion. He records Rabbi Zeira's objection to the Baraita concerning the timing of rainfall, questioning the purpose of disagreeing on the second rainfall’s date if not for vows. The Rif also includes the Baraita about Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, which states that seven days of rain count as the first and second rainfall, and connects this to Rabbi Yosei's opinion. This supports the notion that a vow until the rain is dependent on the actual rainfall, not merely the expected date.

• Chiddush: The Rif highlights Rabbi Zeira's crucial insight that the timing of the second rainfall serves as the nafka mina for vows. He also underscores the connection between Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Yosei on the interpretation of "until the rain."

Friction

The primary friction point in the Sugya revolves around the precise interpretation of "עד הגשם" (until the rain) and its relationship to the calendrical dates for rainfall.

The Kushya: Rabbi Zeira initially poses a question: if the first rainfall is for prayer and the third for fasting, what is the purpose of disagreeing about the second rainfall's date? He answers: "For one who vows until the rain." This implies that the vow is contingent on the expected date of the second rainfall. However, the Gemara then introduces a Baraita citing Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel: "rains that fell for seven days, one after another, you count them as the first rainfall and the second." The Gemara concludes this is "in accordance with Rabbi Yosei," who holds that the first two periods span seven days. This Baraita implies that the vow is fulfilled by the actual occurrence of rain for a specific duration, not by reaching a specific date on the calendar. This appears to contradict Rabbi Zeira's earlier assertion that the second rainfall's date is relevant for vows. If the actual rain, not the date, is the criterion, then R. Zeira's explanation for the disagreement about the second rainfall seems redundant.

The Terutz: The Gemara resolves this by stating: "That Baraita is referring to one who said: 'Until the rains,' rather than: 'Until the rain.'" (ההוא דאמר עד גשמים ולא אמר עד גשם). This subtle linguistic distinction is key. "עד גשם" (singular) refers to the actual event of rain. "עד גשמים" (plural) can be interpreted as referring to the season or period of rain, thus tying it to the expected dates. Therefore, the Baraita of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, which speaks of seven days of rain, refers to a vow made with the plural "גשמים," meaning the vow is fulfilled by the actual occurrence. Rabbi Zeira's initial statement, however, likely refers to a vow made with the singular "גשם," which would indeed be tied to the expected dates, making the timing of the second rainfall significant. The Gemara, by distinguishing between the singular and plural forms of the vow, harmonizes the seemingly contradictory statements.

Intertext

Mishna Nedarim 4:1 (63a-63b)

MISHNA: In the case of one who said: Wine is konam for me, and for that reason I will not taste it for the entire year, if the year was extended, i.e., it was declared to be a leap year, he is prohibited from drinking wine during the year and its intercalated month. If he vowed until the beginning of Adar, the vow remains in effect until the beginning of the first Adar. Similarly, if he says that his vow applies until the end of Adar, the vow remains in effect until the end of the first Adar.

This Mishna directly engages with the concept of temporal vows and their interpretation, especially concerning leap years. The Gemara’s discussion about the timing of rain in Marheshvan is a specific instance of this broader theme. The Mishna establishes a principle: when a month is mentioned without specification in a regular year, it refers to that single month. In a leap year, the default interpretation of "Adar" refers to the first Adar, unless specified otherwise. This mirrors the Gemara's need to clarify the precise meaning of vows, whether singular or plural, to determine their fulfillment.

Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 228:4

Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 228:4: If one vows concerning a festival, and the festival was moved earlier or later, the vow follows the festival. And if he said "until the festival," it is understood as until the end of the festival. If he said "until the eve of the festival," it is until the eve of the festival. If he said "until the day of the festival," it is until the end of the day.

While not directly about rain, this Halacha from the Shulchan Aruch demonstrates the principle of interpreting temporal vows based on common understanding and the intention of the vow-maker. The concept of "following the festival" indicates that the vow is tied to the event rather than a fixed date, analogous to how the fulfillment of "until the rain" is tied to the actual rain. The distinction between "until the festival" and "until the eve of the festival" further illustrates the precise language required and how the Sages interpret such vows based on custom and presumed intent. This aligns with the Gemara's careful analysis of the wording in vows related to natural phenomena.

Psak/Practice

The discussion in Nedarim 63a, while dealing with the timing of rain and vows, has practical implications for the interpretation of nedarim (vows) and issurim (prohibitions) tied to temporal markers.

1. Precision in Language: The distinction between "עד גשם" and "עד גשמים" underscores the critical importance of precise language in vows. A vow made with the singular form is generally tied to the actual occurrence of the event, while the plural form might be interpreted as referring to the season or period, thus potentially aligning with calendrical expectations. This principle guides poskim in analyzing vows.
2. Intent of the Vow-maker (Da'at Ba'al Ha'Nedavah): The Gemara’s analysis, particularly in later sections concerning vows until Passover or Yom Kippur (64a), emphasizes understanding the vow-maker's intent. Vows are often interpreted in light of customs and the purpose for which the vow was made, aiming to fulfill the mitzvah or avoid an unpleasant situation. This meta-heuristic guides the psak process, seeking to avoid unintended stringencies where possible, especially when the intent is clear.
3. Leap Year Interpretation: The discussion concerning Adar highlights that unspecified temporal references are generally interpreted as the primary or first occurrence (e.g., first Adar), unless context or explicit language indicates otherwise, especially in a leap year.

Takeaway

The precise wording of a vow is paramount, as subtle linguistic distinctions (singular vs. plural) can shift its fulfillment from a calendrical date to the actual event. Ultimately, the interpretation of vows often hinges on discerning the da'at ba'al ha'nedavah, the vow-maker's presumed intent, guided by custom and logic.