Nedarim 65

Sugya Map

Issue

The core issue is whether a neder (vow) or shevua (oath) that prohibits benefit from another party (modar hana'ah mechaveiro) can be dissolved (hatorat nedarim) only in the physical presence (b'fanav) of the affected party.

Nafka Mina

Does this requirement apply l'chatchila (ab initio) only, or is dissolution b'dieved (post-facto) invalid if not b'fanav? What is the underlying ta'am (reason) for b'fanav?

Primary Sources

• Baraita (Tosefta 2:12)¹: States the halakha directly.
• Shemot 4:19²: Rav Nachman's derivation from Moshe's "vow" to Yitro.
• Divrei HaYamim II 36:13³: The story of Tzedekiah's oath to Nevuchadnezzar.

Text Snapshot

"תניא: המודר הנאה מחבירו, אין מתירין לו אלא בפניו. מנא הני מילי? אמר רב נחמן: דכתיב 'ויאמר ה' אל משה במדין לך שב מצרים... אמר לו: במדין נדרת, לך והתר נדרך במדין'. דכתיב 'ויואל משה לשבת את האיש'. ואין 'אלה' אלא שבועה" (Nedarim 65a)⁴.

Dikduk/Leshon Nuance

The Gemara links "ויואל" (vayo'el) to "אלה" (ala), an oath, via Ezekiel 17:13⁵. This gezeirah shava establishes vayo'el as a binding commitment equivalent to an oath, thereby applying oath-dissolution rules to Moshe's promise.

Readings

Ran on Nedarim 65a

The Ran explores two ta'amim from the Yerushalmi for the b'fanav requirement: busha (shame) or chashad (suspicion)⁶. If busha, actual presence is needed for the noder to feel shame. If chashad, the concern is that the affected party might suspect the noder of violating the vow if unaware of its dissolution; in this case, mere yediah (knowledge) might suffice.

Tosafot on Nedarim 65a

Tosafot leans towards chashad as the primary ta'am, arguing b'fanav doesn't necessarily mean consent (mida'ato) but merely presence, even b'al korcho (against his will)⁷. They challenge Rabbeinu Tam's view that b'fanav only applies when the vow was for the affected party's benefit.

Friction

Kushya

The Tzedekiah narrative presents a kushya: Sanhedrin dissolved his oath shelo b'fanav (not in Nevuchadnezzar's presence), yet the Gemara describes Sanhedrin's subsequent punishment ("They sit upon the ground, and keep silence"⁸) and Tzedekiah's own tragic fate, implying their dissolution was flawed. If b'dieved it's valid, why the error/punishment?

Terutz

Tosafot (Nedarim 65a s.v. "אמרו לו") and Ran (ibid.) reconcile this. They suggest that l'chatchila, dissolution b'fanav is required. However, b'dieved, if dissolved shelo b'fanav, the neder is still nullified. Sanhedrin's error was l'chatchila sanctioning the dissolution shelo b'fanav. Tzedekiah's punishment was for chillul Hashem (profaning God's name) by violating the spirit of his oath, not for an invalid dissolution.

Intertext

The derivation of ala as an oath is directly supported by "ויבא אתו באלה" (Ezekiel 17:13)⁹, which describes a king being brought "under an oath" to a covenant.

Psak/Practice

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De'ah 228:15) rules that for a vow prohibiting benefit from another, dissolution requires the affected party's presence or at least their yediah (knowledge)¹⁰, reflecting the chashad ta'am.

Takeaway

The requirement of b'fanav underscores the public and relational nature of vows, demanding respect for the affected party's standing, even amidst debates over the b'dieved validity of dissolution.

---

¹ Nedarim 65a s.v. "תניא" ² Shemot 4:19 ³ Divrei HaYamim II 36:13 ⁴ Nedarim 65a ⁵ Ezekiel 17:13 ⁶ Ran Nedarim 65a s.v. "תניא המודר" ⁷ Tosafot Nedarim 65a s.v. "דתנן המודר" ⁸ Eicha 2:10, cited Nedarim 65a ⁹ Ezekiel 17:13 ¹⁰ Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 228:15