## Nedarim Daf 27a

###### Nedarim 27a:1
[Nedarim 27a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/27a:1)

וְהָיוּ בָּהּ בְּנוֹת שׁוּחַ, וְאָמַר: ״אִילּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁבְּנוֹת שׁוּחַ בְּתוֹכָהּ, לֹא הָיִיתִי נוֹדֵר״ — הַכַּלְכַּלָּה אֲסוּרָה, בְּנוֹת שׁוּחַ מוּתָּרוֹת. עַד שֶׁבָּא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְלִימֵּד: נֶדֶר שֶׁהוּתַּר מִקְצָתוֹ — הוּתַּר כּוּלּוֹ. מַאי לָאו, דְּאָמַר אִילּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁבְּנוֹת שׁוּחַ בְּתוֹכָהּ, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר ״תְּאֵנִים שְׁחוֹרוֹת וּלְבָנוֹת אֲסוּרוֹת, בְּנוֹת שׁוּחַ מוּתָּרוֹת״, וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הִיא, וּפְלִיגִי רַבָּנַן?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**and there were *benot shuaḥ* in it, and he said: Had I known that there were *benot shuaḥ* in it I would not have taken a vow, the basket** and the remaining figs inside **are forbidden,** while **the *benot shuaḥ* are permitted.** This was the accepted ruling **until Rabbi Akiva came and taught: A vow which is dissolved partially is dissolved completely.** Therefore, all of the produce is permitted. **What, is it not** referring to a case where one said: **Had I known that *benot shuaḥ* were inside it, I would have said** that **black and white figs are forbidden,** and ***benot shuaḥ* are permitted, and this is** the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva, and the Rabbis disagree** with him? But according to Rava everyone agrees that all the produce is permitted in a case like this.


###### Nedarim 27a:2
[Nedarim 27a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/27a:2)

לָא, בְּאוֹמֵר: אִילּוּ הָיִיתִי יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁבְּנוֹת שׁוּחַ בְּתוֹכָהּ, הָיִיתִי אוֹמֵר: ״כׇּל הַכַּלְכַּלָּה אֲסוּרָה, וּבְנוֹת שׁוּחַ מוּתָּרוֹת״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara responds: **No,** it is possible to say that it is speaking of a case **where he says: Had I known that there were *benot shuaḥ* in it I would have said** that **the entire basket is forbidden and** the ***benot shuaḥ* are permitted,** which is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva according to Rava.


###### Nedarim 27a:3
[Nedarim 27a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/27a:3)

מַאן תְּנָא לְהָא דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: נָדַר מֵחֲמִשָּׁה בְּנֵי אָדָם כְּאֶחָד, הוּתַּר לְאֶחָד מֵהֶם — הוּתְּרוּ כּוּלָּן. ״חוּץ מֵאֶחָד מֵהֶן״ — הוּא מוּתָּר, וְהֵן אֲסוּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **Who** is the *tanna* who **taught that which the Sages taught:** With regard to one who **took a vow, in one** utterance, prohibiting himself from deriving benefit **from five people,** if the vow **is dissolved for one of them,** then the vow concerning **all of them is dissolved;** but if he retracted and said: I am prohibited to derive benefit from all of these individuals **except for one of them,** then **he,** i.e., that individual who was excluded, **is permitted and they,** the others, **are forbidden?**


###### Nedarim 27a:4
[Nedarim 27a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/27a:4)

אִי לְרַבָּה, רֵישָׁא רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וְסֵיפָא דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל. אִי לְרָבָא, סֵיפָא רַבָּנַן וְרֵישָׁא דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains two possibilities: **If** one says that it is in accordance **with** the explanation of **Rabba,** then **the first clause** is referring to a case where after having taken a vow prohibiting himself from deriving benefit from all five people, he retracted and said: Benefit from this one and from that one are forbidden but benefit from one is permitted, and it is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Akiva,** that a vow which is dissolved partially is dissolved completely. **And the latter clause** is where he adds to the initial vow by stating: Except for one of them, and **everyone agrees** that only that one is permitted. **If** one says that it is in accordance **with** the explanation of **Rava, the latter clause** is in accordance with the opinion of the **Rabbis, and everyone agrees** with the ruling of **the first clause.**


###### Nedarim 27a:5
[Nedarim 27a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/27a:5)

**מַתְנִי׳** נִדְרֵי אוֹנָסִין, הִדִּירוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁיֹּאכַל אֶצְלוֹ, וְחָלָה הוּא אוֹ שֶׁחָלָה בְּנוֹ אוֹ שֶׁעִכְּבוֹ נָהָר — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נִדְרֵי אוֹנָסִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** What are examples of **vows** impeded by **circumstances beyond** one’s **control?** If **one’s friend took a vow with regard to him that he should eat with him, and he became sick, or his son became sick, or a river** that he was unable to cross **barred him** from coming, **these are** examples of **vows** whose fulfillment are impeded by **circumstances beyond** one’s **control.** They are not binding and do not require dissolution.


###### Nedarim 27a:6
[Nedarim 27a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/27a:6)

**גְּמָ׳** הָהוּא גַּבְרָא דְּאַתְפֵּיס זָכְווֹתָא בְּבֵי דִינָא, וְאָמַר: אִי לָא אָתֵינָא עַד תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין, לִיבַּטְלוּן הָנֵי זָכְווֹתַאי. אִיתְּנִיס וְלָא אֲתָא. אֲמַר רַב הוּנָא: בְּטִיל זָכְווֹתֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The Gemara relates that there was **a certain man who** had a dispute in court with another individual and wanted to postpone the trial to a later time in order to search for more evidence. Meanwhile, he **deposited** his documents for **a favorable** verdict, i.e., that supported his claim, **in court, and** since the other litigant did not believe that he would return, the man **said: If I do not come** back **within thirty days, these** documents for **a favorable verdict will be void. He was impeded** by circumstances beyond his control **and did not come** back. **Rav Huna said: His** documents for **a favorable verdict are void** since he did not return by the specified time.


###### Nedarim 27a:7
[Nedarim 27a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/27a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא: אָנוּס הוּא, וְאָנוּס רַחֲמָנָא פַּטְרֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְלַנַּעֲרָה לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה דָבָר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said to him: He is a victim of circumstances beyond** his **control and** the *halakha* is that **the Merciful One exempted a victim of circumstances beyond** his **control** from responsibility for his actions, **as it is written** concerning a young woman who was raped: **“But unto the damsel you shall do nothing;** there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death” (Deuteronomy 22:26).


###### Nedarim 27a:8
[Nedarim 27a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/27a:8)

וְכִי תֵּימָא קְטָלָא שָׁאנֵי, וְהָתְנַן: נִדְרֵי אוֹנָסִין, הִדִּירוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁיֹּאכַל אֶצְלוֹ, וְחָלָה הוּא אוֹ שֶׁחָלָה בְּנוֹ אוֹ שֶׁעִיכְּבוֹ נָהָר — הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ נִדְרֵי אוֹנָסִין!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you would say** that with regard to the penalty of **death,** which is extremely severe, the *halakha* is **different,** and she is treated leniently and not executed, but with regard to other transgressions one’s actions are treated as deliberate, **but didn’t we learn** in the mishna here: What are examples of **vows** whose fulfillment are impeded by **circumstances beyond** one’s **control?** If **one’s friend took a vow with regard to him that he should eat with him, and he became sick, or his son became sick, or a river** that he was unable to cross **barred him** from coming, **these are** examples of **vows** whose fulfillment are impeded by **circumstances beyond** one’s **control;** they are not binding and do not require dissolution. This demonstrates that even here the exemption due to circumstances beyond one’s control should apply.


###### Nedarim 27a:9
[Nedarim 27a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/27a:9)

וּלְרָבָא, מַאי שְׁנָא מֵהָא דִּתְנַן: ״הֲרֵי זֶה גִּיטֵּיךְ מֵעַכְשָׁיו אִם לֹא בָּאתִי מִכָּאן עַד שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ״, וּמֵת בְּתוֹךְ שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ — הֲרֵי זֶה גֵּט. אַמַּאי? וְהָא מֵינָס אִיתְּנִיס! אָמְרִי: דִּלְמָא שָׁאנֵי הָתָם

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Rava,** in **what** way **is** it **different from** that **which we learned** in a mishna (*Gittin* 76b): If a man says to his wife: **This is your bill of divorce from now if I do not arrive from now until** the conclusion of **twelve months, and he died within** those **twelve months, this** document **is** a valid **bill of divorce** from the time of his declaration. **Why? But he was a victim of circumstances beyond** his **control,** as death is the ultimate example of this? The Gemara answers: **Say** that **perhaps** it is **different there,**