## Nedarim Daf 90a

###### Nedarim 90a:1
[Nedarim 90a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/90a:1)

וְשַׁרְקֵיהּ טִינָא, וְאַתְיֵיהּ לְקַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב חִסְדָּא. אָמַר רָבָא: מַאן חַכִּים לְמִיעְבַּד כִּי הָא מִילְּתָא אִי לָאו דְּרַב אַחָא בַּר רַב הוּנָא, דְּגַבְרָא רַבָּה הוּא. דְּקָסָבַר דְּכִי הֵיכִי דִּפְלִיגִי רַבָּנַן וְרַבִּי נָתָן בַּהֲפָרָה — הָכִי נָמֵי פְּלִיגִי בִּשְׁאֵלָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna then **smeared him with clay** to protect him from the elements, as it was now prohibited for him to benefit from the world by wearing clothes. **And** he then **brought him before Rav Ḥisda,** to dissolve his vow. **Rava said: Who is wise** enough **to act in this manner, if not Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna, who is a great man? As he holds that just as the Rabbis and Rabbi Natan disagree with regard to nullification,** whether it is possible to nullify a vow that has yet to take effect, **so too, they disagree with regard to a request** made to a halakhic authority to dissolve a vow, whether it is possible to request dissolution of such a vow. Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna’s plan was to have the vow go into effect, so that the man could request that it be dissolved.


###### Nedarim 90a:2
[Nedarim 90a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/90a:2)

וְרַב פַּפִּי אָמַר: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בַּהֲפָרָה, דְּרַבִּי נָתָן סָבַר: אֵין הַבַּעַל מֵיפֵר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חָל נֶדֶר, דִּכְתִיב: ״וְחָפְרָה הַלְּבָנָה״. וְרַבָּנַן סָבְרִי: בַּעַל מֵיפֵר אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא חָל נֶדֶר, דִּכְתִיב: ״מֵפֵר מַחְשְׁבוֹת עֲרוּמִים״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And Rav Pappi said** with regard to this issue: The **dispute** between Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis is **with regard to nullification** only, **as Rabbi Natan holds** that **a husband can nullify** a vow **only once the vow has taken effect, as it is written: “And the moon shall be confounded [*ḥafera*]”** (Isaiah 24:23). He employs this phrase as an allusion, interpreting the word *ḥafera* as if it were *hafara*, nullification, and concludes from here that only a vow that already exists, like the moon, can be nullified. **And the Rabbis hold** that **a husband can nullify** a vow **even though the vow has not** yet **taken effect, as it is written: “He nullifies the thoughts of the crafty”** (Job 5:12), implying that nullification pertains even to thoughts, to prevent them from going into effect.


###### Nedarim 90a:3
[Nedarim 90a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/90a:3)

אֲבָל בִּשְׁאֵלָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל אֵין חָכָם מַתִּיר כְּלוּם אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן חָל נֶדֶר, דִּכְתִיב: ״לֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But with regard to a request** made to a halakhic authority to dissolve a vow, **everyone,** both Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis, **agrees that a halakhic authority cannot dissolve anything unless the vow has** already **taken effect, as it is written: “He shall not profane his word”** (Numbers 30:3), which indicates that the person himself who took the vow cannot profane his words and dissolve his vow, but a halakhic authority may do so. This, however, applies only if the vow has already gone into effect, as it says: “His word.”


###### Nedarim 90a:4
[Nedarim 90a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/90a:4)

לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: ״קֻוֽנָּם שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי, וּלְמִי שֶׁאֶשָּׁאֵל עָלָיו״ — נִשְׁאָל עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁאָל עַל הַשֵּׁנִי. וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ נִשְׁאָל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא חָל נֶדֶר, אִי בָּעֵי — עַל הַאי נִיתְּשִׁיל בְּרֵישָׁא, אִי בָּעֵי — עַל הַאי נִיתְּשִׁיל בְּרֵישָׁא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara suggests: **Let us say** that the following *baraita* **supports** Rav Pappi’s opinion: If one says: The property **of so-and-so is *konam*** for me, and for **that** reason **I will not benefit** from it, **and** deriving benefit from **he who I will request** dissolution **for** the vow is also *konam* for me, then, if he desires to dissolve the vows **he** must first **request** dissolution **with regard to the first** vow, **and afterward he** can **request** dissolution **with regard to the second. And if you say** that **one can request** dissolution of a vow **even though the vow has not** yet **taken effect,** why must he request dissolution of his two vows in the above order? **If he** so **wishes, he** can **first request** dissolution **with regard to this** vow, and **if he wishes, he** can **first request** dissolution **with regard to that** one.


###### Nedarim 90a:5
[Nedarim 90a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/90a:5)

וּמִי יָדַע אִי הַאי קַמָּא אִי הַאי בָּתְרָא?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara refutes this argument: **And does he know if this** vow **is first** or **if that** vow **is last?** The *baraita* does not specify which vow is first and which is last. Perhaps first and last is referring not to the order in which the two vows were taken, but rather to the order in which they are dissolved, so that if he so wishes, he can first request dissolution of the vow not to derive benefit from the halakhic authority from whom he will request dissolution of his vow.


###### Nedarim 90a:6
[Nedarim 90a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/90a:6)

אֶלָּא לֵימָא מְסַיַּיע לֵיהּ: ״קֻוֽנָּם שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לִפְלוֹנִי, הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר לִכְשֶׁאֶשָּׁאֵל עָלָיו״ — נִשְׁאָל עַל נִדְרוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִשְׁאָל עַל נִזְרוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rather, let us say** that a different *baraita* **supports** Rav Pappi’s opinion: If one says: The property **of so-and-so is *konam*** for me, and for **that** reason **I will not benefit** from it, and **I am hereby a nazirite for when I will request** dissolution **of** this vow, if he desires to dissolve the vows **he** must first **request** dissolution **with regard to his vow** not to derive benefit from a particular person, **and afterward he** can **request** dissolution **with regard to his** vow of **naziriteship** that he accepted upon himself should he request dissolution of his first vow.


###### Nedarim 90a:7
[Nedarim 90a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/90a:7)

וְאִי אָמְרַתְּ נִשְׁאָל אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא חָל נֶדֶר, אִי בָּעֵי — עַל נִדְרוֹ אִיתְּשִׁיל בְּרֵישָׁא, אִי בָּעֵי — עַל נִזְרוֹ אִיתְּשִׁיל בְּרֵישָׁא! רַבִּי נָתָן הִיא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And if you say** that **one** can **request** dissolution of a vow **even though the vow has not** yet **taken effect,** why must the two vows be dissolved in that order? **If he** so **wishes, he** can **first request** dissolution **with regard to his vow** not to derive benefit from that other person, and **if he wishes, he** can **first request** dissolution **with regard to his** vow of **naziriteship.** The Gemara rejects this argument: This is no proof, as it is possible that the *baraita* **is** taught in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Natan,** who maintains that a vow can be nullified only after it has gone into effect. The Rabbis, however, dispute this view.


###### Nedarim 90a:8
[Nedarim 90a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/90a:8)

אָמַר רָבִינָא: אָמַר לִי מָרִימָר, הָכִי אֲמַר אֲבוּךְ מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרַב פַּפִּי: מַחֲלוֹקֶת בַּהֲפָרָה, אֲבָל בִּשְׁאֵלָה — דִּבְרֵי הַכֹּל מֵפֵר וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא חָל נֶדֶר, דִּכְתִיב ״לֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Ravina said: Mareimar said to me: This is** what **your father said in the name of Rav Pappi:** The **dispute** between Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis is **with regard to nullification** only, as Rabbi Natan holds that a husband can nullify a vow only once the vow has taken effect, whereas the Rabbis hold that a husband can nullify a vow even though the vow has not yet taken effect. **But with regard to a request** made to a halakhic authority to dissolve a vow, **everyone,** both Rabbi Natan and the Rabbis, **agrees,** that **he can dissolve** the vow **even though the vow has not** yet **taken effect. As it is written: “He shall not profane his word”** (Numbers 30:3), which Ravina expounds as follows: