MISHNAH: Rebbi Eliezer says, one opens¹ for a man by the honor of his father and mother, but the Sages forbid it. Rebbi Ṣadoq said, before one opens by the honor of his father and mother one should open by the honor of the Omnipresent²; then there are no vows³. The Sages agree with Rebbi Eliezer that if was a matter between a man and his father and mother⁴ 15:5), it is appropriate for the Sage to point out to the son that he sins against the commandment to honor father and mother., that one opens for him by the honor of his father and mother.

footnotes: ¹ If a person comes to a Sage to ask about a vow, the Sage may find him “an opening of remorse” by telling him that his parents must be ashamed that their son is one of the wicked who make vows (cf. Chapter 1, Note 9). ² Who in general does not approve of vows. ³ If the Sage said, did you really want to make a vow to be called a sinner before God, everybody would say No, and every vow would be dissolved. ⁴ For example, if the son forbade all usufruct from his property to his parents (Mat.

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Eliezer says, one opens for a man,” etc. The rabbis say, a man resists the honor of his father and mother⁵ resist the honor of his parents.” This means that if the vower is told that his vow infringes on his duty to honor his parents, he immediately will agree to rescind the vow even though he has no remorse for making the vow. Then the annulment of the vow would be illegal.. Rebbi Eliezer says, sometimes he resists, sometimes he does not resist⁶. Rebbi Eliezer agrees that after their death he does not resist⁷. Everybody agrees that nobody resists the honor of his teacher, as we stated⁸ 4:15.: “And the fear of your teacher shall be like the fear of Heaven.”

footnotes: ⁵ It seems to be confirmed by the third sentence that one has to read “a man does not ⁶ Then it is not sure that the avowed remorse is faked. ⁷ The Sage certainly cannot invoke the memory of his parents or that of his teacher. ⁸ Mishnah Abot

“Then there are no vows.” Let there be no vows! But is it not written⁹ 30:2, the start of the chapter on vows.: “Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes.” He hung the chapter on the heads of the tribes, that they could dissolve their vows¹⁰. If you say so¹¹, it turns out that you uproot the chapter of vows from the Torah.

footnotes: ⁹ Num. ¹⁰ Chapter 3:1, Note 6. ¹¹ That there should be no vows.

Rebbi Jeremiah asked: Since you say, one opens for him by the honor of his father and mother; in things between him and the Omnipresent, one does not open for him by the honor of the Omnipresent¹². But since in matters between him and his father and mother one opens for him by the honor of his father and mother; similarly, in things between him and the Omnipresent should one not open for him by the honor of the Omnipresent? What is the honor of the Omnipresent? For example, that I shall not make a tabernacle¹³ 23:42., that I shall not take a lulab¹⁴ 23:40., that I shall not put on phylacteries¹⁵ 13:9,16.. One understands that he does it for his own benefit. As in the following¹⁶ 35:7. The reward of good deeds is purely the benefit of the doer.: “If you are just, what are you giving Him?” “If you sinned, what would you do to Him?¹⁷ 35:6. The mention of this verse and the sermon following are induced by the preceding quote.” Rebbi Yannai said, one who listens to his urges is as if he worshipped idols. What is the reason? “In yourself there shall be no alien force; do not bow down to a foreign god.¹⁸ 81:10. The alien forces are the evil urges in a person; they are put in parallel with idol worship. In the Babli, Šabbat 105b, the statement is attributed to R. Abin.”

footnotes: ¹² Since this is not mentioned in the Mishnah. Since “the Omnipresent” is a name of God, the scribe inserted an apostrophe to make a later correction or erasure possible. ¹³ Lev. ¹⁴ One of the “four kinds”, Lev. ¹⁵ Ex. ¹⁶ Job ¹⁷ Job ¹⁸ Ps.

Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish provided an opening: If you had known that one who makes a vow is as if he put a neck-iron¹⁹ 7:5, Note 116. on his neck, would you have made the vow? It is as if a gang of prisoners²⁰ “watch, guard; gang of prisoners”. was passing by, he saw that there was one unused neck-iron and put his head into it! “To bind a prohibition onto himself²¹ 30:3.”, as you say²² 40:1., “he was bound with chains.” Rebbi Jonathan²³ provided an opening: If you had known that one who makes a vow is like one who builds an idolatrous altar and one who continues in it is like one who sacrifices there, would you have made the vow? That is difficult to understand. Idolatry is a capital crime but vows are a simple prohibition; how can you say that? You have only what Rebbi Yannai said, one who listens to his urges is as if he worshipped idols. Rebbi Isaac provided an opening: If you had known that one who makes a vow is like one who takes a sword and sticks it in his heart, would you have made the vow? “Some talk bluntly like sword piercings.²⁴ 12:18.” Rebbi Ḥanina from Sepphoris in the name of Rebbi Phineas: It does not say “piercing” but “sword piercings”. For example, one who made a vow not to eat a loaf. Woe if he eats, woe if he does not eat. If he eats he transgresses his vow. If he does not eat he sins against himself²⁵30, Nazir 1:5 (51c, 1. 58).. What can he do? He goes to a Sage who will dissolve his vow, “but the speech of Sages is healing²⁴ 12:18.. Rebbi Eudaimon in the name of Rebbi Isaac: Is it not enough what the Torah forbade you that you want to forbid other things for yourself? “To forbid a prohibition²¹ 30:3.”.

footnotes: ¹⁹ Cf. Berakhot ²⁰ Reading with Jastrow and Krauss קֻסְטוֹדִייָה for קֻסְטוֹרִייָה, Latin custodia ²¹ Num. ²² Jer. ²³ In the Babli, 22a, R. Nathan. ²⁴ Prov. ²⁵ Since a person who mortifies himself is called a sinner, Sifry Num. ²⁴ Prov. ²¹ Num.

Rebbi Joḥanan provided an opening by having second thoughts: “If it were not for that, would he have come²⁶?” Are second thoughts not something new²⁷? Rebbi Hila said, second thoughts are a common occurrence²⁸. In this kind, Rebbi Simeon²⁹ did not find an opening for his own vow until one of the Galilean Elders came; some say, that one was Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar³⁰. He took him from here and put him there; he took him from here and put him there, until finally he put him into the sun and told him to check his garments for fleas. They said to him, if you had known that this old man would treat you in such a way, would you have made the vow? He said, No. He permitted him. They asked, from where do you have this? He said to them, I was Meïr’s servant both times when he fled³¹ 9:4, Note 128). If he left Galilee because Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel had excluded him from the Academy it was not “fleeing”. It is unlikely that (1) R. Meïr had a student with him when he fled the first time, and (2) that the same student would have been with him both in his youth and in his old age., but some say, Rebbi Meïr’s walking stick was in my hand and it teaches me knowledge.

footnotes: ²⁶ R. Joḥanan took the fact that a person came to him to ask about a vow as proof of repentance and dissolved the vow without further inquiry. ²⁷ In Mishnah 2, the Sages forbid to take future changes into consideration. ²⁸ They are built into the original vow. ²⁹ In the Babli, 22b, R. Simeon ben Rebbi. ³⁰ One of the students of R. Meïr. ³¹ Most commentators want to read שנית “the second time” instead of שנים “twice” since the first time he had to flee was when he received ordination after the Bar Kokhba war when giving or receiving ordination was an act of rebellion against the Roman government and a capital crime. The reason for his second exile is not known; it is known that he died in Asia Minor (Kilaim

Rebbi Jeremiah had his vow dissolved but kept it. Whether it was because he did not trust him who dissolved it³², we do not know. Whether it was because one has urges only for things forbidden to oneself³³ 6:4 (43c 1. 21)., we do not know. When Rebbi Jeremiah was not in the mood to judge, he said, my eyes are weak. “Following their pronouncements shall be all quarrels and all disfiguration³⁴ 21:5..” This compares quarrels to disfigurations³⁵ 34b, and Sifry Deut. 208.. Since disfigurations are “for all the Cohen sees”³⁶, so also quarrels are “for all the Cohen sees”.

footnotes: ³² He was worried that the opening which another rabbi found for him was really invalid and that the other invalidated the vow only to please the head of the Academy. ³³ The same argument in Yoma ³⁴ Deut. ³⁵ Different detailed discussions of this comparison are in the Babli, Sanhedrin ³⁶ Lev. 13:12.

Rebbi Mana made a vow away from his father’s wine³⁷. His father came to him and said to him, would you have made that vow if you had known that I am hurt by it? He said, no. He dissolved for him. Where do we hold? If he said, my benefit [is forbidden] to my father; is that not what Rebbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman said in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: One forces the son to support his father³⁸. But we must hold that he said, my father’s benefit [is forbidden] to me. Rebbi Mana made a vow and came to Rebbi Shammai, who said to him, would you have made that vow if you had known that people do not want to deal with you since you are a vower? He said, no, and he dissolved for him.

footnotes: ³⁷ Not to have any benefit from his father’s wine. It seems that R. Mana here is R. Mana II, the colleague of R. Shammai. He was the son of R. Jonah; one has to wonder why the father appears without his name. ³⁸ This parallels Mishnah 12; a person cannot get rid of monetary obligations by making a vow. But even if R. Mana had forbidden his own wine on R. Jonah (which seems to be excluded by the formulation of the vow), the head of the Academy certainly could buy his own wine without taking from charity and forcing the overseers of charity to have regress on his son.

MISHNAH: In addition, Rebbi Eliezer said, one finds an opening in changed circumstances, but the Sages forbid it. How is this? If he said, a qônām that I shall not benefit from Mr. X, who then becomes a public scribe³⁹ or who marries off his son to one of [the vower’s] relatives⁴⁰, and he said, if I had known that he will become a public scribe or marry off his son to a relative, I would not have vowed; or if he said, a qônām that I shall not enter this house and it was turned into a synagogue and he said, if I had known that it would become a synagogue, I would not have vowed; Rebbi Eliezer permits but the Sages prohibit⁴¹.

footnotes: ³⁹ Or any public official whose services he might need. ⁴⁰ And he wants to go to the wedding feast which, according to the custom of the times, was paid for by the groom’s family. ⁴¹ Since it could not have been in the vower’s mind at the moment he made the vow.

HALAKHAH: “In addition, Rebbi Eliezer said, one finds an opening in changed circumstances,” etc. Rebbi Simon in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi⁴²: Rebbi Eliezer learned from Moses, to whom the Holy One, praise to Him, provided an opening by changed circumstances. The Holy One, praise to Him, said to him: If you had known that “all the men who want to kill you have died,” would you have vowed⁴³ 12,Tanḥuma Buber Šemot 11, on Ex. 2:21, quoted in the Babli 65a: “Moses swore that he would dwell with the man” deriving וַיּוֹאֵל from אלה “to swear”, not from יאל “to agree, to decide”. (The problem naturally is that the form וַיּוֹאֵל is qal if derived from יאל but hiph‘il if derived from אלה and would have to be translated “he (Reuel) made Moses swear to dwell with the man,” which should require a nota accusativi before “Moses”.} Since Moses swore in Midyan that he would stay there when he thought that he never could return to Egypt, he had to return there to have his vow dissolved.? But did they really die? Were they not Dathan and Abiram⁴⁴ 2:13 is in the Babli, 64b, and Tanḥuma Šemot 10; identifying all anonymous evildoers in Ex. and Num. with Dathan and Abiram who were called “evil ones” by Moses (*Num.*16:26).? Only, they became poor⁴⁵.

footnotes: ⁴² In the Babli, 64b, Rav Ḥisda ⁴³ The background is in Tanḥuma Šemot ⁴⁴ The identification of “the evil one” in Ex. ⁴⁵ Therefore, nobody in government would listen to their calumnies. In the Babli, this is attributed to R. Simeon ben Laqish.

Rebbi Jeremiah said, what you say is only that there are changed circumstances before the matter is discussed⁴⁶. The force of Rebbi Yose⁴⁷ is from the following⁴⁸ came from Babylonia to Palestine shortly after the destruction of the Temple, he asked them whether they would have vowed to be nezirim had they known that the Temple would be destroyed and they would permanently be forbidden wine and grapes and contact with corpses since the termination of the state of nazir depends on the Temple ceremony; cf. Num. 6:20.: “That was the error of Naḥum the Mede.” What was his error? That he found them an opening by changed circumstances. “Naḥum the Mede said to them: ‘Would you have made a vow to become nezirim if you had known that the Temple would be destroyed at some future time?’ ” Rebbi Ze‘ira said, the following he should have said to them: Did you not know that the earlier prophets had prophesied while the Temple was standing that eventually it would be destroyed? Then there are no changed circumstances. Rebbi Hila said, still it is changed circumstances. They could have said to him, we knew it, but it seemed to us that this referred to the far future⁴⁹ 12:27.: “The vision he sees is for many years; for faraway times he prophesies.” It turns out that Rebbi Jeremiah parallels Rebbi Ze‘ira and Rebbi Yose parallels Rebbi Hila.

footnotes: ⁴⁶ It always is possible by discussing the matter to find an aspect of changed circumstances which has not changed from the time the vow was made. ⁴⁷ It is not stated what R. Yose (the Amora’s) position is but the last sentence of the paragraph implies that R. Yose opposes R. Jeremiah. ⁴⁸ Mishnah 5:4. When a group of nezirim ⁴⁹ Ez.

(As)⁵⁰ we have stated there⁵¹ 3:3. R. Meïr holds that a synagogue can be sold only with a clause that would let the community reacquire the building if it so chooses. The Sages permit the sale to be absolute as long as the building is not used for undignified purposes. (According to a popular tradition, the Altneuschul synagogue in Prague is Al-Tnai-Schul, a synagogue built on condition that on the arrival of the Messiah it could be sold without restrictions.}: “One sells a synagogue only conditionally”. ⁵² 3:1 (73b 1. 38). So far if it was built as a synagogue. How is the situation if the building was first built for profane use and then dedicated? Let us hear from the following: “A qônām that I shall not enter this house and it was turned into a synagogue.” That implies that if it was built as a courtyard and afterwards was dedicated that it becomes holy. How? When does it become holy, immediately or when it is used? Let us hear from the following⁵³ 2:13.: “If somebody makes a chest for a Torah scroll, or wrappings for a Torah scroll, before they were used for a Torah scroll they may be used for private use; after they were used for a Torah scroll they may not be used for private use.” Since these were made for holy use but became holy only when used, that which was built as a courtyard not so much more⁵⁴ 26b.? What is the status of those if they were made for profane use and then dedicated? They become holy⁵⁵ is very much condensed here..

footnotes: ⁵⁰ It seems that the additional ד is a scribal error since this paragraph has no connection with the previous one. ⁵¹ Mishnah Megillah ⁵² From here on, the text is from Megillah ⁵³ Tosephta Megillah ⁵⁴ The same conclusion in the Babli, Megillah ⁵⁵ The text of Megillah

MISHNAH: Rebbi Meïr says, there are things like changed circumstances which are not really changed circumstances⁵⁶, and the Sagesagree with him⁵⁷ in the Babli seems to presuppose the Yerushalmi Mishnah. For details cf. The Babylonian Talmud with variant readings, Nedarim II, ed. M. Hershler, Jerusalem 1991, p. קנב, Note 49.. How is this? He said, a qônām that I shall not marry this woman for her father is evil, and they told him that he died or that he repented; a qônām that I shall not enter this house because it has a bad dog inside, or a snake; they said to him the dog died, the snake was killed; these there are things like changed circumstances which are not changed circumstances, and the Sages agree with him.

footnotes: ⁵⁶ There are changed circumstances which are admissible to annul a vow. ⁵⁷ This is the reading in many Mishnah mss. and Gaonic and early rabbinic sources but not in the existing Babli mss. and the printed editions which read: The Sages do not agree with him. The gemara

HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Meïr says, there are things like changed circumstances”. Samuel says, because of an erroneous vow; the dog was already dead, the snake had already been killed⁶². Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, because he is like someone who makes his vow dependent on something⁶³: A qônām that I shall have no benefit from this man as long as he wears black garments⁶⁴ 17a, Ḥagigah 16a, Qiddušin 40a.. If he wore white, he would be permitted to him. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That one does not need the permission of a Sage.

footnotes: ⁶² Samuel restricts the Mishnah to the case that the dog was already dead when the vow was made. Then it is obvious that the vow would not have been made had the vower known all the facts. But if the vow was justified at the moment it was made, Samuel would deny that the death of the dog was reason enough to nullify the vow for the future. ⁶³ They hold that the vow can be nullified at the death of the dog because the reason for the vow had been stated at the beginning. As the example shows, if the vower had said, I shall not enter the house as long as there is a bad dog there, the vow would automatically be voided at the dog’s death. But because the reason was not formally stated as a condition, the vow mentioned in the Mishnah needs to be voided by a Sage.In the Babli, 65a, the opinion of Samuel is attributed to R. Joḥanan and that of R. Hila to Rav Huna, with the discussion supporting Rav Huna. ⁶⁴ The sign of a person engaged in sexual misbehavior; Babli Mo‘ed Qaṭan

MISHNAH: In addition, Rebbi Meïr said, one opens for him with what is written in the Torah. One says to him⁵⁸, if you had realized that you sin against “you shall not take revenge⁵⁹. 19:18.”, “you shall not nurse hatred⁵⁹. 19:18.”, “you shall not hate your brother in your heart⁶⁰. 19:17., “you shall love your neighbor as yourself⁵⁹. 19:18.”, “let your brother live with you⁶¹. 25:36.”, maybe he would become poor and you cannot provide for him! If he said, if I had realized this, I would not have vowed, he is permitted.

footnotes: ⁵⁸ A person who vowed that another could not have any benefit from him. ⁵⁹ Lev ⁵⁹ Lev ⁶⁰ Lev ⁵⁹ Lev ⁶¹ Lev

HALAKHAH: It is written: “You should not take revenge or nurse hatred against your fellow countrymen.” How is that? He was cutting meat and the knife fell down on his hand. Should he go and hit his hand⁶⁵ 27b), hitting one’s neighbor is like hitting himself.?

footnotes: ⁶⁵ Should he punish the hand which held the knife for injuring his other hand? Since all Jews are responsible for one another (Babli Sanhedrin

“You shall love your neighbor as yourself⁵⁹. 19:18.”. Rebbi Aqiba says, that is a great principle in the Torah. Ben Azzai says, “this is the book of the descent of man⁶⁶. 5:1, which negates the role of race in the creation of man.” is a more important principle⁶⁷ 4(12). A fuller version is in Gen. rabba 24(8): Ben Azzai says, “this is the book of the descent of man” is a great principle in the Torah. Rebbi Aqiba says, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” is a great principle in the Torah. That you should not say, since I was insulted, another should be insulted with me; since I was cursed, another should be cursed with me. Rebbi Tanḥuma {last generation of Galilean Amoraim} said, if you did this, know Whom you are insulting: “In God’s image He made him.”.

footnotes: ⁵⁹ Lev ⁶⁶ Gen ⁶⁷ Sifra Qedos̄im Pereq

“Maybe he would become poor”. Are these not changed circumstances⁶⁸? Rebbi Ze‘ira said, poverty is frequent. As the following: A man had a lawsuit against a rich man. He wanted to be judged before Rav; Rav sent for [the rich man], who said: For this one I should come to court? If all the camels of Arabia came they could not carry all the leather sacks⁶⁹ containing my mortgages⁷⁰ 7:1, Note 25.! [Rav] heard this and said, what does this one pride himself with what is not his! There should be depreciation of it! Immediately there came a royal decree⁷¹ that he and his property should belong to the treasury⁷² 7:1, Note 22.. He [the rich man] came before Rav and said to him, pray for me that my personality⁷³ could be restored. He prayed, and it was restored to him.

footnotes: ⁶⁸ And therefore excluded as argument following Mishnah 1. ⁶⁹ Aramaic plural of Greek κώρυκος “leather bag”. ⁷⁰ Greek ὑποθήκη; cf. Yebamot ⁷¹ Greek κέλευσις “command, order”. ⁷² Greek ταμεῖον “treasure, storage”, used in the sense of the king’s treasury. The mixture of Aramaic and Greek in this popular tale may be an example of “hellenistic speech”; cf. Sota ⁷³ Lest he become a slave of the treasury.

MISHNAH: One creates an opening for a man with his wife’s ketubah⁷⁴, defined in Mishnah Peah 8:8 as sufficient capital to lift its owner above the poverty level and disqualify him from public charity. The zuz is usually identified with the silver denarius.. It happened that one vowed usufruct from his wife⁷⁵ whose ketubah was 400 denar. She⁷⁶ came before Rebbi Aqiba who obliged him to give her her ketubah. He said, Rebbi, my father left 800 denar. My brother took 400 and I 400, would it not be enough if she take 200⁷⁷. and I 200? Rebbi Aqiba told him, even if you have to sell the hair on your head, you will pay her ketubah. He said to him, if I had known that, I would not have vowed. Rebbi Aqiba freed him⁷⁸.

footnotes: ⁷⁴ The marriage contract, here taken as technical term for the sum the groom promises to pay his wife in case of a divorce. The minimal sum for a first marriage of the woman is 200 zuz ⁷⁵ This makes it impossible for him to live with his wife and forces him to divorce her. ⁷⁶ In the Babylonian Mishnah, he came before R. Aqiba. ⁷⁷ The minimum amount admissible as ketubah ⁷⁸ From his vow so he could remain married. One might also translate: R. Aqiba voided it [the vow]. In the Babylonian Mishnah, R. Aqiba permitted her to remain with her husband.

HALAKHAH: “One creates an opening for a man with his wife’s ketubah” etc. Does one collect from movables⁷⁹ or a mortgage) must be satisfied by foreclosing real estate (unless otherwise stated in the document of indebtedness). It was only after the Arab conquest, when the Jews in Babylonia had lost their real estate holdings, that the Gaonic authorities decreed that every ketubah must be paid in currency and/or movables. How could R. Aqiba order the man to cut off and sell his hair to pay his ex-wife since cut hair clearly is movable? (The Babli explains that the man should hand over all his real estate to his wife and sell his hair to buy food for himself.)? Rebbi Abba said, even if one could say, one collects from movables, one tells him to pay⁸⁰.). The Babli sticks to its thesis that a ketubah is satisfied only by real estate and holds that a partially satisfied ketubah represents a title to all future property the ex-husband might acquire. The Yerushalmi holds that if the husband cannot satisfy his divorcee’s claim with real estate, one tells him to satisfy it with any other means available.. Rebbi Manisha asked, could one tell the heirs to collect from pledged property⁸¹) are not on a specified piece of land but on all holdings of the debtor. If the debtor dies, the entire property comes to the heirs from whom the mortgage holder can require satisfaction under the supervision of the court. The quote with which the question is answered shows clearly that the issue is about movables. Then it cannot be a question of mortgages other than a ketubah. The question is whether the court can order the heirs to honor their father’s obligation to his ex-wife from movables, to let her collect from movables.? Rebbi Abba Mari said, the Mishnah says that one does not say so, as we have stated there⁸² 9:2. In the Mishnah, R. Aqiba states that the heirs take all movables since any creditor would have to swear that his claim was not in any way satisfied by the deceased but the heirs take everything without oath. (R. Tarphon disagrees and would give the widow preference).: “It should be given to the heirs since everybody has to swear but the heirs do not have to swear.” What does one make her swear? There, they say, from straw I did not collect, from his person I did collect⁸³.

footnotes: ⁷⁹ It is talmudic theory that debts covered by a document (such as a ketubah ⁸⁰ It seems that one has here a disagreement of the two Talmudim (explanation of I. Eisenstein in עמודי ירושלים ad loc ⁸¹ If this would refer to real estate, the question would be trivial. Mortgaged or otherwise pledged property is part of the inheritance. Standard mortgages (including ketubah ⁸² Mishnah Ketubot ⁸³ “There” is Babylonia. It is difficult to understand what is meant. It seems that she has to swear that her claim was not satisfied even in an indirect way.

MISHNAH: One opens about festive days and Sabbaths⁸⁴. In earlier times, they said that these days are permitted but the rest forbidden, until Rebbi Aqiba came and taught that a vow which was partially voided is totally voided. How is this? ‘A qônām that I shall not benefit any one of you,’ if one was permitted, all are permitted. ‘That I shall not benefit this one and this one and this one,’ if the first one becomes permitted, all are permitted; if the last one becomes permitted, he is permitted and the others are prohibited⁸⁵-th term in a sequence cannot appear before the (n-l)-th. If there is no (n-l)-th there can be no n-th. If he had said: all of you, viz., X and Y and Z, the order would have been irrelevant. Since he says, X and also Y and also Z, the later depends on the former. The Babli, 66a, notes that only R. Simeon considers this three separate vows; the Yerushalmi, which quotes R. Simeon elsewhere [e. g., Nazir 4:3 (53b)], does not mention it here but seemingly restricts the principle of R. Aqiba to vows declared to concern a group; cf. also Note 89.. ‘That I shall not benefit, a qorbān for this one, a qorbān for that one’; each single one needs a separate opening⁸⁶. ‘A qônām that I shall not taste wine, for wine is bad for the intestines.’ If they told him, but old [wine] is good for the intestines, old [wine] was permitted; not only old wine is permitted but all wines. ‘A qônām that I shall not taste onion, for onion is bad for the heart.’ If they told him, but the rural kind is good for the heart, rural [onion] was permitted; not only rural is permitted but all onions. It happened that Rebbi Meїr permitted all onions to him.

footnotes: ⁸⁴ That the vower could not enjoy Sabbaths and holidays. ⁸⁵ The n ⁸⁶ While these statements all form one sentence, they represent two separate vows.

HALAKHAH: “One opens about festive days and Sabbaths,” etc. It was stated⁸⁷: “If one⁸⁸ was permitted, all subsequent ones are permitted, all preceding ones are forbidden.” It was stated in the name of Rebbi Nathan⁸⁹: “There exists a type of vow which may be partly voided and the rest confirmed. How is this? One made a vow [not to eat] from a fig basket which contained benot s̄eba’⁹⁰ 2:8, Note 135. figs. If he said, if I had known that it contained benot s̄eba’ figs, I would not have made the vow, he is permitted the benot s̄eba’ figs and not only these but all figs. But if he said, if I had known that it contained benot s̄eba’ figs, I would not have extended my vow to benot s̄eba’ figs, only benot s̄eba’ figs are permitted to him.”

footnotes: ⁸⁷ Tosephta 5:1, this entered some Mishnah texts in the Babli. ⁸⁸ In a series of people who should have no benefit. ⁸⁹ Tosephta 5:1, quoted in the Babli, 26b/27a. There, R. Aqiba disagrees and upholds his principle while the Yerushalmi does not mention R. Aqiba and gives the impression that it accepts the position of R. Nathan. ⁹⁰ Light green delicacy figs; Ma‘serot

MISHNAH: One finds an opening for a man with his own honor and that of his children. One tells him⁹¹, if you had known that tomorrow one will say of you, it is the habit of this man to divorce his wife, and about your daughters one will say, they are daughters of a divorcee, what did the mother of these do to get herself divorced? If he said, if I had known that it is so I would not have made the vow, then it is dissolved.

footnotes: ⁹¹ A man who made a vow which forces a divorce.

HALAKHAH: “One finds an opening for a man about his own honor,” etc. It was stated⁹²: Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra said, one finds an opening for a man exclusively about his own honor. As the following? A woman vowed [not to have benefit] from her daughter⁹³. She came to Rebbi Joḥanan who said to her, if you had known that your daughter gets a bad reputation⁹⁴, would you have made the vow? She said, no, and he permitted her. Is that not the Mishnah⁹⁵ represents practice; in the Yerushalmi he holds in general that practice follows an anonymous Mishnah (Yebamot 4:11, Note 177)].: “One finds an opening for a man about his own honor and that of his children”? That you should not think one follows Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra.

footnotes: ⁹² Obviously, this is the Yerushalmi tradition. The (Babylonian) Tosephta, 5:6 attributes the text of the Mishnah to R. Jehudah ben Bathyra. ⁹³ She did not want to be supported by her daughter. ⁹⁴ People will say that she does not care for her mother. ⁹⁵ Why is it worthwhile to record a decision which follows the Mishnah closely? [In the Babli (a total of 24 times) R. Joḥanan is reported to hold that an anonymous Mishnah always

MISHNAH: ‘A qônām that I shall not marry the ugly Miss X, and she is beautiful, black and she is white, short and she is tall, he is permitted. Not because she was ugly and became beautiful⁹⁶, black and she became white, short and she became tall, but because the vow was erroneous. It happened that one⁹⁷ made a vow renouncing benefit from his sister’s daughter. They brought her to Rebbi Ismael’s house and gave her a beauty treatment. Rebbi Ismael asked him, did you make your vow about this one? He said no, and Rebbi Ismael dissolved it⁹⁸. At that moment, Rebbi Ismael cried and said, the daughters of Israel are beautiful, but poverty disfigures them.

footnotes: ⁹⁶ This would be a change of circumstances, not admissible in an annulment. ⁹⁷ Being pressured by his family to marry his niece. ⁹⁸ The vow.

HALAKHAH: “ ‘A qônām that I shall not marry the ugly Miss X,’ ” etc. He made her a golden eye, a golden tooth⁹⁹. So he said to him, acquire what is on her¹⁰⁰.

footnotes: ⁹⁹ The Babli, 66b, notes only that she had an ugly artificial tooth and R. Ismael replaced it by a gold tooth for which he paid himself. In the opinion of the Babli, R. Ismael denies that changed circumstances are no cause for annulment of a vow. ¹⁰⁰ In the Tosephta, 5:6: “acquire her and her dresses”.

MISHNAH: And when Rebbi Ismael died the daughters of Israel did sing a dirge and say, ‘Daughters of Israel, cry about Rebbi Ismael’, as it is said about Saul: ‘Daughters of Israel, cry about Saul, etc.¹⁰¹ 1:24.’

footnotes: ¹⁰¹ “Who clothes you in crimson with ornaments, who puts a golden jewel on your garments”, 2S.

HALAKHAH: “And when Rebbi Ismael died,” etc. It is written, ““Daughters of Israel, cry about Saul, etc.” Rebbi Jehudah and Rebbi Neḥemiah. One said, really daughters of Israel. For their husbands went to war and he provided them with food. Why does the verse say “who puts a golden jewel on your garments”?¹⁰² Jewellery looks good only on a supple body¹⁰³. The other one said, “the daughters of Israel” means the builders of Israel, the councils of Israel¹⁰⁴. When he saw a group of fellows¹⁰⁵, he gave them to eat and drink. What does the verse mean by “who puts a golden jewel on your garments”? That he heard the reason for a practice from a Sage and praised him.

footnotes: ¹⁰² Is it not forbidden to any man, including the king, to give jewels to otherwise married women? ¹⁰³ Having enough subcutaneous fat. ¹⁰⁴ He bends the verse to avoid the appearance of questionable behavior, cf. Note 102. ¹⁰⁵ Cf. Introduction to Tractate Demay.