Nidrei Havai

Nedarim (3:2) | Yisrael Bankier | 9 months ago

The third perek opens by listing four types of nederim that the Chachamim were matir. In other words, there are certain contexts in which a neder is automatically undone without the need for a chacham. One of these is the nidrei havai.

The Tosfot Yom Tov provides two explanations for nidrei havai. The first is that it is a neder based on an exaggeration. This is the opinion of the Rambam, Rosh and Bartenura. The Ran (20b) however explains that it is a meaningless neder.

The next Mishnah brings the following examples. The first is if someone says that an object is assur, if he did not see people passing this way that equaled the number of people that left Egypt. The second, is if he said that the neder would be binding if he did not see a snake like the beam in a olive press. The Gemara (25a) explains that the similarity to the beam is not in size, since there are indeed very large snakes, but rather the chipped texture.

The Ran (24b) maintains that we learn from the Mishnah that there are two types of nidrei havai. The first is where one exaggerated. In other words, it is common when referring to a large number of people, for someone to exaggerate. The second case that relates to the beam, is not an exaggeration since no snake has that texture at all. These types of nidrei havai do not take hold for different reasons. In the first case, the condition is not fulfilled since we are assuming that the person did indeed see lots of people, even if it was less the six hundred thousand. In other words, the intention was that the neder would take hold if he did not see a lot of people. The reference to those that left Egypt is understood as an exaggeration and not taken literally. In the second case however, since it is impossible for a snake to have that texture, we disregard the neder. That is because we assess that the person never really had the intention to make the neder binding. Otherwise, instead of hinging the negation of the neder on something impossible, the person would have made the neder without any condition. We therefore understand that the individual simply wanted to make fanciful claims.

The Ran uses this explanation to explain that example cases brought for a shevuot shav -- an empty shevua that is punishable with lashes. The examples that the Mishnah brings is if someone made a shevuah, if they did not see a flying camel. The Ran notes that only impossible cases are chosen. The Mishnah does not bring the first type, cases of exaggeration, because the substance of the shevuah would be true (albeit exaggerated) and not shav.

The Tosfot however understand that both cases in our Mishnah are those of exaggeration. They explain that if people see something out of the ordinary, they will swear to strengthen their claim but never really intend to make anything prohibited by way of a neder. Importantly however, the Tosfot explain that this would only be true if the person saw people or a snake. Otherwise, it would not qualify as nidrei havai and the condition would be considered fulfilled and the neder binding. What does the Ran maintain in this case?

The Beit Yosef (332, s.v. ma'shekatav rabeinu) cites the Ran (Shevuot 12a) that similarly writes that the neder would be binding if the person did not see "a lot of people". The Beit Yosef finds this difficult because it would be hard to quantify "a lot of people". The Shach (232:7) however explains that it would be the amount of people for which using such an exaggeration would be relevant.

The Darkei Moshe however finds the following distinction of the Ran difficult. While the neder would be binding if he did not see a lot of people, in the second case the neder would not hold, even if the person did not see a snake.

The Derisha however answers this question based on the two categories that the Ran defined above. The first category that assumes the person exaggerated, would only be relevant if indeed he did exaggerate. Consequently, the person would have need to have seen a crowd of people for it to be defined as nidrei havai. The second category however is not based on an exaggeration, but rather understands that since the condition for the neder not to take hold was impossible, the person did not sincerely wish to make the neder. In that case it does not matter whether the person really saw a snake.

Download