daf bit: Nedarim 25

[cellio]

The mishna teaches (a few pages earlier) that the rabbis invalidated four categories of vows: those made on incentive, those made in exaggeration, those made in error, and those that were broken under pressure (20b). Today's daf discusses vows made in error.

If one swore that he did (or didn't) do something, but he didn't (or did) do it and had forgotten, or if one swore not to do (or to do) something and then forgot the vow and acted, or if one swore based on mistaken premises, all of these are in the category of vows made in error. The talmud gives an example of this last: if a man saw people eating his figs and said to them "let the figs be as a korban (that is, forbidden) to you", and then discovered that his father or brothers were among the men (whom he wouldn't have forbidden), that is an example of a vow made in error based on mistaken premises. Another example is a man who swears that his wife shall not have any benefit from him because she stole his purse or beat his child -- but she did no such things, so the premise of his vow is faulty. (25b)

(The "X is as korban" language is actually a vow; it's a legal formulation. A korban is forbidden to people because it's an offering for God, so when you say "X is a korban to me" (or "...to you", if you have authority), that is making a vow even if you don't say the word "vow".)

Comments

[dvarin.livejournal.com]

Huh. Why is forbidding someone else's actions a vow at all? Usually I think of a vow as some promise about the vower's actions.

Edit: Just reread the last bit. If the vower has authority over the person being forbidden, then ok, it's a vow not to allow them to do something. But the fig tree case has strangers eating his fruits--if they come back in the night and steal more of them, has he broken his vow?

[cellio]

The authority is over the figs, not the people -- "these are mine and you can't have them" or the like.

I'm puzzled by a lot of what's being discussed in this tractate. This isn't how I usually think of vows and oaths. I am clearly missing some important context.