Vows of exaggeration and vows that are unintentional TB Nedarim 25

The first Mishna in our chapter describes four vows are not really vows at all. “The Sages dissolved four types of vows without the requirement of a request to a halakhic authority: Vows of exhortation (נִדְרֵי זֵרוּזִין), vows of exaggeration (נִדְרֵי הֲבַאי), vows that are unintentional (or mistaken-gg) (נִדְרֵי שְׁגָגוֹת), and vows whose fulfillment is impeded by circumstances beyond one’s control (נִדְרֵי אוֹנָסִין).” (Sefaria.org translation) The Gemara finished its analysis of vows of exhortation and began examining vows of exaggeration on TB Nedarim 24. The Mishnah gives two examples of vow based on an exaggeration. “If one said concerning a certain item: It is konam for me if I did not see on this road as many people as those who ascended from Egypt, or if he said: It is konam for me if I did not see a snake as large as the beam of an olive press, in these cases the speaker did not intend to vow but used hyperbole to demonstrate a point, and it is understood by others that the expression is not to be taken literally.” (Sefaria.org translation) A modern example would be a parent telling his child “I swear that if I told you once, I’ve told you a million times...” We all know that this expression is an exaggeration for no doubt the parent of the child many times and didn’t mean explicitly 1 million times.

Daf TB Nedarim 25 concludes when people use unspecific exaggerated language in an oath, people use language that ordinary people use. “Ravina said to Rav Ashi: And perhaps this man saw an anthill and called them: Those who ascended from Egypt, because the quantity of ants was so numerous, and he took an oath properly. Why, then, do we say that this is an oath taken in vain?

“Rav Ashi said to him: When he takes an oath, he takes an oath based on our understanding, which is that of an ordinary person, and we do not entertain the possibility in our mind that he is referring to ants [shumshemanei]. Therefore, if he took an oath in that manner, it is assumed that he referred to people, like those that left Egypt.” (Sefaria.org translation)

This daf the next category of the above four vows, unintentional or mistaken vows. One of the examples the Mishna provides is “One who saw people entering his courtyard and eating figs, and because he did not want them to do so he said: The figs are forbidden to you like an offering. And then it was found that his father and brother were in the group, and there were others with them as well, and certainly he did not intend to take a vow prohibiting his father and brother from eating the figs. In such a case, Beit Shammai says: They, his father and brother, are permitted to eat the figs, and those others that were with them are prohibited from doing so. And Beit Hillel says: Both these and those are permitted to eat the figs, as will be clarified in the Gemara.” (Sefaria.org translation)

Based on a ruling for another case, we learn the reason underpinning Beit Hillel. “If one vows to fast or not to eat a certain food, dissolution is broached based on Shabbatot and based on Festivals, since one certainly did not intend to include these days when taking the vow. Initially, they used to say: On those days, Shabbatot and Festivals, which he did not include in his vow, he is permitted to partake of the item, and on all other days he is prohibited from doing so. This was the case until Rabbi Akiva came and taught: A vow that was partially dissolved is dissolved completely (נֶדֶר שֶׁהוּתַּר מִקְצָתוֹ הוּתַּר כֻּלּוֹ ). Therefore, one is permitted to partake on other days well. ” (Sefaria.org translation)

In the case when a vow was partially dissolved, the halakha is the vow is completely dissolved as Rabbi Akiva and Beit Hillel hold. (Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Nedarim, chapter 8 halakha 6; Shulkhan Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 229:1)