חַסּוֹרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי הָרוֹצֶה שֶׁיֹּאכַל אֶצְלוֹ חֲבֵירוֹ וּמְסָרֵב בּוֹ וּמַדִּירוֹ נִדְרֵי זֵירוּזִין הוּא וְהָרוֹצֶה שֶׁלֹּא יִתְקַיְּימוּ נְדָרָיו כׇּל הַשָּׁנָה יַעֲמוֹד בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה וְיֹאמַר כׇּל נֶדֶר שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִידּוֹר יְהֵא בָּטֵל וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא זָכוּר בִּשְׁעַת הַנֶּדֶר The Gemara answers: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching like this: In the case of one who wants another to eat with him, and he urges him to do so and makes a vow with regard to him, this vow is included in the category of vows of exhortation, which do not require dissolution. And in addition, one who desires that his vows not be upheld for the entire year should stand up on Rosh HaShana and say: Any vow that I take in the future should be void. And this is statement is effective, provided that he remembers at the time of the vow that his intent at the beginning of the year was to render it void.
אִי זָכוּר עַקְרֵיהּ לִתְנָאֵיהּ וְקַיֵּים לֵיהּ לְנִדְרֵיהּ אָמַר אַבָּיֵי תָּנֵי וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא זָכוּר בִּשְׁעַת הַנֶּדֶר The Gemara asks: If he remembers at the time of the vow that his intent at the beginning of the year was to render it void but still makes the vow, then he has uprooted his stipulation that all his vows are void and has upheld his vow. Why, then, does it state that the vows are void in this case? Abaye said: Teach: And this is statement is effective, provided that he does not remember at the time of the vow that his intention at the beginning of the year was to render it void.
רָבָא אָמַר לְעוֹלָם כִּדְאָמְרִינַן מֵעִיקָּרָא הָכָא בְּמַאי עָסְקִינַן כְּגוֹן שֶׁהִתְנָה בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה וְלֹא יָדַע בַּמֶּה הִתְנָה וְהַשְׁתָּא קָא נָדַר אִי זָכוּר בִּשְׁעַת הַנֶּדֶר וְאָמַר עַל דַּעַת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אֲנִי נוֹדֵר נִדְרֵיהּ לֵית בֵּיהּ מַמָּשָׁא לֹא אָמַר עַל דַּעַת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה אֲנִי נוֹדֵר עַקְרֵיהּ לִתְנָאֵיהּ וְקַיֵּים לְנִדְרֵיהּ Rava said: Actually, say as we said initially, that he does remember his stipulation at the time of the vow. With what are we dealing here? It is a case where he stipulated a condition on Rosh HaShana rendering void vows that he would make later in the year, but he did not know with regard to which vows he made the stipulation, and now he makes a vow. If he remembers at the time of the vow and says: I am vowing in accordance with the initial intention, when I stipulated that all vows should be void, his vow has no substance. However, if he did not say: I am vowing in accordance with the initial intention, then he has uprooted his stipulation and upheld his vow.
רַב הוּנָא בַּר חִינָּנָא סָבַר לְמִידְרְשֵׁיהּ בְּפִירְקָא אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא תַּנָּא קָא מְסַתֵּים לַהּ סַתּוֹמֵי כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִנְהֲגוּ קַלּוּת רֹאשׁ בִּנְדָרִים וְאַתְּ דָּרְשַׁתְּ לֵיהּ בְּפִירְקָא The Gemara relates that Rav Huna bar Ḥinnana intended to teach this topic at the Festival lecture, so that everyone would learn this manner of rendering vows void on Rosh HaShana. Rava said to him: The tanna of the mishna conceals it and does not say it explicitly, despite the fact that it is studied by Torah scholars, in order that the public not treat vows lightly, and you teach it publicly at the Festival lecture?
אִיבַּעְיָא לְהוּ פְּלִיגִי רַבָּנַן עֲלֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹ לָא וְאִם תִּמְצָא לוֹמַר פְּלִיגִי הִלְכְתָא כְּוָתֵיהּ אוֹ לָא תָּא שְׁמַע דִּתְנַן הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ § A dilemma was raised before the scholars: Do the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov in the mishna or not? And if you say that they disagree with him, is the halakha in accordance with his opinion or not? The Gemara suggests a proof: Come and hear, as we learned in a mishna (63b): One who says to another: