רַבִּי זֵירָא הֲוָה קָמִשְׁתְּמִיט מִינֵּיהּ דְּרַב יְהוּדָה דִּבְעָא לְמִיסַּק לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל דְּאָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה כׇּל הָעוֹלֶה מִבָּבֶל לְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹבֵר בַּעֲשֵׂה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בָּבֶלָה יוּבָאוּ וְשָׁמָּה יִהְיוּ עַד יוֹם פׇּקְדִי אוֹתָם נְאֻם ה׳ וְרַבִּי זֵירָא הָהוּא בִּכְלֵי שָׁרֵת כְּתִיב וְרַב יְהוּדָה כְּתִיב קְרָא אַחֲרִינָא הִשְׁבַּעְתִּי אֶתְכֶם בְּנוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַים בִּצְבָאוֹת אוֹ בְּאַיְלוֹת הַשָּׂדֶה וְגוֹ׳ וְרַבִּי זֵירָא הָהוּא שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּחוֹמָה וְרַב יְהוּדָה הִשְׁבַּעְתִּי אַחֲרִינָא כְּתִיב וְרַבִּי זֵירָא הָהוּא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא דְּאָמַר שָׁלֹשׁ שְׁבוּעוֹת הַלָּלוּ לָמָּה אַחַת שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲלוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּחוֹמָה וְאַחַת שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיעַ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁלֹּא יִמְרְדוּ בְּאוּמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם וְאַחַת שֶׁהִשְׁבִּיעַ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶת הַגּוֹיִם שֶׁלֹּא יִשְׁתַּעְבְּדוּ בָּהֶן בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל יוֹתֵר מִדַּאי וְרַב יְהוּדָה אִם תָּעִירוּ וְאִם תְּעוֹרְרוּ כְּתִיב וְרַבִּי זֵירָא מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי לֵוִי דְּאָמַר שֵׁשׁ שְׁבוּעוֹת הַלָּלוּ לָמָּה תְּלָתָא הָנֵי דַּאֲמַרַן אִינָךְ שֶׁלֹּא יְגַלּוּ אֶת הַקֵּץ וְשֶׁלֹּא יְרַחֲקוּ אֶת הַקֵּץ וְשֶׁלֹּא יְגַלּוּ הַסּוֹד לַגּוֹיִם
§ The Gemara relates: Rabbi Zeira was avoiding being seen by his teacher, Rav Yehuda, as Rabbi Zeira sought to ascend to Eretz Yisrael and his teacher disapproved. As Rav Yehuda said: Anyone who ascends from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael transgresses a positive mitzva, as it is stated: “They shall be taken to Babylonia and there they shall remain until the day that I recall them, said the Lord” (Jeremiah 27:22). Based on that verse, Rav Yehuda held that since the Babylonian exile was imposed by divine decree, permission to leave Babylonia for Eretz Yisrael could be granted only by God. The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Zeira interpret that verse? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Zeira maintains that that verse is written about the Temple service vessels, and it does not refer to the Jewish people, as the previous verse states: “Thus says the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, concerning the vessels that remain in the house of the Lord” (Jeremiah 27:21). Consequently, Rabbi Zeira sought to ascend to Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: And how does Rav Yehuda respond to this argument? The verse is clearly referring to the Temple vessels, not to the people. The Gemara answers that another verse is written: “I adjure you, O daughters of Jerusalem, by the gazelles and by the hinds of the field, that you not awaken or stir up love, until it please” (Song of Songs 2:7). Rabbi Yehuda derived from here that no act of redemption should be performed until a time arrives when it pleases God to bring about the redemption. And Rabbi Zeira maintains that the oath mentioned in that verse means that the Jews should not ascend to Eretz Yisrael as a wall, i.e., en masse, whereas individuals may immigrate as they wish. The Gemara asks: And what does Rav Yehuda reply to this? The Gemara answers that this command is derived from another verse in which “I adjure you” (Song of Songs 3:5) is written. The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Zeira explain the repetition of this oath in these verses? The Gemara explains: That verse is necessary for that which was taught by Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, who said: Why are these three oaths (Song of Songs 2:7, 3:5, 8:4) needed? One, so that the Jews should not ascend to Eretz Yisrael as a wall, but little by little. And another one, that the Holy One, Blessed be He, adjured the Jews that they should not rebel against the rule of the nations of the world. And the last one is that the Holy One, Blessed be He, adjured the nations of the world that they should not subjugate the Jews excessively. And how does Rav Yehuda respond? It is written: “That you not awaken or stir up love” (Song of Songs 2:7), which serves to amplify and include a prohibition against Jews immigrating to Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: And how does Rabbi Zeira explain the extra emphasis of this phrase? The Gemara explains: He needs this phrase for that which was taught by Rabbi Levi, who said: These six oaths, i.e., the aforementioned three verses containing oaths, each of which contains the phrase “That you not awaken or stir up,” why are they necessary? Three are those that we said and explained above. The other three oaths are as follows: That those who know should not reveal the end of days; and that they should not distance the end of days by saying that it is still distant; and that they should not reveal the secret of the Jews to the nations.
Highlights from Nedarim that we've covered before:
Nedarim 39b - 7 things existed before creation
Nedarim 50a - Rabbi Aviba's origin story
מִנַּיִן שֶׁנִּשְׁבָּעִין לְקַיֵּים אֶת הַמִּצְוָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי וָאֲקַיֵּמָה לִשְׁמֹר מִשְׁפְּטֵי צִדְקֶךָ וַהֲלֹא מוּשְׁבָּע וְעוֹמֵד מֵהַר סִינַי הוּא אֶלָּא הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּשָׁרֵי לֵיהּ לְאִינִישׁ לְזָרוֹזֵי נַפְשֵׁיהּ וְאָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב הָאוֹמֵר אַשְׁכִּים וְאֶשְׁנֶה פֶּרֶק זֶה אֶשְׁנֶה מַסֶּכְתָּא זוֹ נֶדֶר גָּדוֹל נָדַר לֵאלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַהֲלֹא מוּשְׁבָּע וְעוֹמֵד הוּא וְאֵין שְׁבוּעָה חָלָה עַל שְׁבוּעָה מַאי קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דַּאֲפִילּוּ זָרוֹזֵי בְּעָלְמָא הַיְינוּ דְּרַב גִּידֵּל קַמַּיְיתָא הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כֵּיוָן דְּאִי בָּעֵי פָּטַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ בִּקְרִיַּת שְׁמַע שַׁחֲרִית וְעַרְבִית מִשּׁוּם הָכִי חָיֵיל שְׁבוּעָה עֲלֵיהּ אָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ נַשְׁכִּים וְנִשְׁנֶה פֶּרֶק זֶה עָלָיו לְהַשְׁכִּים שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלַי (בֶּן אָדָם) קוּם צֵא אֶל הַבִּקְעָה וְשָׁם אֲדַבֵּר אוֹתָךְ וָאֵצֵא אֶל הַבִּקְעָה וְהִנֵּה שָׁם כְּבוֹד ה׳ עֹמֵד
From where is it derived that one may take an oath to fulfill a mitzva? It is as it is stated: “I have sworn and I have confirmed it, to observe Your righteous ordinances” (Psalms 119:106). The Gemara asks: Is he not already under oath from when each Jew took an oath at Mount Sinai to fulfill all the mitzvot? An oath cannot take effect if one is already bound by a different oath. Rather, it teaches us this: It is permitted for a man to motivate himself to fulfill the mitzvot in this manner, although the oath is not technically valid. And Rav Giddel said that Rav said: One who says: I will rise early and study this chapter, or: I will study this tractate, has taken a great vow to the God of Israel. This clearly indicates that the vow takes effect. The Gemara asks: Is he not already under oath due to the general obligation to study Torah? And an oath does not take effect upon a preexisting oath. What is he teaching us? If one claims that Rav Giddel is teaching that such a vow may be made even merely to motivate oneself to study, this is the same as the first statement of Rav Giddel. The Gemara answers: It teaches us this: Since if he desires he can exempt himself from the obligation to study Torah with the recitation of Shema in the morning and evening, due to that reason the oath takes effect upon him and he is obligated to study the chapter or tractate that he specified. Rav Giddel said that Rav said: With regard to one who says to another: Let us rise early and study this chapter, and they agree to do so, it is incumbent upon him to rise early and be the first to arrive, because it was his initiative. There is an allusion to this in a verse, as it is stated: “And He said to me: Arise, go forth into the plain, and there I will speak with you. Then I arose and went forth into the plain; and behold, the glory of the Lord stood there” (Ezekiel 3:22–23). God invited Ezekiel to that place, and His glory arrived before Ezekiel did.
מַתְנִי׳ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב אוֹמֵר אַף הָרוֹצֶה לְהַדִּיר אֶת חֲבֵירוֹ שֶׁיֹּאכַל אֶצְלוֹ יֹאמַר לוֹ כׇּל נֶדֶר שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִידּוֹר הוּא בָּטֵל וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּהֵא זָכוּר בִּשְׁעַת הַנֶּדֶר גְּמָ׳ וְכֵיוָן דְּאָמַר כׇּל נֶדֶר שֶׁאֲנִי עָתִיד לִידּוֹר יְהֵא בָּטֵל לָא שָׁמַע לֵיהּ וְלָא אָתֵי בַּהֲדֵיהּ 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 אִי זָכוּר עַקְרֵיהּ לִתְנָאֵיהּ וְקַיֵּים לֵיהּ לְנִדְרֵיהּ אָמַר אַבָּיֵי תָּנֵי וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא זָכוּר בִּשְׁעַת הַנֶּדֶר 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
MISHNA: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: Even one who wants to take a vow prohibiting another from benefiting from him, but only in order that he should eat with him, not intending to take an actual vow, should say to him at the outset: Any vow that I take in the future is void. And this 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. GEMARA: With regard to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov’s proposal, the Gemara asks: And since he said: Any vow that I take in the future should be void, the one being invited will not listen to him and will not come to eat with him, since he already knows that the vow is not valid. That being the case, why would the first individual take a vow at all? 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. 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. 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.