Mishnah
Mishnah

Halakhah for Nedarim 3:4

נוֹדְרִין לָהֳרָגִין וְלָחֳרָמִין וְלַמּוֹכְסִין שֶׁהִיא תְרוּמָה אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָהּ תְּרוּמָה, שֶׁהֵן שֶׁל בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵינָן שֶׁל בֵּית הַמֶּלֶךְ. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, בַּכֹּל נוֹדְרִין, חוּץ מִבִּשְׁבוּעָה. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אַף בִּשְׁבוּעָה. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, לֹא יִפְתַּח לוֹ בְנֶדֶר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אַף יִפְתַּח לוֹ. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, בְּמַה שֶּׁהוּא מַדִּירוֹ. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אַף בְּמַה שֶּׁאֵינוֹ מַדִּירוֹ. כֵּיצַד, אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֱמוֹר קוֹנָם אִשְׁתִּי נֶהֱנֵית לִי, וְאָמַר קוֹנָם אִשְׁתִּי וּבָנַי נֶהֱנִין לִי, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, אִשְׁתּוֹ מֻתֶּרֶת וּבָנָיו אֲסוּרִין. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין:

One is permitted to vow to haragin, and charamin, and mochsin that something is terumah even though it is not terumah. ["haragin": robbers, who kill men and take their money. "charamin": thieves, who do not kill. We are being taught: "Not only these (i.e., haragin), but even these (i.e., charamin)." "mochsin": This refers to a self-appointed mochess (tax collector), but if he were appointed by the king, whether a king of Israel or a gentile king, and he takes a fixed amount by law of the kingdom, "The law of the kingdom is the law," and it is forbidden to evade the tax, and, it goes without saying, to vow and swear falsely to him. "that it is terumah": Even though they kill and steal, they do not eat forbidden food. Or it may be that terumah is not valued by them, being eaten only by Cohanim in a state of cleanliness, so that it is sold cheap.] (And one is permitted to vow) that it belongs to the palace even though it does not belong to the palace. Beth Shammai say: With all (expressions) one may vow, except with an oath. And Beth Hillel say: Even with an oath. Beth Shammai say: He should not open to him with an oath. [If the robber did not ask him to vow, he should not do so of his own accord.] Beth Hillel say: He may even open to him. Beth Shammai say: With what he bevows him. [If the robber asks him to vow, he should vow only with respect to what he was asked and not with respect to something else.] And Beth Hillel say: Even with respect to what he was not asked. How so? If they said to him: Say: "Konam, my wife from benefitting from me," and he said" "Konam, my wife and children from benefitting from me," Beth Shammai say: His wife is permitted and his children forbidden. And Beth Hillel say: Both are permitted. [With all of these four vows of our Mishnah, the laws of vows and oaths are alike, what is permitted with vows being permitted with oaths. And absolution is required only with "the vows of the diligent," this being an ordinance of the scribes, for which reason oaths are forbidden with them.]

Gray Matter IV

Rav Yosef, however, notes that the Rambam (Hilchot Gezeilah Va’Aveidah 5:11 and in his commentary to the Mishnah Nedarim 3:4) and the Meiri (Nedarim 28a) specifically mention that dina d’malchuta dina applies to both Jewish and non-Jewish kings.153Rav Yosef also quotes the Rashba (Teshuvot 2:134), who rules that dina d'malchuta dina applies to those laws of Jewish kings which are designed to protect the people. According to Rav Yosef, taxes are included in this category, since the government uses the taxes to promote the security of its citizens. . The Beit Yosef (C.M. 369 s.v. U’Mah She’Amar Bein She’hu Melech) marshals evidence to this opinion from the Gemara (Bava Kama 113a). This passage seeks to interpret a Mishnah in Nedarim (3:4) which seems to imply that we do not follow the rule of dina d’malchuta dina. The Gemara answers that the Mishnah applies to unjust tax collection. The Beit Yosef observes that the Gemara does not answer that dina d’malchuta dina does not apply to Jewish kings in Eretz Yisrael and that this is what the Mishnah in Nedarim speaks about.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Gray Matter IV

Even though the Rishonim and Shulchan Aruch speak of “kings,” Rav Ovadia Yosef rules that dina d’malchuta dina applies in a democracy. He marshals two proofs to this assertion. He cites Bava Kama 113a, as did the Beit Yosef, which does not simply resolve the problematic Mishnah of Nedarim 3:4 by stating that it speaks of a country that is not ruled by a king. Indeed, Rav Yosif notes that Chazal were aware of countries that were not ruled by a king, most famously Rome (as noted by Tosafot, Avodah Zarah 10b s.v. Kol Nesi’eha).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Previous VerseFull ChapterNext Verse