Hataras Nedarim, suspended in air

The Mishna in Chagiga (10a) states (and see here):

מתני' היתר נדרים פורחין באויר ואין להם על מה שיסמכו

"The releasing of vows float in the air, and they do not have upon what to rely."

Yet, Hataras Nedarim works. That is, if one vows, we say that he can seek out a chacham and find a way for release from that vow.

The gemara proceeds to bring down a whole bunch of Scriptural derivations. Thus:

(a) (Beraisa) Heter Nedarim does have a verse to rely upon.
(b) (R. Eliezer) Heter Nedarim is learned from the repetition of "Ki Yafli" (Vayikra 27:2 and Bamidbar 6:2).
(c) (R. Yehoshua) Heter Nedarim is learned from "Asher Nishbati b'Api" (Tehilim 95:11).
(d) (R. Yitzchak) Heter Nedarim is learned from "Kol Nediv Libo" (Shemos 35:5).
(e) (Chananyah) Heter Nedarim is learned from "Nishbati v'Akaymah" (Tehilim 119:106).
(f) (Shmuel) Had I been there, I would have given a source better than all of theirs.

1. "Lo Yachel Devaro" ("he may not annul his word"; Bamidbar 30:3) -- he may not annul it, but others may annul it for him.

(g) (Rava) All of the sources, except for Shmuel's, have questions on them.

1. This is what people mean when they say, "More effective is a single sharp pepper than a basket full of gourds."

And so the typical derivation is that of Shmuel, from the pasuk local to Matos:

אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל אי הואי התם אמרי להו דידי עדיפא מדידכו שנאמר (במדבר ל, ג) לא יחל דברו הוא אינו מוחל אבל אחרים מוחלין

For something like this, one would expect comment by the Karaites. And they don't disappoint. Aharon ben Yosef the Karaite writes:

"And I am astounded at the baalei hakabbalah (=Pharisees) who reverse the language of chilul {profane} into a language of forgiveness {mechilah, annulment -- indeed, Shmuel says הוא אינו מוחל אבל אחרים מוחלין}. And had they not relied on Scriptures, it would have been better for them than switching out the matter of prophecy, for this appears as rebellion."


In Chazal's defense, the Mishna does state that it is poreach ba'avir; and so, all these verses may be taken as a remez. Indeed, Rashi there on the Mishna explains that hataras nedarim by a chacham is halacha leMoshe miSinai, but that there is but a bit of remez to it. I suspect that one can say the same despite the conclusion of the gemara. That is, the brayta is clearly responding to the challenge of the Mishna. And so too Shmuel takes up the challenge.


Shmuel knows the Sifrei, cited by Rashi on the pasuk:

3. If a man makes a vow to the Lord or makes an oath to prohibit himself, he shall not violate his word; according to whatever came out of his mouth, he shall do.

ג. אִישׁ כִּי יִדֹּר נֶדֶר לַה' אוֹ הִשָּׁבַע שְׁבֻעָה לֶאְסֹר אִסָּר עַל נַפְשׁוֹ לֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ כְּכָל הַיֹּצֵא מִפִּיו יַעֲשֶׂה:

he shall not violate his word: Heb. לֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ, like לֹא יְחַלֵּל דְּבָרוֹ“he shall not profane his word,” he shall not treat his word as being unholy. — [Sifrei Mattoth 8]

לא יחל דברו: כמו לא יחלל דברו, לא יעשה דבריו חולין:

and I would venture that he does not dispute this primary meaning.


Leaving aside any of these Scriptural hints, can we account for hataras nedarim, or does it really simply float in the air and appear to be open rebellion against the pasuk which stated לֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ?


I would try to support the matter of hataras nedarim as follows. 


1. First, someone who goes to a chacham to release his vow is not treating it as profane. He does not ignore it, or trod over it. That he seeks rabbinic release from it means that he treats it as a serious entity which requires release.


2. Despite this introduction that a vow cannot be violated, the Torah proceeds to list exceptions to this rule, in which a husband or father can annul a woman's vows. She is subject to their approval, or disapproval, of the vow. Well, while the Biblical attitude towards vows might be debatable, Chazal themselves generally looked at vows unfavorably. And rabbinic figures are appointed as leaders of the Jewish community. So, extrapolating from the woman, any person can bring notice of his vows to a chacham and get the vow cancelled under this disapproval. It is not explicitly in the pasuk, but it is an extension and extrapolation of what is already there.


3. The chacham does not simply wave his magic wand. He has to establish charata. Had you known X, would you have vowed? That it, he undermines the force of the initial vow, declaring that it was made in error and not with proper knowledge.


4. One pasuk implies that there is some sort of violation even where the father stopped her vow:

6. But if her father hinders her on the day he hears it, all her vows and her prohibitions that she has imposed upon herself shall not stand. The Lord will forgive her because her father hindered her.

ו. וְאִם הֵנִיא אָבִיהָ אֹתָהּ בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ כָּל נְדָרֶיהָ וֶאֱסָרֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר אָסְרָה עַל נַפְשָׁהּ לֹא יָקוּם וַה' יִסְלַח לָהּ כִּי הֵנִיא אָבִיהָ אֹתָהּ:

but that since her father hindered her, the Lord will forgive her. So too, in an environment in which vows were looked at by Chazal as an incredibly negative social phenomenon (used to bolster hatred between man and his fellow and between husband and wife), they stepped into the breach and encouraged people to nullify their vows via a chacham. And if it be a violation, so be it. vesalachta leavoneinu ki rav hu. Forgive us for our sins because it is the rabbis' fault. They have the broad shoulders, they prevented us, and the Lord will forgive the people for the technical Biblical violation.


5. Perhaps on the Biblical level, there is a difference between neder which is a promise of a korban, and a shevua which imposes a prohibition. According to Resh Lakish (Yerushalmi Nedarim 11:1), only a neder can be nullified, and not a shevua. It is unclear whether to understand this as Biblical or Rabbinic law. But perhaps there is no real Biblical neder to impose a prohibition, and it all operates on a rabbinic level; and so, hataras nedarim can readily work to undo such a vow.


6. Related, לֶאְסֹר אִסָּר עַל נַפְשׁוֹ may not mean 'prohibit'. It can mean bind oneself with an obligation. See Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan who renders it such based on (Yerushalmi, Nedarim 9:1; Septuagint). Assar in Hebrew. If so, all such issurim (or most of them, anyway) stemming from a neder are from Divrei Soferim, and they established it and so can readily take it away.


Perhaps some, or all, of these motivations (plus others) can be read into the prooftexts in the gemara.


See also the Ohr HaChaim on the beginning of Matos. I don't buy his suggestion, but won't explain here why not.