Why is "any promise I will promise" where it is in N'darim chapter 3?

Question

The start of the third chapter of N'darim lists four categories of promise that are always null and void: promises meant to urge, promises of exaggeration, promises with an accident, and promises of force. The text following that list provides details of each category. But between the details of the first category and the details of the second, there's what appears to be a completely separate point: that someone can stipulate nullity for his future promises. What is that doing right in the middle of the list of types of promise that always null and void?

Answer 1

I think that this is similar to nidre zeruzin according to the Rashba. But the Gemara says that there is a gzera derabanan because ignoramus to validate this kind of vows in some conditions. Even for other rishonim, there is a great similarity with nidre zeruzin and this place in the order of the mishna is the place to make the discernment.

ובלבד שיהא זכור בשעת הנדר אי זכור עקריה לתנאי וקיימיה לנדריה

The Gemara asks: If he remembers the condition at the time of his vow, he cancels the condition and validates the vow.

קשיא לי אמאי עקריה, אדרבה על דעת ראשונה הוא נודר ואין פיו ולבו שוין, והוה ליה כעין נדרי זרוזין,‏

Kashia of the Rashba on this Gemara. Contrarily!? he makes the vow knowing the condition, in consequence, his heart and his mouth are not synchronized, it's as nidre zeruzin.

שאף על פי שפיו ולבו שוין להוציא דבר זה בשפתיו אפילו הכי, כיון שאינו נודר על דעת שיתקיים נדרו הרי הוא בטל. ‏

Since there is no error of synchronization between his mouth and his hearth (his tongue has not forked), the fact that he makes intentionally a vow without intention to accredit it makes the vow annulled.

מיהו בהא איכא לתרץ דנדרי זרוזין לא הוו, אלא במאי דאורחייהו דאינשי למימר לזרוז בעלמא [דכיון דאורחייהו דאינשי לומר כך, לזירוז בעלמא ולאו בדוקא – לפי הש"מ], וכיון שכן הרי הוא כאילו אמר בפירוש, דלא נדר בדוקא אלא לזרוז בעלמא.‏

The leniency of nidre zeruzin is based on a known discrepancy between the heart and the mouth because there is a custom to speak as well to accelerate the aggiling. They are as if he says explicitly (it's like everyone hears it) that he wants to put pressure on his friend, nothing more.

ותדע לך דהא ודאי בעלמא כל שפיו ולבו שוין להוציא דבר זה בשפתיו, אף על פי שיש בלבו בהפך זה (לית) [תיבה זו ליתיה בש"מ] נדרו קיים, ‏

The principle of the leniency of Nidre Zeruzin is that the purpose of the noder is apparent. If he if he secretly intends not to fulfill his commitment, there has no halachic consequences, because he knows what he says. That's what he says knowing that he says it, that counts.

ותנאי שבלבו בטל וכדקיימא לן דדברים שבלב אינן דברים, ‏

A condition that remains at a mental level has no value from the point of view of the halacha.

ועוד דקיימא לן בנדרי זרוזין דלא חשבינן להו לזרוזין, אלא בענין שדרכן של בני אדם לומר כן לזרוז וכדאיתא לקמן [נדרים כד, א],‏

Additionally, the Gemara (24a) says that nidre zeruzim are familiar expressions mean that you have to speed up the transaction.

אלא מיהו אכתי קשיא לי מדאמרינן לעיל בסמוך (כג עמוד א), כיון דאמר כל נדר שאני עתיד לידור הרי הוא בטל, לא שמע ליה ולא אתא בהדיה, כלומר דיודע הוא שאינו נודר בדוקא, שכבר בטל מעיקרו ונדרו אינו נידר.‏

But despite everything the first question has to be because Gemara seems to say above (23a) that if his friend heard him when he stated this condition, he would not give in to pressure, so its obvious that such a vow is annulled.

אלמא כל שמבטל נדריו שעתיד לידור אף על פי שזוכר תנאי ונדר סתם, נדרו בטל ותנאו קיים, ‏

We learn from this Gemara that it is enough that he has canceled in advance the vows he will pronounce in the future and that, when he remembers this annulment at the moment when he makes the vow.

על כן נראה לי להלכה אבל לא למעשה, דלא נאמרו דברים הללו אלא בעם הארץ דחוששין לו,‏

Therefore, it seems, not for an halachic purpose (the Rashba gives an explanation, but he want not to make a psak different in case of ignoramus and in case of Talmid Chacham), that this Halacha (If he remembers the condition at the time of his vow, he cancels the condition and validates the vow) is not true from a pure halachic point of view and is analog to nidre zeruzin. But the din is stingent derabanan to view the condition as cancelled regards ignoramus (but it is a true analog of nidre zeruzin).

כיון שהוא זכור תנאו ולא הזכירו בשעת נדרו שמא בטלו לתנאו,‏

The ignoramus perhaps annulled his condition because he thinks that there is a need to say it again at the time of the vow. And the fact that he didn't repeat it is a sign that he annulled it.

אבל במדיר את חברו, ועל אותו נדר ממש הוא מקדים ומתנה ומבטלו בפיו, שאומר כל נדר שאני עתיד להדיר לאסור לו נכסי את פלוני כדי שיעשה עמי כך וכך הרי הוא בטל.‏

But even for ignoramus, there are cases in which the condition wors. If he made a condition before the encounter with his friend and says that the vow he would make to persuade his friend to do something with him is already annulled, this works.

בכענין זה אין חוששין לו אפילו בעם הארץ,‏

And in a such case, we are not afraid that an ignoramus perhaps cancels the condition

But the Ran reject the explanation of the Rashba, and understand that the Din of neder after a condition that was pronounced at Rosh Hashana is not equivalent at all to Nidre Zeruzin.This is a neder by mistake, because he forgot the condition, or totally, as Abaye holds, or even partially as Rava adds. His intent was to make a neder, not as Nidre Zeruzin