The Missing Mishnah
Nedarim 77b
On Nedarim 77b, there is a brayta which reads:
תַּנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ ״כׇּל נְדָרִים שֶׁתִּדּוֹרִי, אִי אֶפְשִׁי שֶׁתִּדּוֹרִי״, ״אֵין זֶה נֶדֶר״ — לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. ״יָפֶה עָשִׂית״, וְ״אֵין כְּמוֹתֵךְ״, וְ״אִם לֹא נָדַרְתְּ, מַדִּירֵךְ אֲנִי״ — דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין.
§ It is taught in a baraita: One who says to his wife: Any vows which you will vow, I do not want [ee efshi] you to vow, or one who wants to nullify a vow and says: This is not a vow, has not said anything, as this is not a valid formula of nullification. If he says: You have done well, or: There are none like you, or: If you had not taken a vow, I, myself, would have taken a vow to obligate you in this, his statement is substantial, and the vow is ratified.
לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לְאִשְׁתּוֹ בְּשַׁבָּת ״מוּפָר לִיכִי״, ״בָּטֵיל לִיכִי״, כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאוֹמֵר לָהּ בַּחוֹל, אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר לָהּ: ״טְלִי וְאִכְלִי״, ״טְלִי וּשְׁתִי״, וְהַנֶּדֶר בָּטֵל מֵאֵלָיו. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּבַטֵּל בְּלִבּוֹ.
A man should not say to his wife when nullifying her vows on Shabbat: It is nullified for you, or: It is canceled for you, in the manner that he would say to her on weekdays. Rather, he should say to her, if she took a vow to refrain from food or drink: Take this and eat it, or: Take this and drink it, and the vow is canceled on its own. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And he must also cancel the vow in his heart; simply telling her to eat or drink is not sufficient.
The statement from Rabbi Yochanan, typically a second-generation Amora, is likely not from the brayta. However, there is a fifth-generation Tanna (thus contemporary to Rabbi Meir) by that name, so we cannot automatically rule it out. However, that would be a remote possibility. The brayta ends before Rabbi Yochanan, the Amora.
The Rif cites this with an introductory תַּנְיָא. However, when the Rosh cites the statement, he doesn’t begin with תַּנְיָא, but just states it. Are we sure it is a brayta?
Let us examine Mishnayot to see if it could be a Mishnah. In Ktav Yad Kaufmann, there is no such Mishnah. Our last Mishnah of perek 10 moves directly into the first Mishnah of perek 11.
So too in Munich 95, it isn’t part of the Mishnah. But like the Rosh, it is missing the initial תַּנְיָא.
However, something fascinating happens in the Vatican 110-111 manuscript. It cites the Mishnah in full, of היפר נדרים כל היום. And then, before סליק פירקא denoting the end of the perek (of Mishnayot), it has, with no תניא, the Tannaitic source from above. With no Rabbi Yochanan, the Amora.
Then, for 77b, in the gemara which is to analyze the Tannaitic source, it has a piska, that is a short excerpt from the Tannaitic source, often a Mishnah.
And that is where it places Rabbi Yochanan’s statement, and comment. So I think that according to this manuscript, it is a separate Mishnah.
After writing this, I saw that Meiri explicitly write how some have this in the Mishnah:
וכן יש גורסין עוד במשנה זו לא יאמר אדם לאשתו בשבת מופר ליכי כדרך שהוא אומר בחול אלא ישנה מפני כבוד השבת ויאמר לה טלי ואכלי ממה שנדרת והנדר בטל מאליו