Nedarim 20a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

One who

vowed with

“herem,”

and said: “I vowed only with his

net

of the sea,

with which they catch fish, and I did not intend herem of the Most High.

Or one who vowed

with

“korban,”

and said: “I vowed only with the korbanot of kings,”

which they bring before them.

Or one who said

“Behold, I myself am a korban,”

and said: “I vowed only with the bone that I set aside for myself

in my house,

in order to vow with it.

Or one who said

“Konam, my wife is forbidden to me,”

and said: “I vowed only with my first wife, whom I divorced.”

Concerning all of them—

they are not asked.

The Sages do not attend to their request to permit their vows, because there is no substance to their words [and in the Gemara it will be explained that their vow is nothing and does not require any annulment].

And if they were asked

about their vows—

they are punished, and the matter is treated stringently for them—

the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Gemara will explain that the punishment here is an enactment of the Sages, to treat the vow stringently, even though their vow was not a vow, and they did not need to be asked about it at all.

And the Sages say: They open for them a

“opening”

to permit their vows

from elsewhere,

by means of regret, for had they known about it, they would not have vowed,

and they teach them

and admonish them for having vowed,

so that they should not treat vows lightly.

Gemara:

And we examine the words of Rabbi Meir:

This itself is difficult!

At first

you said: They are not asked.

And it apparently implies that their claim is not considered an opening, and their vow takes effect.

But

if

afterward

you

teach

in the words of Rabbi Meir:

If they were asked—

they are punished, and the matter is treated stringently for them!

And we answer:

Rav Yehuda said: This is what it teaches: And all of them do not require a question,

because their vow is not a vow.

In what case are these words stated—

with a Torah scholar,

who knows that this is not a vow, and therefore he also does not come to be asked about it.

But with an ignoramus,

who thinks that it is a vow requiring annulment,

who comes to be asked

about it before a Sage—

they punish him, and treat the matter stringently for him.

And the Gemara explains:

Granted,

“they treat the matter stringently

for him” —

for we do not open for him with regret.

But

“they punish

him”—

what are the circumstances?

As it was taught in a beraita: One who took a nazirite vow and violated his naziriteship—

the Sages do not attend to him

immediately to be asked about it—

until he observes the prohibition

of a nazir

for as many days as he observed it permissibly, the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei said: In what case are these words stated,

that he must observe the prohibition for as many days as he observed it permissibly—

with a short naziriteship,

which is thirty days.

But with an extended naziriteship—

it is sufficient

for him to observe the prohibition

for thirty days,

even if he observed the permissible days for more than thirty days.

Rav Yosef said: Since the Sages said that they do not attend to him—

a court that attends

to him, to be asked about his naziriteship immediately—

does not act properly!

This court does not act correctly.

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov says: We excommunicate him,

we excommunicate such a court.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the Sages say: They open for him an opening

from elsewhere.

A tanna taught: Never be accustomed to vows—

for in the end you will come

to

misappropriate oaths.

And do not be accustomed to associate with an ignoramus—

for in the end he will feed you untithed produce.

Do not be accustomed to associate with an ignorant priest—

for in the end he will feed you teruma.

And do not excessively converse with a woman—

for in the end you will come to adultery.

Rabbi Aḥa son of Rabbi Yoshiya says: Anyone who gazes at women—

in the end

he

will come to sin.

And anyone who looks at a woman’s heel—

he will have sons who are unfit.

Rav Yosef said: And

the matter applies even

to

looking at the heel of

his wife

when she is

menstruating.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The word

“heel”

that it teaches —

means the place of filth, which is aligned opposite the heel.

It was taught in a beraita:

It is written [Exodus 20],

“So that His fear should be upon your faces”—

this is shame.

“So that you should not sin”—

this teaches that shame leads to fear of sin.

From here they said

the Sages:

It is a good sign in a person that he is bashful.

Others

Rabbi Meir

say: Anyone who is ashamed—

he does not sin quickly.

And one who has no shame upon his face—

it is known that his ancestors did not stand at Mount Sinai.

Rabbi Yoḥanan ben Dehavai said: Four things the ministering angels told me:

Children

who are lame—why do they come to be so?—

Because their parents turn over

their

“table”

during intercourse.

Children

who are mute—why do they come to be so?—

Because they kiss that place.

Children

who are deaf—why do they come to be so?—

Because they converse during intercourse.

Children

who are blind—why do they come to be so?—

Because they look at that place.

And we raise a contradiction

to this, from a beraita in which we learned: