Nedarim 20a (כ.) — the Talmud in English

MISHNA:

One who

vowed by "

herem,"

and said: I vowed only by a herem

a net

of the sea,

with which fish are caught, and I did not intend a herem dedicated to the Most High.

Or one who vowed

by "

a sacrifice,"

and said: I vowed only by the sacrifices of kings,

which are brought before them.

Or one who said, "

Behold, I am a sacrifice,"

and said: I vowed only by a bone that I had set aside for myself

in my house,

in order to make vows by it.

Or one who said, "

Konam, may my wife derive benefit from me,"

and said: I vowed only with regard to my first wife, whom I divorced.

With regard to all of them—

the Sages do not attend to them.

The Sages do not address their request to permit their vows, because their statements have no substance [and the Gemara will explain that their vow is nothing and does not require any dissolution].

But if they came to inquire

about their vows—

they are punished, and the Sages impose stringency upon them—

these are the words of Rabbi Meir.

And the Gemara will explain that the punishment mentioned here is a rabbinic ordinance: the vow is to be treated stringently, even though it was not a valid vow and there was no need to inquire about it at all.

And the Sages say: They open for them a

opening

to dissolve their vows

from another matter,

by means of regret—that had they known of it, they would not have vowed—

and they instruct them

and admonish them for having vowed,

so that they will not treat vows lightly.

GEMARA:

And we raise a difficulty concerning the words of Rabbi Meir:

This itself is difficult!

At first

you said: The Sages do not attend to them.

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

But

if

later

afterward

you teach

with regard to the words of Rabbi Meir:

If they came to inquire—

they are punished, and the Sages impose stringency upon them!

And we answer:

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

because their vow is not a valid vow.

In what case is this said—

with regard to a Torah scholar,

who knows that this is not a valid vow, and therefore does not come to inquire about it either.

But with regard to an ignoramus,

who thinks that it is a vow requiring dissolution,

who comes to inquire

about it before a Sage—

they punish him, and impose stringency upon him.

And the Gemara explains:

Granted, "

impose stringency

upon him"—

they do not open for him with regret.

But "

they punish

him"—

what are the circumstances?

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

the Sages do not attend to him

to dissolve it immediately—

until he observes the prohibition

of a nazir

for as many days as he observed it permissively; these are the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei said: In what case is this said,

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

with regard to a short naziriteship,

which lasts thirty days.

But with regard to an extended naziriteship—

it is sufficient

for him to observe the prohibition

for thirty days,

even if he observed the days of permission for more than thirty days.

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

a court that attends

to him, to dissolve his naziriteship immediately—

does not act properly!

That court is not acting in accordance with proper procedure.

Rav Aḥa bar Ya'akov says: We excommunicate him,

the court of this kind.

We learned in the Mishna:

And the Sages say: They open for him an opening

from another matter.

A tanna taught: Never become accustomed to vows—

as in the end you will come

to

misuse oaths.

And do not become accustomed to associating with an ignoramus—

as in the end he will feed you untithed produce.

Do not become accustomed to associating with an ignorant priest—

as in the end he will feed you teruma.

And do not engage in excessive conversation with a woman—

as 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 children who are unfit.

Rav Yosef said: And

this refers even to one who

looks at

the heel of

his wife

when she is

menstruating.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: The "

heel"

that the tanna teaches—

refers to the place of filth, which is directly opposite the heel.

It was taught in a beraita:

It is written [Exodus 20], "

So that His fear shall be upon your faces"—

this is shame. "

So that you shall not sin"—

this teaches that shame leads to fear of sin.

From here the Sages said:

A

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

Others

[Rabbi Meir]

say: Anyone who feels shame—

he does not sin readily.

And one who has no sense of shame—

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

Rabbi Yohanan ben Dehavai said: The ministering angels told me four things:

Children

who are lame—why do they occur?—

Because their parents turn

their

“table”

during marital relations.

Children

who are mute—why do they occur?—

Because they kiss that place.

Children

who are deaf—why do they occur?—

Because they converse during marital relations.

Children

who are blind—why do they occur?—

Because they look at that place.

And we raise a contradiction

from a beraita that we learned: