Nedarim 64a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

Rabbi Eliezer says: We open for a person

an opening for regret regarding his vow

through the honor of his father and mother.

And they say to him: Had you known that when you made the vow you were causing your parents disgrace, because people see you as a person who treats vows lightly and attribute your defect to your parents, would you have made the vow?

If he answered that he would not have made the vow then, because of the honor of his parents, they may annul his vow.

But the Sages prohibit

opening for him an opening for regret regarding his vow through making use of the honor of his father and mother. For perhaps he does not truly regret because of the honor of his parents; rather, he merely says this before us with his mouth—that he regrets because of their honor—but he does not think so in his heart.

For if he were now to answer the sage’s question that he did not care about their honor, but would have made the vow even though this was not to their honor, then through this very statement he would be harming the honor of his parents; and perhaps he will lie before us, so as not to make a statement that harms the honor of his parents.

The explanation of the Gemara below follows the version of the Ran, and his explanation is—

Rabbi Tzadok said:

According to Rabbi Eliezer, who holds that we open through the honor of his parents,

until they open for him through the honor of his father and mother—

let them open for him,

it is possible to open for him also

through the honor of the Omnipresent.

And they say to him: Had you known that when you make a vow you treat lightly the honor of the Omnipresent—for one who makes a vow, it is as though he makes a vow by the King Himself, and there is contempt here for the honor of the King—would you have made the vow?

If he answered that he would not have made the vow, the sage annuls his vow for him.

They said to him,

the Sages to Rabbi Tzadok:

If so,

according to your words, that according to Rabbi Eliezer we open for every one who makes a vow, even through the honor of the Omnipresent—

there are no vows.

Abaye and Rava disagreed in explaining these words of the Mishna.

According to Abaye, the meaning is that vows are not properly annulled!

For every person, when he is asked whether he would have made the vow even if he had known that through this he was treating lightly the honor of the Omnipresent, would not dare answer that indeed he would have done so. And if so, we must be concerned that he is not now telling the truth.

And necessarily, even according to Rabbi Eliezer, we do not open through the honor of the Omnipresent. Rather, Rabbi Eliezer permitted opening only through the honor of his father and mother, because in his view there is no concern that perhaps the one who made the vow will lie and not tell the truth because of the honor of his parents.

But Rava explained the words of the Mishna differently, as will be explained in the Gemara.

And the Sages concede to Rabbi Eliezer,

in the case of one who made a vow

concerning a matter between him and his father and mother,

such as when he prohibited his benefit to them,

that we open for him through the honor of his father and mother.

For here certainly he will not lie because of their honor, saying that he would not have made the vow although he does not regret it in his heart. For this very vow is an injury to their honor, and it is evident from it that this person is not careful regarding their honor.

And Rabbi Eliezer further said: We open with "

nolad",

with a matter that occurred in an unexpected manner, as the Mishna will immediately explain.

But the Sages prohibit

opening with nolad.

And the Mishna explains:

How

is the opening through nolad, concerning which the Sages and Rabbi Eliezer disagreed?

He said: Konam that I do not benefit from so-and-so

for a certain period of time.

And

afterward

that

so-and-so

became a scribe

[a Torah scholar or the city’s clerk], and he needs to resort to him constantly.

Or it was that

so-and-so

was marrying off his son,

and all his friends were accustomed to participate in the wedding feast.

And

the one who made the vow then said:

Had I known

at the time when I made the vow

that he would become a scribe

[a Torah scholar or the city’s clerk], and I would need to resort to him,

or that he would soon marry off his son

and I would need to participate in his rejoicing—

I would not have made the vow!

And since this matter occurred in an unexpected manner, this is nolad.

And the Mishna brings another example of their disagreement whether we open with nolad:

The one who made the vow said:

“Konam for this house, that I do not enter.”

And

afterward

this

house

became a synagogue.

And then

the one who made the vow

said:

Had I known

at the time when I made the vow

that it would become a synagogue—

I would not have made the vow!

Rabbi Eliezer permits

opening with such a nolad.

But the Sages prohibit

opening with nolad.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna that the Sages said to Rabbi Tzadok: If we open through the honor of the Omnipresent—there are no vows!

And the Gemara asks:

What

is the explanation of the words of the Sages—"

there are no vows"?

Abaye said,

this is what the Sages said to Rabbi Tzadok:

If so,

that we open through the honor of the Omnipresent,

vows are not properly annulled,

because a person does not dare say before Him that he made the vow despite the fact that this is not to the honor of the Omnipresent, and there is concern that the annulment of the vows, which depends upon the person’s genuine regret, is not carried out properly.