Nedarim 64b (סד:) — the Talmud in English

And Rava said:

This is what the Sages said to Rabbi Tzadok:

If so,

that one begins with the honor of God,

vows cannot be brought before a sage for annulment.

For people will refrain from coming to ask a sage about their vows; rather, they will annul their vows themselves on the basis of this opening—that the vow was not made in disregard of the honor of God.

Since this opening is exceedingly facile and is fit to serve as an opening for all vows, people will think that there is no need to approach a sage at all and ask about the vow, so that the sage can annul it for them on the basis of the opening concerning the honor of God. Rather, it will suffice for them to annul their vows themselves on the basis of such a simple opening.

And the Gemara proves the validity of Abaye’s statement:

We learned:

We learned in our Mishna:

And the Sages concede to Rabbi Eliezer

in the case of one who vowed

with regard to something between himself and his father or mother—

that one begins for him with the honor of his father or mother.

Granted, according to Abaye, who said

that the intent of the Mishna is to say that one may not begin with the honor of God, because

if so, vows will not be properly annulled,

it is well to distinguish between the honor of God, with which one does not begin—because of the concern that he may not truly regret the vow in his heart, and merely says with his mouth that he regrets it, as he does not dare say that he is unconcerned with the honor of God—and the honor of his father and mother, in a case where he prohibited them from benefiting from him. In the latter case, everyone agrees that one does begin with it, and we are not concerned that he is not telling the truth because of the honor of his father and mother—

since

here,

in a case where he prohibited his father and mother from benefiting from him,

since he had the audacity toward them

by prohibiting them from benefiting from him,

he has already shown his audacity toward them;

and if he says that he now regrets the vow because of the honor of his parents, he is telling the truth and is not lying because of their honor.

But according to Rava, who said

that the intent of the Mishna is to say that one may not begin with the honor of God, because

if so, people will not ask a sage about their vows,

but will annul their vows themselves on the basis of such a facile opening—

here,

where even according to the Sages one begins with the honor of his father and mother when he prohibited them from benefiting from him—

why do we begin

with such a facile opening? And why are we not concerned that he will come to annul this vow himself on the basis of the simple and facile opening concerning the honor of his father and mother?!

They said,

the Sages said in the beit-midrash, in resolution:

Since all vows,

all other vows,

cannot suffice for them

without an annulment

unless

one asks

a sage,

a person will become accustomed to going to a sage; therefore,

here too, we begin

and we are not concerned that he will not come to a sage, as people have already become accustomed to coming.

We learned in the Mishna:

And Rabbi Eliezer further said: One may begin with an unforeseen circumstance.

And we raised a difficulty:

What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer?

Rav Ḥisda said: As the verse states [Exodus 4],

that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses in Midian to return to Egypt. The Holy One, Blessed be He, provided him with an opening in order to annul Moses’ oath to Jethro, his father-in-law, who had sworn to him that he would not return to Egypt [and the Sages will expound below that Moses had sworn to Jethro, from the verse, “And Moses was willing to dwell with the man,” as “was willing” (vayo’el) is an expression of an oath].

And the Holy One, Blessed be He, told him that he could ask about his oath and have it annulled, since his oath not to return to Egypt had been due to his fear of those who sought his life, but the situation had now changed: “

For all the men

who seek your life are dead.”

But

the opening was based on the

death

of a person—is this an opening

of “

an unforeseen circumstance”

!

From here

Rabbi Eliezer learned

that one may begin

even

with

an opening of “

an unforeseen circumstance.”

And the Rabbis, what is their reasoning?

Why do they not learn from this verse that one may begin with an unforeseen circumstance?

Since

they hold,

the Rabbis, that

those

men who sought Moses’ life,

did they die?

Did they really die? Those men were Dathan and Abiram. For—

Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Everywhere that it is stated

in the Torah, “

contending” [

whom Moses saw when he went out from Pharaoh’s house to see the suffering of his brethren: “two men contending”],

and “

standing” [

when Moses and Aaron went out from Pharaoh and found the Israelites standing to meet them]—

they are none other than Dathan and Abiram!

For in the passage of Pinḥas [Numbers 26:9], it is stated concerning Dathan and Abiram: “He is Dathan and Abiram, who contended against Moses and Aaron among the assembly of Korah, when they contended against God.”

And it is likewise stated concerning them in the passage of Korah: “And Dathan and Abiram went out, standing at the entrance of their tents.”

It follows that the two men who were “contending” in Egypt, to whom Moses said to the wicked man, “Why would you strike your fellow?” and who informed against him to Pharaoh, saying that he had killed the Egyptian man, were Dathan and Abiram.

But Dathan and Abiram had not yet died; rather, they were together with Korah in his dispute with Moses. Likewise, when Moses and Aaron went out from Pharaoh, after Moses returned from Midian, it is stated: “They encountered Moses and Aaron, standing to meet them”—and these too were Dathan and Abiram.

Rather, Reish Lakish said:

Dathan and Abiram were considered as though they had died because

they had lost their wealth,

and they no longer had influence and no longer posed a danger to Moses.

And loss of wealth is not an unforeseen event, as fortune turns and revolves in the world; therefore, this is not an unforeseen circumstance.

The Gemara brings additional examples of people who are considered as though they had died.

Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Anyone who has no children—

is considered as though he is dead.

As it is stated [Genesis 30],

that Rachel said to Jacob: “

Give me children, and if not—

I am dead.”

And it was taught in a beraita: Four are considered as though they are dead—

A poor person, a leper, a blind person, and one who has no children.

A poor person—

as it is written

concerning Dathan and Abiram, who were alive: “

For all the men are dead,”

but they had lost their wealth.

A leper—

as it is written [

Numbers 12], in Aaron’s plea to Moses concerning the leprosy of their sister Miriam: “

Please, let her not be like the dead.”

And a blind person—

as it is written [

Lamentations 3]: “

He has made me dwell in darkness—

like those eternally dead.”

And one who has no children—

as it is written

concerning Rachel, who said to Jacob, “Give me children,

and if not, I am dead.”