Nedarim 64b — the Talmud in English

And Rava said,

this is what the Sages said to Rabbi Tzadok:

If so,

that they open with the honor of the Omnipresent,

vows are not brought before a Sage.

For people will refrain from coming and asking a Sage about their vows; rather, they will themselves dissolve their vows on the basis of this opening, that the vow is not for the honor of the Omnipresent.

Since this opening is exceedingly easy, and is fit to serve as an opening for all vows, the people will therefore think that there is no need at all to approach a Sage and ask about the vow, so that the Sage will dissolve it for them on the basis of the opening of the honor of the Omnipresent; rather, it is enough that they themselves dissolve their vow on the basis of such a simple opening.

And the Gemara proves in accordance with the words of Abaye:

We learned,

we learned in our Mishna:

And the Sages concede to Rabbi Eliezer

in the case of one who vowed

concerning a matter between himself and his father and mother—

that they open for him with the honor of his father and mother.

Granted, according to Abaye, who said

that the intention of the Mishna is to say that one does not open with the honor of the Omnipresent, because

if so, vows are not properly dissolved,

it is well to distinguish between the honor of the Omnipresent, with which one does not open [because of the concern that perhaps he does not truly regret it in his heart, but only says with his mouth that he regrets it, since he does not dare say that he does not care about the honor of the Omnipresent], and the honor of his father and mother, in a case where he prohibited his benefit to them; for according to everyone one does open with it, and we are not concerned that perhaps he is not telling the truth because of the honor of his father and mother—

since

here,

in the case of one who prohibits his benefit to his father and mother,

since he was brazen toward them

by prohibiting his benefit to them—

he was brazen toward them;

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

But according to Rava, who said

that the intention of the Mishna is to say that one does not open with the honor of the Omnipresent, for

if so, vows are not brought before a Sage,

but the people will dissolve their vows themselves on the basis of such an easy opening—

here,

where even according to the Sages one opens with the honor of his father and mother when he prohibited his benefit to them—

why do they open

with such an easy opening? And why are we not concerned that he might come to dissolve this vow himself on the basis of the easy and simple opening of the honor of his father and mother?!

They said,

the Sages said in the beit-midrash, to resolve this:

Since all vows,

all the other vows,

cannot suffice for them

a dissolution

that is not

without asking a

Sage,

the person will become accustomed to going to a Sage; therefore,

here too they open,

and we are not concerned that perhaps he will not come to a Sage, since they have already become accustomed to coming.

We learned in the Mishna:

And Rabbi Eliezer further said: We open with a nolad.

And we raised it:

What is Rabbi Eliezer’s reason?

Rav Hisda said: For the verse says [Exodus 4],

that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses in Midian to return to Egypt. And the Holy One, blessed be He, gave him an opening in order to dissolve Moses’ oath to Jethro, his father-in-law, for he had sworn to him that he would not return to Egypt [and the Sages will expound below that Moses swore to Jethro, from the verse, “And Moses consented to dwell with the man,” for “consented” is an expression of an oath and a vow].

And the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him that he could ask about his oath and dissolve it, since his oath not to return to Egypt was because of the concern regarding those who sought his life, but now the situation had changed,

“for all the men have died

who seek your life.”

But this

opening because of

the death

of a person—is an opening

of “

a nolad”

it is!

From here

Rabbi Eliezer learned

that one opens

even

with an opening of “

opening based on

a nolad.”

And the Rabbis, what is their reason?

Why do they not learn from this verse that one opens with a nolad?

Since

they hold

the Rabbis,

those

men who sought Moses’ life,

did they die?

But these men were Dathan and Abiram. For—

But Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai: Every place where it is stated

in the Torah, “

quarreling” [

which Moses saw when he went out from Pharaoh’s house to see the burdens of his brethren, “two men quarreling”],

and “

standing” [

when Moses and Aaron went out from Pharaoh, and found the Children of Israel standing opposite them]—

they are none other than Dathan and Abiram!

For in the portion of Pinchas [Numbers 26:9] it is said concerning Dathan and Abiram, “This is Dathan and Abiram who contended with Moses and Aaron in the assembly of Korah, when they contended against the Lord.”

And it is likewise said about them in the portion of Korah, “And Dathan and Abiram went out standing at the entrance of their tents.”

And it follows that the two men who were “quarreling” in Egypt, and to whom Moses said, “Why do you strike your fellow?” and who informed on him to Pharaoh that he had killed the Egyptian man, were Dathan and Abiram.

Yet Dathan and Abiram had not died at that time; rather, they were together with Korah in his dispute with Moses. And likewise, when Moses and Aaron went out from Pharaoh, after Moses returned from Midian, it is stated, “And they encountered Moses and Aaron, standing opposite them,” and these were Dathan and Abiram.

Rather, Reish Lakish said:

Dathan and Abiram were considered as though they had died, because

they descended from their possessions,

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

And a decline from possessions is not something unexpected, for the wheel turns and revolves in the world; therefore, this is not a nolad.

And the Gemara brings further examples of one who is considered as though dead.

Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: Every person who has no children—

is considered as though 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 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 still alive, “

about Dathan and Abiram, who were still alive:

for all the men have died,”

but they had descended from their possessions.

A leper—

as it is written [

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

Let her not be as one dead.”

And a blind person—

as it is written [

Lamentations 3], “

He has made me dwell in dark places—

like the dead of old.”

And one who has no children—

as it is written concerning Rachel, who said to Jacob, “

Rachel, who said to Jacob, ‘Give me children,’

and if not, I am dead.”