Nedarim 65a — the Talmud in English

It was taught: one prohibited by vow from deriving benefit from his fellow—

who made a vow toward his fellow, or who swore concerning something that he had become obligated to his fellow—

they do not release for him

his vow or oath,

except in his presence

of the fellow.

And the Gemara discusses:

From where are these words

that the release of a vow or oath toward one’s fellow must be specifically in the presence of the fellow?

Rav Nahman said: For it is written

concerning the release of the oath that Moses swore to Jethro, to dwell in Midian and not to return to Egypt [Exodus 4]: "

And the Lord said to Moses, in the land of Midian: Go, return to Egypt, for all the men have died

who seek your life."

The verse emphasized that this statement was in the land of Midian—

because thus

He said to him

the Holy One, blessed is He, to Moses:

In Midian you vowed

you swore to Jethro, your father-in-law, not to return to Egypt. Therefore,

go and release your vow

specifically

in Midian

in the presence of Jethro, your father-in-law!

That is, release your vow before Jethro, your father-in-law, who dwells in Midian, and do not do this in another place, not in his presence.

And the Gemara explains: from where is it known that Moses vowed to Jethro?—

For it is written [Exodus 2] "

Exodus 2]: "

And Moses consented

to dwell with the man."

This ["

consented"]

is nothing other than an oath.

For it is written

in the Book of Ezekiel [chapter 17] concerning Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, and King Zedekiah: "

And he brought

Nebuchadnezzar

a

n

d him,

King Zedekiah,

under oath."

And it is written

in the Book of Chronicles II [chapter 36], concerning this oath— "

And he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar

Zedekiah, despite

the fact that he had adjured him

Nebuchadnezzar had adjured Zedekiah

by God."

And it is proven that the "oath" is an oath.

And the Gemara explains the matter of Zedekiah’s rebellion against Nebuchadnezzar mentioned in the verse—

What was his rebellion?

What was the matter of Zedekiah’s rebellion?

He found him

Zedekiah found Nebuchadnezzar,

that he was

eating

when he was eating

a hare

a hare while it was still

alive,

without killing it first, which is a disgraceful thing.

He said to him

Nebuchadnezzar said to Zedekiah:

Swear to me that you will not reveal concerning me, and that the matter will not go out.

Swear to me that you will not reveal this matter about me, and that you will not bring this matter out into public knowledge.

He swore to him

Zedekiah swore to Nebuchadnezzar that he would not reveal what he had seen.

In the end, Zedekiah was suffering in his body,

great distress was caused to him because he could not reveal Nebuchadnezzar’s deed, since he had a great interest that Nebuchadnezzar be disgraced in public, and thereby his burden be eased from upon him.

His oath was released,

Zedekiah asked about his oath to Nebuchadnezzar before the Sanhedrin,

and said,

and publicized the deed.

Nebuchadnezzar heard that they were disgracing him

people, and understood that Zedekiah had caused his disgrace by revealing the deed of eating the live hare.

He sent

Nebuchadnezzar to summon him,

and he brought

and brought before him the judges of the

Sanhedrin

and

Zedekiah.

He said to them

Nebuchadnezzar said to the judges of the Sanhedrin:

Do you see,

do you see

what he has done

what he did,

Zedekiah!

Was it not so,

was it not so,

that he swore by the Name of Heaven that he would not reveal

that Zedekiah swore to me in the name of Heaven that he would not reveal the deed?

He said to him

Zedekiah:

I was asked about my oath,

I asked about my oath, and they released it for me.

He said to them

Nebuchadnezzar said to the judges of the Sanhedrin: Is it the case that

one may ask about an oath?

Is it possible to ask about an oath?

They said to him: Yes,

indeed that is so!

He said to them:

Does one need to ask about the oath

in his presence

of the one to whom he swore,

or

can one ask about it

even not in his presence

of the one to whom he swore?

They said to him:

One must ask about the oath

in his presence

of the one to whom he swore!

Nebuchadnezzar said

Nebuchadnezzar

to them,

to the judges of the Sanhedrin:

And you, what is your deed!?

You, who released the oath that Zedekiah swore to me—how did you do this not in my presence?

And

why did you not say to Zedekiah

that the release of the oath must be performed in his presence!?

Immediately [Lamentations 2], "

Lamentations 2], "

They sat on the ground, they were silent

they were silent,

the elders of the daughter of Zion."

Rabbi Yitzhak said: The verse teaches

"They sat on the ground,"

that they removed

the elders of the Sanhedrin

the cushions

upon which they were sitting

from beneath them,

and sat upon the ground, as a sign of mourning and distress, because they had no answer that they could give to Nebuchadnezzar.

Mishna:

Rabbi Meir says: There are matters that are like a nolad,

indeed they resemble a "nolad" [with which one does not open], since at the time of the vow it is not expected that it will happen, just as a nolad is something not expected at the time of the vow.

But

these matters, despite their resemblance to a nolad, their status is

not like a nolad,

rather, they can serve as an opening for the vow, since at the time of his vow he made its existence dependent upon a certain matter, and when that matter ceased, the vow also ceased.

And the Sages do not agree with him

in these matters; rather, they regard them as a nolad, and one does not open with them.

How?

In what did Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagree?

Concerning one who

said: [As a] konam, I will not marry this woman

because

her father

is a

wicked

person.

man.

They said to him,

after he vowed:

Her father has died,

her father.

Or

they said to him

that he had repented,

and he is no longer wicked.

Or concerning one who said:

[As a] konam, this house is forbidden to me to enter

because

the dog is wicked inside it, or the snake is inside it.

They said to him: The dog has died, or the snake has been killed.

They are like a nolad, and are not like a nolad,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

For when the matter upon which he made his vow dependent ceased, the vow also ceased.

And the Sages do not agree with him,

and according to their words it is a nolad, and one does not open with it; and it will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

[As a] konam, that

I

am not

marrying this woman, because her father is wicked.

They said to him: Her father has died.

And we raised the difficulty: "The

death

of the father"—

it is a nolad,

since death is not an expected matter, and why does Rabbi Meir permit it?

Rav Huna said:

According to Rabbi Meir, this is not a release by means of an opening involving a nolad, but rather

it is made like one who made his vow dependent upon a matter.

For he made the vow dependent upon his father’s being wicked, and now he no longer exists. But the Rabbis do not regard such wording as making the vow dependent, and therefore they regard this as an opening involving a nolad.

And Rabbi Yohanan said: And he had already died

the father at the time of the vow,

and he had already performed

the father

repentance

at the time of the vow,

we say it to him.

And it turns out that his vow was made in error.

And according to his words, the explanation of the Mishna changes completely.

For Rabbi Meir holds that the Sages decreed concerning “her father has died” on account of “her father has not died,” and therefore they prohibited the release of this vow as though the father’s death were in the category of a nolad, even though this is not a nolad but an error, and according to the basic law it does not require release at all.

Whereas the Rabbis disagree with him and hold that they do not decree “he has died” on account of “he has not died,” and this is a vow made in error, which does not require release at all.