Nedarim 65a (סה.) — the Talmud in English

It was taught: One who is prohibited by a vow from benefiting from another—

who made a vow concerning his fellow, or who swore regarding something to which he was obligated toward his fellow—

may not have it released

his vow or oath

except in his presence

of that fellow.

The Gemara discusses this:

From where are these matters

that the release of a vow or oath made concerning one’s fellow must take place specifically in the fellow’s presence?

Rav Naḥman said: As it is written

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

And the Lord said to Moses, in Midian: Go, return to Egypt, for all the men are dead

who seek your life."

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

because this is what

He said to him

the Holy One, blessed be He, to Moses:

In Midian you made a vow

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

go and have your vow released

specifically

in Midian

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

That is: Have your vow released before Jethro, your father-in-law, who lives in Midian, and do not do so elsewhere, outside his presence.

The Gemara explains: From where do we know that Moses made a vow to Jethro?—

As it is written [Exodus 2], "

Exodus 2]: "

And Moses agreed

to dwell with the man."

This term ["

agreed"]

means nothing other than an oath.

As it is written

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

And

Nebuchadnezzar

brought

n

him,

Zedekiah the king,

with an oath."

And it is written

in the Second Book of Chronicles [chapter 36], regarding this oath— "

And he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar

Zedekiah, despite

the oath by which he had made him swear

Nebuchadnezzar had made Zedekiah swear

by God."

This proves that an oath is meant by the term “oath.”

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

What was his rebellion?

What was the nature of Zedekiah’s rebellion?

He found

Zedekiah found

Nebuchadnezzar, who was

eating

as he ate

a rabbit

a rabbit while it was still

alive,

without killing it first, which is disgraceful.

He said to him

Nebuchadnezzar said to Zedekiah:

Swear to me that you will not publicize this about me, and that the matter will not become known.

Swear to me that you will not reveal this matter about me or bring it to public attention.

He swore to him

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

Eventually, Zedekiah was suffering in his body,

he experienced great anguish because he was unable to reveal Nebuchadnezzar’s deed, since he very much wanted Nebuchadnezzar to be publicly disgraced, thereby easing his domination over him.

He had his oath examined,

Zedekiah had his oath to Nebuchadnezzar examined before the Sanhedrin,

and he said,

and publicized the deed.

Nebuchadnezzar heard that people were disgracing him

and understood that Zedekiah had caused his disgrace by revealing the incident of eating the live rabbit.

He sent

Nebuchadnezzar to summon him,

and he brought

and they 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

Zedekiah has done!

Was this not the case,

was it not so

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

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

He said to him

Zedekiah said:

I had my oath examined,

I had my oath examined, and it was released for me.

He said to them

Nebuchadnezzar said to the judges of the Sanhedrin:

Can an oath be examined?

Is it possible to have an oath examined?

They said to him: Yes,

indeed, it is so!

He said to them:

Does one need to have the oath examined

in his presence

of the one to whom he swore,

or

may one have it examined

even outside his presence

of the one to whom he swore?

They said to him:

One must have the oath examined

in his presence

of the one to whom he swore!

Nebuchadnezzar said

Nebuchadnezzar

to them,

to the judges of the Sanhedrin:

And you—what have you done!?

You released the oath that Zedekiah swore to me; how did you do so outside my presence?

And

why did you not tell Zedekiah

that the release of the oath must take place in my presence!?

Immediately [Lamentations 2], "

Lamentations 2], "

The elders of the daughter of Zion sat on the ground and were silent

they became silent,

the elders of the daughter of Zion."

Rabbi Yitzḥak said: The verse teaches

with the words “the elders of the daughter of Zion sat on the ground,”

that they removed

the judges of the Sanhedrin

the cushions

on which they were sitting

from beneath them,

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

Mishna:

Rabbi Meir says: There are matters that are like a newly arising circumstance,

although they resemble a “newly arising circumstance,” [which cannot serve as a basis for opening a vow], since at the time of the vow it is not anticipated that they will occur, just as a newly arising circumstance is something not anticipated at the time of the vow.

But

these matters, despite their resemblance to a newly arising circumstance, are

not like a newly arising circumstance,

but they can serve as an opening for the vow, since at the time he made his vow he made its validity dependent on a particular matter, and once that matter ceased to exist, the vow also ceased to exist.

And the Sages do not agree with him

regarding these matters; rather, they consider them a newly arising circumstance, and they may not serve as openings for vows.

How so,

in what case did Rabbi Meir and the Sages disagree?

Regarding one who

said: Konam, I shall not marry so-and-so,

because

her father

is a

bad

person.

person.

They said to him,

after he made the vow:

He has died,

her father.

Or

they said to him

that he had repented,

and he was no longer bad.

Or regarding one who said:

Konam: I shall not enter this house

because

there is a vicious dog inside, or there is a snake inside.

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

These are like a newly arising circumstance, yet they are not like a newly arising circumstance,

the words of Rabbi Meir.

For when the matter on which he made his vow dependent ceased to exist, the vow also ceased to exist.

And the Sages do not agree with him,

for in their view this is a newly arising circumstance, and it cannot serve as an opening; this will be explained in the Gemara.

Gemara:

We learned in the Mishna:

Konam that

I

shall not

marry so-and-so, because her father is bad.

They said to him: Her father has died.

And we raised a difficulty: "

He has died

the father"—

this is a newly arising circumstance,

since death is not an anticipated event; so why does Rabbi Meir permit it?

Rav Huna said:

According to Rabbi Meir, this is not a release based on an opening involving a newly arising circumstance; rather,

it is as though he made his vow dependent on a matter.

He made the vow dependent on the fact that her father was bad, and now he no longer exists. The Rabbis do not regard such wording as making the vow dependent on a matter, and therefore they consider it an opening based on a newly arising circumstance.

And Rabbi Yoḥanan said: We are speaking of a case where he had already died

the father at the time of the vow,

and had already

the father

repented

at the time of the vow,

and we told him so.

It follows that his vow was made in error.

According to him, the explanation of the Mishna changes completely.

For Rabbi Meir maintains that the Sages issued a decree concerning a case where her father died because of a case where her father did not die; therefore, they prohibited release of this vow as though the father’s death were a newly arising circumstance, even though it is not a newly arising circumstance but rather an error, and in principle no release is required at all.

The Rabbis, however, disagree with him and maintain that one does not decree a case where he died because of a case where he did not die; this is a vow made in error, which requires no release at all.