Nedarim 77b (עז:) — the Talmud in English

In the chamber beside the beit-midrash [

the room next to the beit-midrash].

And Rav was present at that time—

standing, alone, and at night.

Rabba said that Rav Naḥman said: The halakha is—

that one may be asked to release vows,

even when the judge is

standing, alone, at night, on Shabbat, and in the presence of relatives.

And

they may be asked on Shabbat

, even if they had the opportunity to release these vows before

daybreak [before Shabbat].

And we raise an objection:

But

one who is standing

can release vows?

But it was taught in a beraita:

There was an incident involving Rabban Gamliel, who was riding on a donkey and traveling from Akko to Keziv. When he reached Keziv, someone came to ask about releasing his vow. But since Rabban Gamliel had drunk a quarter-log of wine, he told him to walk behind him for three mil, until his wine had dissipated. When he reached the Ladder of Tyre,

Rabban Gamliel descended from the donkey, wrapped himself, sat down, and released his vow for him.

And it is evident that Rabban Gamliel had to sit in order to release the vow.

And we answer: [according to the version of the Ran]

Rabban Gamliel held that one does not open with regret—

a vow cannot be released by means of an opening consisting only of regret.

Rather,

we require uprooting the vow—

it is necessary to find an opening based on an error concerning the vow: to say that, at the time he made the vow, he was unaware of a certain matter, and only now has he learned of it; had he known of it then, he would not have made the vow.

And

since Rabban Gamliel did not release the vow through mere regret, but needed to seek an opening based on an error,

he needed to examine the matter [

Rabban Gamliel had to consider the matter carefully],

therefore [

and therefore]

he sat down.

And

if

Rav Naḥman,

who said that vows may be released while standing,

held

in accordance with the view of the tannaim who disagree with Rabban Gamliel and maintain that

one does open with regret

alone, and therefore no meticulous examination is necessary,

and

the vow may be released

even while standing .

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Let my master see this Torah scholar who came from Eretz Yisrael—

may my master see the Torah scholar who came from Eretz Yisrael,

and said: The Sages attended to [

they convened to judge the matter of]

the son of Rav Huna bar Avin, and released his vows for him. And they said to him: Go and seek mercy for yourself—

go and seek mercy from Heaven for yourself, because

you have sinned .

For Rav Dimi, brother of Rav Safra, taught: Anyone who makes a vow, even though he fulfills it, is called “

a sinner.”

Rav Zevid said: What is the verse [

from where is this matter derived]?

As it is written [

in Deuteronomy 23]: “

But if you refrain from making a vow—

there will be no sin in you.”

And this indicates:

if

one

does not refrain

from making vows,

there is sin,

even if he fulfills the vow.

It was taught in a beraita: One who says to his wife

after she made a vow,

“All the vows that you will make” [

that you have made],

“I do not wish you to make” [

I am not pleased that you made them].

And likewise, if he said to her that every vow she had made

“is not a vow”—

he has said nothing!

This wording is not considered wording of annulment.

And if he said to her:

“You did well.”

And

likewise, if, following her making the vow, he said to her:

“There is no one like you!”

And

likewise, if he said to her:

“Had you not made the vow,

I would have

made you take a vow!”—

his words stand.

This is considered wording of ratification, and the vow is upheld.

It was taught in a beraita: A person should not say to his wife

when he annuls her vows

on Shabbat: “It is annulled for you,”

or

“It is nullified for you,” as he says to her on weekdays.

Rather, he says to her: “Take and eat; take and drink,”

what she had vowed not to eat or drink.

And the vow is nullified on its own,

since this wording is considered annulment.

And the reason is: Although they permitted the annulment of vows on Shabbat, nevertheless, if it is possible to alter the wording of the annulment, one should alter it .

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And

even when he says this wording to her, nevertheless

he must nullify the vow in his heart

and say in his heart that the vow is annulled.

It was taught in a beraita: Beit Shammai say:

One who annuls a vow

on Shabbat—

nullifies it in his heart.

But

one who annuls a vow

on a weekday—

utters

the wording of annulment with his lips.

And Beit Hillel say: Both this and that [

whether on Shabbat or on a weekday],

he nullifies it in his heart, and need not utter it with his lips .

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A Sage who

released the vow but did not use the wording “It is permitted for you,” but rather

said in the wording

of a husband’s

annulment, “

It is annulled for you.”

And

likewise, a

husband who

annulled the vow but did not use the wording “It is annulled for you,” but rather

said in the wording

of a Sage’s release,

“

It is permitted for you”—

he has said nothing,

because the wording of annulment by a husband is specified in the verse, whereas the wording of release by a Sage is derived from the verse, “He shall not profane his word”: others render his word profane—and what does that refer to? A Sage. And profane is an expression of permitting.

And the reason is:

For it was taught in a beraita:

The Torah said: “

This is the matter”—

the verse teaches that only

a Sage releases

the vow,

whereas a husband does not release

the vow; rather, he annuls it on the day that he hears it.

One might have said [

that one could derive this through a kal va-chomer]:

If a Sage, who does not annul,

nevertheless

releases,

then a husband, who annuls—

surely should he not release!

The verse therefore states: