Nedarim 77b — the Talmud in English

In the chamber of Rav's bet-midrash [

the room beside the bet-midrash ].

And Rav was at that time —

standing, alone, and at night.

Rabba said in the name of Rav Naḥman: The halakha —

They may be asked to release vows,

even when the judge

is standing, alone, and at night, and on Shabbat, and with relatives.

And

they may be asked on Shabbat

, even if they had the opportunity to release these vows while it was still day

[before Shabbat].

And we challenge this:

But is

one who is standing

able to release vows?

Was it not taught:

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

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

And it is proven that Rabban Gamliel needed to sit in order to release the vow.

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

Rabban Gamliel held: We do not open with regret —

the vow is not released by means of an opening of regret alone.

Rather,

we require uprooting his vow —

one must find an opening of error for his vow, to say that he did not know of a certain matter at the time when he made the vow, and only now does he know of it; and had he known of it then, he would not have made the vow.

And

since Rabban Gamliel did not release it through mere regret, but needed to search for an opening of error for him,

he needed to examine it [

Rabban Gamliel needed to examine the matter carefully ],

for this reason [

and therefore ]

he sat.

And

if

Rav Naḥman,

who said that it is possible to release vows while standing,

held

according to the view of the tannaim who disagreed with Rabban Gamliel and held that

we do open with regret

alone, and therefore there is no need for meticulous examination,

and

it is possible to release the vow

even while standing .

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Let my master see this scholar who came from the West —

may his honor see the Torah scholar who came from the Land of Israel,

and said: They applied themselves to him [

they applied themselves to adjudicating his case ]

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

go and ask mercy from Heaven for yourself, because

you sinned .

For Rav Dimi, the 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 learned ]?

As it is written [

in the Book of Deuteronomy 23 ] “

And when you refrain from making a vow” —

“there shall be no sin in you.”

And it follows from this:

This

if

you did not refrain

from making vows,

there is sin,

even if you fulfill the vow.

It was taught: One who says to his wife

after she made a vow,

“All the vows that you will make” [

that you made ],

“I do not want you to make them” [

I am not pleased that you made them ].

And likewise, if he said to her that every vow that she 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 he said to her following her making the vow:

“There is none like you!”

And

likewise, if he said to her:

“Had you not made a vow,”

I would have

“made you take a vow!” —

his words stand.

This is considered wording of confirmation, and the vow is confirmed.

It was taught: 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 a weekday.

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

what you made a vow to abstain from.

And the vow becomes nullified on its own,

since this wording is considered annulment.

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

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And

even when he says this wording to her, nevertheless

he must nullify it in his heart

the vow, and say in his heart that the vow is annulled.

It was taught: 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 with his lips

the wording of the annulment.

And Beit Hillel say: Both this and that [

whether on Shabbat or on a weekday ],

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

Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A Sage who

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

said in the wording

of the annulment of the

husband, “

It is annulled for you.”

And

likewise, a

husband who

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

said in the wording

of the release by a

Sage, “

It is permitted for you” —

he has said nothing,

since the wording of annulment by a husband is explained in the verse. Whereas the wording of release by a Sage is learned from the verse “He shall not profane his word,” but others make his word profane — and who is that? A Sage. And “profane” is wording of permission.

And the reason is:

For it was taught:

The Torah said, “

This is the matter” —

the verse teaches that only

the Sage releases

the vow,

but the husband does not release

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

One might have thought [

that it would have been possible to say a kal va-chomer ]:

And just as a Sage, who does not annul,

nevertheless

releases,

a husband, who annuls —

is it not logically certain that he releases!

The verse states: