Nedarim 90a — the Talmud in English

And he smeared him with clay —

and after he married a woman, Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna took him and smeared him with clay, since he was forbidden to derive benefit from the world, for he had married a woman before he had studied Torah,

and brought him before Rav Ḥisda

[and brought him before Rav Ḥisda so that he would release his vow].

And the reason that he did this was that before his marriage it was impossible to release his vow, since it is impossible to release the vow before it takes effect. Therefore, he deceived him so that he would marry a woman. Then his vow took effect, and he brought him before Rav Ḥisda so that he would release his vow.

Rava said: Who was wise enough to perform such an act, if not Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna, who was a great man

[who was wise enough to perform this act, if not a great man like Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna]!?

For he held that, just as the Rabbis and Rabbi Natan dispute concerning annulment,

whether it is possible to annul the vow before it takes effect,

so too they dispute concerning release

whether it is possible to release the vow before it takes effect.

And therefore Rav Aḥa deceived that man into marrying a woman so that he would be able to release his vow for him. For had he not married a woman, he would not have been able to release his vow according to Rabbi Natan, since the vow had not yet taken effect.

And Rav Pappi

said: The dispute is concerning annulment, for Rabbi Natan holds: A husband annuls only if a vow has taken effect, as it is written: “And the moon shall be ashamed.”

And from this it is implied that it is possible to annul only after the vow has taken effect.

But the Rabbis hold: A husband annuls even though the vow has not taken effect, as it is written: “He frustrates the thoughts of the crafty,”

and from the fact that the language of annulment is written concerning a thought, it is implied that annulment is possible even concerning something which has not yet taken effect.

But concerning release, everyone agrees that a sage releases nothing unless a vow has taken effect. For it is written: “He shall not profane his word,”

and from this verse the section concerning the release of vows is learned. And it is implied that the release of vows applies only to vows concerning which it has already been said, “He shall not profane his word,” and this is possible only after the vow has already taken effect.

Shall we say that this supports him,

Rav Pappi, from that which was taught in a beraita:

If a person made a vow and said:

“Konam that I do not derive benefit from so-and-so, and

afterward he made a vow that I do not derive benefit

from the one to whom I will go to ask concerning it.”

That is, he vowed not to derive benefit from the person to whom he would go to ask concerning the release of his first vow,

he asks (

from a sage)

concerning the first, and afterward he asks concerning the second.

If that person wishes to release his vow, he must release both vows. Since if he does not release the second vow, by asking concerning the first he transgresses his vow, for he derives benefit from the person who released his vow for him.

And the Gemara proves from this beraita:

And if you say, he may ask

[that it is possible to ask]

even though the vow has not taken effect,

if so, why does the person need to ask first concerning his first vow and afterward concerning his second vow? Surely

if he wishes, he may ask concerning this one first.

And

if he wishes, he may ask concerning this one first —

he may ask concerning his second vow before the first vow. For even though the second vow has not yet taken effect as long as he has not asked concerning the first, nevertheless, it is possible to ask concerning the vow even before it takes effect in practice.

And there is proof from here that it is impossible to ask concerning a vow before it takes effect; therefore, the person must ask first concerning the first one, and then the second vow takes effect, and then he must ask concerning the second one.

And the Gemara rejects the proof:

And who knows whether this is the first one or whether this is the latter one —

And from where do you say that the tanna’s intention in saying “first and second” is the first vow and the second vow?

For one may say that the tanna’s intention in saying “first and second” is the first one concerning which he comes to release, and the second one concerning which he comes to release. And the principal intention of the tanna is to say that he must release both vows, and it makes no difference which vow he releases first.

Rather, let us say that this supports him —

And the Gemara brings another proof for the words of Rav Pappi:

A person who said:

“Konam that I do not derive benefit from so-and-so,”

and added and said:

“I am a nazirite when I ask concerning it.”

That is: if I ask concerning the first vow, I will be a nazirite; this is,

he asks concerning his vow, and afterward he asks concerning his naziriteship.

If he wishes to release his vow, he must also release his naziriteship. Since if he does not release his naziriteship, immediately when the vow is released, he will be a nazirite.

And the Gemara proves from this beraita:

And if you say, he may ask

[that it is possible to ask]

even though the vow has not taken effect,

if so,

why —

why does he need to ask first concerning the vow and afterward concerning the naziriteship?

Surely

if he wishes, he may ask concerning his vow first,

and

if he wishes, he may ask concerning his naziriteship first —

the person may ask concerning the naziriteship even before he asks concerning the vow. For according to your words, even though the naziriteship has not yet taken effect as long as the vow has not been released, nevertheless it is possible to release vows even before they take effect in practice.

And there is proof from here for the words of Rav Pappi, that it is impossible to release vows before they take effect; therefore, the person must first release the vow, and then the naziriteship takes effect, and only then can he release the naziriteship.

And we reject this:

It is Rabbi Natan’s opinion —

No proof may be brought from here for the words of Rav Pappi. Rather, one may say that the Rabbis and Rabbi Natan also disputed the matter of release by a sage, and the Rabbis hold that both with regard to annulment and with regard to release by a sage, it is possible to annul and release vows even before they take effect; and this beraita follows the opinion of Rabbi Natan.

Ravina said: Marimar said to me: Thus your father said in the name of Rav Pappi:

The dispute

between the Rabbis and Rabbi Natan is only

concerning annulment.

But concerning release, everyone agrees that he releases (

that is, according to everyone the sage can release the vow)

even though the vow has not taken effect. For it is written: “He shall not profane his word,”