Nedarim 90a (צ.) — the Talmud in English

And he smeared him with mud -

After he married, Rav Aḥa bar Rav Huna took him and smeared him with mud, since he was forbidden to derive benefit from the world, for he had married before studying Torah,

and brought him before Rav Ḥisda

so that he would release him from his vow.

The reason he did this was that before the man's marriage it was impossible to release him from his vow, since a vow cannot be released before it takes effect. Therefore, he deceived him so that he would marry. The vow then took effect, and he brought him before Rav Ḥisda so that he would release him from his vow.

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

who else could have been 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 disagree concerning annulment,

whether a vow can be annulled before it takes effect,

so too they disagree concerning release

whether a vow can be released before it takes effect.

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

And Rav Pappi

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

This indicates that annulment is possible only after the vow has taken effect.

But the Rabbis hold that a husband can annul a vow even though it 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 used with regard to a thought, it follows that annulment is possible even with regard to something that has not yet taken effect.

But with regard to release, everyone agrees that a sage can release nothing unless the vow has taken effect, as it is written: “He shall not profane his word,”

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

Shall we say that it supports him,

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

If a person made a vow and said:

“Konam, I shall not derive benefit from so-and-so, and

he then made another vow: I shall not derive benefit

from the one whom I will approach to release it.”

That is, he vowed not to derive benefit from the person whom he would approach to seek the release of his first vow,

he approaches a sage (

to a sage)

to release the first vow, and afterward he approaches a sage to release the second.

If that person wishes to have his vows released, he must have both vows released. For if he does not have the second vow released, then by approaching a sage to release the first vow he violates his vow, since he derives benefit from the person who released his vow.

And the Gemara proves from this beraita:

And if you say that one may approach a sage

that it is possible to approach a sage

even though the vow has not taken effect,

then why does the person have to approach a sage first concerning his first vow and afterward concerning his second vow? After all,

if he wishes, he can approach a sage concerning this one first.

And

if he wishes, he can approach a sage concerning this one first -

he can approach a sage concerning his second vow before the first vow. For although the second vow has not yet taken effect as long as he has not approached a sage concerning the first vow, nevertheless, according to this view, it is possible to approach a sage concerning a vow even before it takes effect in practice.

There is therefore proof from here that one cannot approach a sage concerning a vow before it takes effect. Consequently, the person must first approach a sage concerning the first vow; the second vow then takes effect, and he must afterward approach a sage concerning the second vow.

And the Gemara rejects this proof:

And who knows whether this one is the first, and that one is the latter -

How do you know that the tanna’s expression “first and second” refers to the first vow and the second vow?

Perhaps the tanna meant “the first” vow that he comes to have released and “the second” vow that he comes to have released. The tanna’s essential point is that both vows must be released; it makes no difference which vow he has released first.

Rather, shall we say that it supports him -

the Gemara brings another proof for Rav Pappi’s statement:

A person who said:

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

and added:

“I hereby become a nazirite when I approach a sage to release it.”

That is: If I approach a sage concerning the first vow, I will become a nazirite; this is the case in which he

approaches a sage concerning his vow, and afterward approaches a sage concerning his Nazirite status.

If he wishes to have his vow released, he must also have his Nazirite status released. For if he does not have his Nazirite status released, then as soon as the vow is released, he becomes a nazirite.

And the Gemara proves from this beraita:

And if you say that one may approach a sage

that it is possible to approach a sage

even though the vow has not taken effect,

then

why -

why must he first approach a sage concerning the vow and afterward concerning his Nazirite status?

After all,

if he wishes, he can approach a sage concerning his vow first,

and

if he wishes, he can approach a sage concerning his Nazirite status first -

the person can approach a sage concerning his Nazirite status even before he approaches a sage concerning the vow. For according to your statement, although the Nazirite status 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.

There is therefore proof here for Rav Pappi’s statement that vows cannot be released before they take effect. Consequently, the person must first have the vow released; the Nazirite status then takes effect, and only afterward can he have the Nazirite status released.

And we reject this:

It is Rabbi Natan’s view -

No proof can be brought from here for Rav Pappi’s statement. Rather, it is possible to say that the Rabbis and Rabbi Natan also disagreed concerning release by a sage: 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, while this beraita follows the view of Rabbi Natan.

Ravina said: Marimar said to me: Your father said this in the name of Rav Pappi:

The dispute

between the Rabbis and Rabbi Natan concerns only

annulment.

But with regard to release, everyone agrees that a sage can release (

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

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