Nedarim 9:1
If a person takes a rash vow, what factors can be summoned to release him?
专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讗讜诪专: 驻讜转讞讬谉 诇讗讚诐 讘讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜. 讜讞讻诪讬诐 讗讜住专讬谉. 讗诪专 专讘讬 爪讚讜拽: 注讚 砖驻讜转讞讬谉 诇讜 讘讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜, 讬驻转讞讜 诇讜 讘讻讘讜讚 讛诪拽讜诐, 讗诐 讻谉 讗讬谉 谞讚专讬诐. 讜诪讜讚讬诐 讞讻诪讬诐 诇专讘讬 讗诇讬注讝专 讘讚讘专 砖讘讬谞讜 诇讘讬谉 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜, 砖驻讜转讞讬谉 诇讜 讘讻讘讜讚 讗讘讬讜 讜讗诪讜.
Rabbi Eliezer says we can make an opening [through which a person can escape from his rash vow] for the sake of his father and mother鈥檚 dignity [had he thought of them, he wouldn鈥檛 have taken the oath]. But the Sages forbid this. Rabbi Zadok says if you are giving him an opening for the sake of his father and mother, then give him the opening for the glory of God! If so, there would be no oaths left! But the Sages agree with Rabi Eliezer if the oath was a matter between him and his parents [i.e., he promised not to accept any gifts from them] then we can make him an opening for his father and mother鈥檚 dignity.
Comments
This Mishnah is hard to understand, unless you know about oaths. The Sages realized that oaths were binding on people and that there was flimsy basis for releasing people from vows. They created such an 鈥渙pening鈥� for release by arguing that 鈥渉ad he known鈥� or 鈥渉ad he remembered鈥� or 鈥渉ad he realized,鈥� the man would never have taken the oath. Rabbi Zadok extends Rabbi Eliezer鈥檚 reasoning to the point of absurdity. The Rabbis kept the category of oaths intact, but continued to look for ways to release people from rash vows.
Questions
- What motivates some people to make extravagant resolutions that they are unable to keep?
- Should we hold people to their word, or quickly release them? What negative consequences flow from either practice?
