וְרָבָא אָמַר: אִם כֵּן אֵין נְדָרִים נִשְׁאָלִין לְחָכָם.

And Rava said: It means: If so, there are no requests for the dissolution of vows to a halakhic authority. Since this type of extenuation applies to all vows, people will therefore assume that their vows are automatically dissolved, and will not take the required steps to dissolve them.

תְּנַן: וּמוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּדָבָר שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵין אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, שֶׁפּוֹתְחִים לוֹ בִּכְבוֹד אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְאַבַּיֵי, דַּאֲמַר אִם כֵּן אֵין נְדָרִים נִיתָּרִין – הָכָא, כֵּיוָן דְּאִיחַצַּף לֵיהּ – הָא אִיחַצַּף לֵיהּ.

The Gemara analyzes the dispute between Abaye and Rava: We learned in the mishna: And the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer with regard to a vow concerning a matter that is between him and his father and mother, that they may broach dissolution with him by raising the issue of the honor of his father and mother. Granted, according to Abaye, who said: If so, vows are not dissolved properly, here, since he was impudent toward him by stating a vow that subjects his parent to a prohibition, he was impudent toward him and has demonstrated that he is not concerned for their honor. In such a case, there is no concern that he would pretend to regret his vow due to his parents’ honor. This is why the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Eliezer.

אֶלָּא לְרָבָא, דַּאֲמַר אִם כֵּן אֵין נְדָרִים נִשְׁאָלִין לְחָכָם, הָכָא אַמַּאי פּוֹתְחִין? – אָמְרִי: כֵּיוָן דְּכָל נִדְרֵי לָא סַגְיָא לְהוֹן דְּלָאו חָכָם – הָכָא נַמִי פּוֹתְחִין.

But according to Rava, who said: If so, there are no requests for dissolution made to a halakhic authority, here, in the case of one whose vow involves his parents, why may they broach dissolution in this way? Why is there not a concern that people will assume that this dissolves all vows automatically? The Gemara answers: The Sages say in response: Since it is not sufficient and applicable for all vows not to request dissolution from a halakhic authority, because the Rabbis maintain that in general, the honor of one’s parents cannot be used to broach dissolution, here too, they may broach dissolution by invoking the honor of a parent. There is no concern that this may lead one to think that vows are dissolved automatically, as this extenuation applies only to this particular vow.

״וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹתְחִין בְּנוֹלָד״ כו׳. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? אֲמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״כִּי מֵתוּ כָּל הָאֲנָשִׁים״, וְהָא מִיתָה דְּנוֹלָד הוּא, מִכָּאן שֶׁפּוֹתְחִין בְּנוֹלָד.

§ The mishna teaches: And Rabbi Eliezer further said: They may broach dissolution by asking about a new situation, but the Rabbis prohibit it. The Gemara inquires: What is the reason of Rabbi Eliezer? Rav Ḥisda said: For the verse states that God told Moses he could return to Egypt from Midian, despite having vowed to Yitro that he would not do so: “For all the men are dead that sought your life” (Exodus 4:19), and he took the vow only because it would be dangerous for him to return to Egypt. The Gemara explains the proof: But death is a new circumstance, and Moses’ vow was dissolved based on the men dying. Therefore, it can be understood from here that they may broach dissolution by asking about a new situation.

וְרַבָּנַן מַאי טַעֲמַיְיהוּ? קָסָבְרִי: הָנְהוּ מִי מָיְיתֵי? וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״נִצִּים״ וְ״נִצָּבִים״ – אֵינָן אֶלָּא דָּתָן וַאֲבִירָם! אֶלָּא אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: שֶׁיָּרְדוּ מִנִּכְסֵיהֶן.

The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, what is their reason for not accepting this proof? The Gemara answers: They hold: These people who were seeking Moses’ life, had they indeed died? But Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: Wherever it is stated in the Torah the term striving (Exodus 2:13), in reference to the men who slandered Moses, or standing (Exodus 5:20), in reference to those who complained against Moses and Aaron, they are none other than Dathan and Abiram. Dathan and Abiram were alive during the rebellion of Korah, which occurred years later, so they could not have been dead when God instructed Moses to return to Egypt. Rather, Reish Lakish said: They did not literally die, but the verse means that they lost their property and their status in the community, which meant their opinions were no longer granted credibility, and consequently, Moses could safely return to Egypt. Such a turn of events is not considered to be a new circumstance.

אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי: כָּל אָדָם שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּנִים – חָשׁוּב כַּמֵּת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״הָבָה לִי בָּנִים וְאִם אַיִן מֵתָה אָנֹכִי״, וְתַנְיָא: אַרְבָּעָה חֲשׁוּבִין מֵת: עָנִי, וּמְצוֹרָע, וְסוּמָא, וּמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּנִים. עָנִי – דִּכְתִיב ״כִּי מֵתוּ כָּל הָאֲנָשִׁים״, מְצוֹרָע – דִּכְתִיב ״אַל נָא תְהִי כַּמֵּת״, וְסוּמָא – דִּכְתִיב ״בְּמַחֲשַׁכִּים הוֹשִׁיבַנִי כְּמֵתֵי עוֹלָם״, וּמִי שֶׁאֵין לוֹ בָּנִים – דִּכְתִיב ״הָבָה לִּי בָנִים וְאִם אַיִן מֵתָה אָנֹכִי״.

The Gemara relates: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Any person who does not have children is considered like a dead person. The source is as is stated in the words Rachel said to Jacob: “Give me children, or else I am dead” (Genesis 30:1). And it was taught in a baraita : Four are considered as if they were dead: A pauper, and a leper, and a blind person, and one who has no children. A pauper, as it is written: “For all the men are dead” (Exodus 4:19). As explained above, they were not actually dead but had descended into poverty, and yet they were considered dead. A leper, as it is written that Aaron said to Moses with regard to Miriam’s leprosy: “Let her not, I pray, be as one dead” (Numbers 12:12). And a blind person, as it is written: “He has made me to dwell in dark places, as those that have been long dead” (Lamentations 3:6). And one who has no children, as it is written: “Give me children, or else I am dead” (Genesis 30:1).