בְּקִיטוֹנָא דְּבֵי רַב עוֹמֵד, יְחִידִי, וּבַלַּיְלָה.

in a side room [ kitona ] of the study hall, while standing, alone and at night.

אָמַר רַבָּה אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן: הֲלָכָה, נִשְׁאָלִין נְדָרִים עוֹמֵד, יְחִידִי, וּבַלַּיְלָה, וּבַשַּׁבָּת, וּבִקְרוֹבִים, וַאֲפִילּוּ הָיָה לָהֶן פְּנַאי מִבְּעוֹד יוֹם.

Rabba said that Rav Naḥman said: The halakha is that one can request the dissolution of vows even when the halakhic authority is standing or alone, i.e., without a court of three, as long as he is a halakhic authority, and that one can do so at night, on Shabbat, and by relatives, and even when those requesting dissolution on Shabbat had the opportunity to do so while it was still day, i.e., before Shabbat.

עוֹמֵד? וְהָתַנְיָא: יָרַד רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל מִן הַחֲמוֹר וְנִתְעַטֵּף וְיָשַׁב וְהִתִּיר לוֹ נִדְרוֹ! רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל סָבַר פּוֹתְחִין בַּחֲרָטָה; מִיעֲקַר נִדְרָא בָּעֵינַן, וּבָעֵי עִיּוּנֵי, אַהָכִי יָשַׁב. וְרַב נַחְמָן סָבַר: אֵין פּוֹתְחִין בַּחֲרָטָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ מְעוּמָּד.

The Gemara raises a difficulty with this ruling: Can a judge dissolve a vow while standing? But it is taught in a baraita that Rabban Gamliel alighted from a donkey, and wrapped himself in his shawl in the customary manner of a judge, and sat, and dissolved a man’s vow for him. If one can dissolve a vow while standing, why did he sit? The Gemara explains: Rabban Gamliel holds that one must broach dissolution based on regret. In other words, a halakhic authority does not dissolve vows directly, but must prompt the one who took the vow to concede that he regrets having taken the vow in the first place. We require that the vow be uprooted, and he needed to examine the case; therefore, he sat down. But Rav Naḥman holds that one need not broach dissolution based on regret, and therefore a halakhic authority can dissolve the vow even while standing.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רָבָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: חֲזִי מָר הַאי מֵרַבָּנַן דַּאֲתָא מִמַּעַרְבָא, וַאֲמַר: אִיזְדְּקִיקוּ לֵיהּ רַבָּנַן לִבְרֵיהּ דְּרַב הוּנָא בַּר אָבִין וּשְׁרוּ לֵיהּ נִדְרֵיהּ, וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ: זִיל וּבְעֵי רַחֲמֵי עַל נַפְשָׁךְ דַּחֲטַאת. דְּתָנֵי רַב דִּימִי אֲחוּהּ דְּרַב סָפְרָא: כָּל הַנּוֹדֵר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהוּא מְקַיְּימוֹ – נִקְרָא חוֹטֵא. אֲמַר רַב זְבִיד: מַאי קְרָא – ״וְכִי תֶחְדַּל לִנְדֹּר לֹא יִהְיֶה בְךָ חֵטְא״, הָא לֹא חָדַלְתָּ – אִיכָּא חֵטְא.

Rava said to Rav Naḥman: Master, see that Sage who came from the West, Eretz Yisrael, and who said: The Sages attended to the dissolution of a vow taken by the son of Rav Huna bar Avin, and they dissolved his vow and said to him: Go and request mercy for yourself, for you have sinned by taking a vow. As Rav Dimi, the brother of Rav Safra teaches: With regard to anyone who takes a vow, even if he fulfills it, he is called a sinner. Rav Zevid said: What verse teaches this? It is: “But if you refrain to vow, it will be no sin in you” (Deuteronomy 23:23). It may be inferred that if you did not refrain from taking vows, there is sin.

תַּנְיָא: הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ ״כָּל נְדָרִים שֶׁתִּדּוֹרִי אִי אֶפְשִׁי שֶׁתִּדּוֹרִי״, ״אֵין זֶה נֶדֶר״ – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. ״יָפֶה עָשִׂית״ וְ״אֵין כְּמוֹתֵךְ״ וְ״אִם לֹא נָדַרְתְּ מַדִּירֵךְ אֲנִי״ – דְּבָרָיו קַיָּימִין.

§ It is taught in a baraita : One who says to his wife: Any vows which you will vow, I do not want [ ee efshi ] you to vow, or one who wants to nullify a vow and says: This is not a vow, has not said anything, as this is not a valid formula of nullification. If he says: You have done well, or: There are none like you, or: If you had not taken a vow, I, myself, would have taken a vow to obligate you in this, his statement is substantial, and the vow is ratified.

לֹא יֹאמַר אָדָם לְאִשְׁתּוֹ בַּשַּׁבָּת ״מוּפָר לֵיכִי״, ״בָּטֵיל לֵיכִי״ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁאוֹמֵר לָהּ בַּחוֹל, אֶלָּא אוֹמֵר לָהּ ״טְלִי וְאִכְלִי״, ״טְלִי וּשְׁתִי״ וְהַנֵּדֶר בָּטֵל מֵאֵלָיו. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: וְצָרִיךְ שֶׁיְּבַטֵּל בְּלִבּוֹ.

A man should not say to his wife when nullifying her vows on Shabbat: It is nullified for you, or: It is canceled for you, in the manner that he would say to her on weekdays. Rather, he should say to her, if she took a vow to refrain from food or drink: Take this and eat it, Take this and drink it, and the vow is canceled on its own. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: And he must also cancel the vow in his heart; simply telling her to eat or drink is not sufficient.

תַּנְיָא, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: בַּשַּׁבָּת – מְבַטֵּל בְּלִבּוֹ, בַּחוֹל – מוֹצִיא בִּשְׂפָתָיו. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה מְבַטֵּל בְּלִבּוֹ, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לְהוֹצִיא בִּשְׂפָתָיו.

It is taught in a baraita : Beit Shammai say: On Shabbat he cancels the vow in his heart and on a weekday he articulates the nullification with his lips. And Beit Hillel say: Both in this case and in that case, i.e., whether on Shabbat or a weekday, it is sufficient if he cancels the vow in his heart, and he need not articulate with his lips.

אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: חָכָם שֶׁאָמַר בִּלְשׁוֹן בַּעַל, וּבַעַל שֶׁאָמַר בִּלְשׁוֹן חָכָם – לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם.

§ Rabbi Yoḥanan said: A halakhic authority who pronounced his dissolution of a vow with language appropriate to a husband, i.e., he said the word nullified instead of dissolved, or a husband who pronounced his nullification of a vow with language appropriate to a halakhic authority, i.e., he said the word dissolved instead of nullified, has not said anything. Each of them has the authority to cancel a vow only in the particular manner allotted to him.

דְּתַנְיָא: ״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ – הֶחָכָם מַתִּיר וְאֵין בַּעַל מַתִּיר. שֶׁיָּכוֹל, וּמֶה חָכָם שֶׁאֵין מֵפֵר – מַתִּיר, בַּעַל שֶׁמֵּפֵר – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁמַּתִּיר? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר:

As it is taught in a baraita : The verse “This is the thing which the Lord has commanded” (Numbers 30:2) indicates that the husband’s nullification, which is the topic of the subsequent verses, must be done specifically in this way. The Sages concluded that a halakhic authority dissolves a vow, but a husband does not dissolve it. As, one might have thought: And just as a halakhic authority, who cannot nullify vows, nevertheless dissolves them, so too with regard to a husband, who can nullify vows, is it not logical that he should also dissolve them? Therefore, the verse states: