## Nedarim Daf 64b

###### Nedarim 64b:1
[Nedarim 64b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/64b:1)

וְרָבָא אָמַר: אִם כֵּן אֵין נְדָרִים נִשְׁאָלִין לְחָכָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nedarim 64b:2
[Nedarim 64b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/64b:2)

תְּנַן: וּמוֹדִין חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בְּדָבָר שֶׁבֵּינוֹ לְבֵין אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, שֶׁפּוֹתְחִים לוֹ בִּכְבוֹד אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְאַבָּיֵי דְּאָמַר: אִם כֵּן אֵין נְדָרִים נִיתָּרִין, הָכָא כֵּיוָן דְּאִיחֲצַף לֵיהּ — הָא אִיחֲצַף לֵיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nedarim 64b:3
[Nedarim 64b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/64b:3)

אֶלָּא לְרָבָא, דְּאָמַר: אִם כֵּן אֵין נְדָרִים נִשְׁאָלִין לְחָכָם, הָכָא אַמַּאי פּוֹתְחִין? אָמְרִי: כֵּיוָן דְּכֹל נִדְרֵי לָא סַגִּיא לְהוֹן דְּלָאו חָכָם — הָכָא נָמֵי פּוֹתְחִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nedarim 64b:4
[Nedarim 64b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/64b:4)

וְעוֹד אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹתְחִין בַּנּוֹלָד כּוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמָא דְּרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר? אָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא: דְּאָמַר קְרָא ״כִּי מֵתוּ כׇּל הָאֲנָשִׁים״ — וְהָא מִיתָה דְּנוֹלָד הוּא, מִכָּאן שֶׁפּוֹתְחִין בַּנּוֹלָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.**


###### Nedarim 64b:5
[Nedarim 64b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/64b:5)

וְרַבָּנַן מַאי טַעְמַיְיהוּ? קָסָבְרִי: הָנְהוּ מִי מָיְיתִי? וְהָא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי: כׇּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״נִצִּים״ וְ״נִצָּבִים״, אֵינָן אֶלָּא דָּתָן וַאֲבִירָם. אֶלָּא אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: שֶׁיָּרְדוּ מִנִּכְסֵיהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nedarim 64b:6
[Nedarim 64b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/64b:6)

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

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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).