רבי אליעזר אומר פותחין לאדם בכבוד אביו ואמו – as, for example, that they would say to him: “if you would know that the world would say to your father and your mother, ‘see the rearing of your children that you raised, how much your children are lax in the taking of vows’ and it would be found that they despise their honor (i.e., that of their parents), you would not ever take a vow.”

וחכמים אוסרין – for we suspect that perhaps he would lie, for he is embarrassed to state that he would not allow him from taking a vow because of their honor, and it is found that the Sage pardons this vow without regret and there is no need to find for him an opening [to release him from his vow] at the time that he feels sorry on his own from the beginning.

יפחתו לו בכבוד המקום – he (Rabbi Tzadok) is raising an objection on the matter of Rabbi Eliezer, for just as that you open [to elicit regret] with the honor of his father and mother, and we don’t suspect that perhaps he will lie, let him open [to elicit regret] with the honor of “the Place” (i.e., God) and they will inform him, that if you had known that you would be called wicket before “the Place” (i.e., God), you would never take a vow? But the Sages said to him according Rabbi Eliezer, that from here, you will not find you will not support them, for even Rabbi Eliezer admits to this, specifically that he may lie, for a person a person is not so impudent that he would not set aside something for the honor of “the Place” (i.e., God), and it is not similar to that of Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel (see Talmud Nedarim 22a) who opened [to elicit regret] for that person (Proverbs 12:18): “There is blunt talk like sword thrusts [But the speech of the wise is healing].” That there he says to him from the Biblical verses like that which is taught in our Mishnah (see Tractate Nedarim, Chapter 9, Mishnah 4) that he is transgressing on (Leviticus 19:17): “You shall not hate your kinfolk in your heart,” (Leviticus 19:18): “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen.” But when we mention to him the honor of God (i.e., המקום ), then he certainly is lying. And the Halakha is according to the Sages.

שבינו לבין אביו ואמו – as, for example when he made his father take a vow from his possessions,

ועוד אמר רבי אליעזר – another leniency in making vows/Nedarim.

פותחין – in [the releasing from] vows with a נולד/a new situation (i.e., a vow may not be dissolved on grounds of lack of intent if the person who vowed failed to anticipate an unpredictable situation that would have led him to refrain from making the vow, though they can be dissolved if it is shown that they were not made with full intent and knowledge), as for example a thing which is not found and is a new situation and it became established as a new interpretation after he had vowed but if he had known at the time of the vow this thing would be established as a new interpretation, he would not have made the vow.

וחכמים אוסרים – that the reason of regret is because through regret, the vow is uprooted from its essence, and for a thing that is not found, it doesn’t become a vow that is uprooted/removed from its essence, but for this, he would not have allowed [himself] from making a vow, for he would have thought that it would not ever come to pass.

ונעשה סופר – a Sage and everyone needs him.

או שהיה משיא את בנו ברקוב לא הייתי נודר – and for example, that he took a vow for a period of time and didn’t think that he would marry off his son within that time, and that he would have to go to the wedding of his son. But the Halakha is according to the Sages.

יש דברים שהם כנולד – they appear like a new situation/נולד

ואינם כנולד – and he opens with them [as a means of getting a person to regret that he vowed].

אמרו לו מת וכו' – even though that death is like a new situation, since he specified at the time of his vow on account of what he is vowing, it is made as if he is making his vow dependent upon a thing, as if he specified all the time that her father is alive, therefore, it is not a new situation. But a it is not a complete condition, therefore, it requires renunciation. But in the Jerusalem Talmud it is proven that he doesn’t require renunciation [of the vow]. And so explained Maimonides (see The Laws of Vows/הלכות נדרים, Chapter 8, Halakhot 1-2).

אילו הייתי יודע שכן הוא לא הייתי נודר הרי זה מותר – after the Sage loosens/absolves him [from his vow], and all that he vowed [against] benefit from his fellow, when they release him, they don’t release him other than in the presence of his fellow, as it is written (Exodus 4:19): “The LORD said to Moses in Midian, ‘Go back to Egypt, [for all the men who sought to kill you are dead’],” the Holy One Blessed be He said to Moses: “In Midian, you made a vow; in Midian go and releave your vow.” Because Moses swore to his father-in-law (i.e., Jethro) that he would not move from Midian without his permission, as it is written (Exodus 2:21): “Moses consented to stay with the man, [and he gave Moses his daughter Zipporah as wife],” and it was necessary for the Holy One Blessed be He to go and release his vow in his presence.

פותחין לו בכתובת אשתו – payment of her Ketubah if he took a vow to divorce her.

פותחין בימים טובים ובשבתות – if he vowed to fast, or not to eat meat for a specified time, they say to him: “If you had placed upon your heart for the Sabbaths and Holy Days that are within this time [period], you would not vow at all. But this does not [provide] and opening [for the absolution/renunciation of his vows] with the honor of “the Place” (i.e., God).

אותן הימים – that he found for them an opening to express regret.

מותרים – that the Sage releases them.

ושאר הימים – where they do not have regret, they remain in their prohibition [of deriving benefit].

שנדר שהותר מקצתו הותר כולו – even though he did not find an opening [for the release though regret] for the entire vow, for he had nowed initially other than with the knowledge that it would be completely fulfilled, and it was found that the absolution/release of part of it (i.e., the vow) opened [an expression of regret] for all of it.

לזה ולזה – as, for example, he prohibited the first upon himself by KONAM, and said regarding the second [person], “behold this is like the first,” and on the third [person], “behold this is like the second,” and similarly all of them. If the first was released, all of them are released, for all of them are dependent upon this one.

לזה קרבן ולזה קרבן – surely our Mishnah is [according to] Rabbi Shimon who stated concerning the oath of a deposit (i.e., with the intention of falsely denying a deposit or a debt; he must add one-fifth to it and bring a ram as a guilt-offering); if there were five people make claims against him and he denied it and took an oath and admitted that he is not liable for a sacrifice on each one until he takes an oath for each and every one, and here too, he must state, to this one a sacrifice/KORBAN and to that one a sacrifice/KORBAN. But the Sages state that if he made an oath that I am not liable to youm nor to you nor to you, he is liable for each and every one, and here too if he said to this one, but not to that one nor to that one, even though he did not mention KORBAN on each one, for each one is a vow on its own. And such is the Halakha.

לא במיושן בלבד הותר אלא בכל היין – and especially that he said,”if I knew this, I wouldn’t have taken a vow at all, or I would have said: that which is old is permitted/released, and that which is new is prohibited. But he aid, if I had known I would have said: “all wine is prohibited upon me except from the old,” behold this is not permitted/released to him other than the old alone, and all the rest of the wine is prohibited (for definition of “old” see Tractate Bava Batra, Chapter Six, Mishnah 3).

פותחין לאדם בכבוד עצמו ובכבוד בניו – if he vowed to divorce his wife.

מה ראתה אמן להתגרש – if there wasn’t found in her "ערות דבר" /something obnoxious [about her] (Deuteronomy 24:1) and it was found that he discredits his children, and we aren’t concerned lest he would lie, for he doesn’t express regret but rather, he is embarrassed to state that he doesn’t feel pain for the honor of his children.

אלא שהנדר טעות – from its essence, for at the time of the vow, she was white, and it doesn’t require a request made to a Sage [to release him from his vow].

מעשה באחד שנדר וכו' – In the Gemara (Tractate Nedarim 66a), it explains that the Mishnah is deficient and should be read as follows: Rabbi Yishmael states: Even if she was ugly and became pretty/beautiful; black and became white, and there is a story/episode also, etc., for the first Tanna/teacher did not permit other than at a time when the vow was in error from its essence, such as, for example, that she was beautiful at the time of the vow. But Rabbi Yishmael holds that even though she didn’t become beautiful until after the vow [was taken], the vow is annulled, for since one can make her beautiful, she was not ugly from the beginning. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yishmael.