Nedarim

Raba said in R. Nahman's name: The halachah is that absolution from vows may be granted standing, alone, and at night, on the Sabbath, by relatives, and even if there was time before the Sabbath [to seek absolution]. 'Standing'? But it was taught: R. Gamaliel descended from the ass, wrapped himself [in his robe], sat down, and absolved him?  — R. Gamaliel held that [the Rabbi] must give an 'opening' for regret, so that the vow may be revoked ab initio; this requires deep thought; therefore he sat down.  But in R. Nahman's opinion no opening for regret Is necessary;  therefore he [the Rabbi] can stand. Raba said to R. Nahman: Behold, Master, a scholar, who came from the west [i.e., Palestine], and related that the Rabbis gave a hearing to the son of R. Huna b. Abin and absolved him of his vow, and then said to him, 'Go, and pray for mercy, for you have sinned. For R. Dimi, the brother of R. Safra, learnt: He who vows, even though he fulfils it, is designated a sinner.' R. Zebid said: What verse [teaches this]? — But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee;  hence, if thou hast not forborne, there is sin. It was taught: If a man says to his wife, '[In respect to] all vows which you may make, I object to your vowing,' or, 'they are no vows,' the declaration is valueless.  [If he says,] 'You have done well,' or, 'there is none like you,'  or, 'had you not vowed, I myself would have imposed a vow upon you.'  — these declarations are effective. A man should not say to his wife on the Sabbath, 'It is annulled for you,' or, 'made void for you,' as he would say on week-days, but, 'Take and eat it,' 'Take and drink it,'  and the vow becomes automatically void.  R. Johanan observed: Yet he must annul it in his heart.  It was taught: Beth Shammai say: On the Sabbath he must annul it in his heart; on week-days he must express [his annulment] with his lips. But Beth Hillel say: In both cases he may annul it in his heart, and need not express it with his lips. R. Johanan said: If a Sage employs a husband's phraseology, or a husband that of a Sage, their pronouncements are invalid.  For it was taught: This is the thing [which the Lord hath commanded]:  [this teaches], only a Sage may absolve, but a husband cannot absolve.  For I might think, If a Sage, who cannot annul, can absolve, surely a husband, who may annul, can also absolve! Therefore it is stated,