Vows taken because of coercion, vows taken unintentionally, and vows involving exaggerations are permitted, as we explained with regard to oaths. 3:1, 5. If men of coercion or customs collectors made him take a vow, saying: "Take a vow to us that meat is forbidden to you if you possess something on which customs duty is due," should he take a vow and say: "Bread, meat, and wine are forbidden to me...", he is permitted [to partake of] all of them 3:2. even though he added to what they asked him [to say]. Similarly, if they asked him to take a vow [on the condition] that his wife not benefit and he took a vow [on the condition] that his wife, his children, and his brothers not benefit from him, they are all permitted. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
In all vows of this type, he must have the intent at heart for something that is permitted, 3:3. for example, that they be forbidden for him for that day alone or for that hour alone or the like. He may rely on the intent in his heart, since he is being compelled by forces beyond his control. 232:14) emphasizes that the statement he makes may not be a direct contradiction to the intent in his heart. He also emphasizes that the vow may not be broken in a way that the gentile who forced the vow to be taken will be become aware of its violation. For this would lead to the desecration of God's name. Thus at the time he is taking the vow for them, his mouth and his heart are not in concord. [This is required,] as we explained with regard to vows. 2:12.
Similarly, vows of encouragement are permitted. What does this imply? One administered a vow to a colleague to eat at his [home] and that colleague took a vow not to eat there, because he did not want to trouble him. Whether he ate or did not eat, they are both exempt. Similarly, if a merchant took a vow that he would not sell an article for less than a sela and a purchaser took a vow that he would not buy it for more than a shekel, which are half a sela. if they agree on three dinarim, 232:2) quotes opinions that maintain that each one can fluctuate slightly past the midway point, but may not accept the other's position completely. He also quotes other more lenient views. they are both exempt. (Yoreh De'ah 232:2) which states that this applies when they continue negotiating after taking the vow. Then it is clear that they were merely bargaining. If, however, they broke off negotiations, the vow is considered binding. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. [The rationale is that] neither of them made a definite conclusion in his heart. He took the vow only to encourage his colleague without making a definite conclusion in his heart.
What is the source which teaches that it is forbidden for a person to take even these four types of vows which are permitted with the intent of nullifying them? It is written [Numbers 30:3 : "He shall not desecrate his word," i.e., he should not make his word an inconsequential matter.
🛡️ Coercion, Exaggeration & Encouragement
Three categories of vows are intrinsically permitted: those taken under coercion (e.g. from tax collectors), those of exaggeration, and those of encouragement (e.g. bargaining). In coerced vows, mental intent to limit the vow is required — the mouth and heart need not agree when one is forced. Yet even these permitted vow-types carry a prohibition: one may not strategically invoke them as a tool to take-and-nullify at will (Num. 30:3 — 'He shall not desecrate his word').
When a person took a vow and then [changed his mind and] regretted his vow, he may approach a sage and ask for its release. The laws pertaining to the release of vows are the same as those applying to the release of oaths. 6:1. A vow can be released only by a distinguished sage or by three ordinary men in a place where there are no sages. 6:1. The same wording is used to release a vow as is used to release an oath. 6:4. Similarly, all of the other concepts that we explained with regard to oaths apply to vows in the same way as they apply to oaths.
Just as we may ask for the release of vows involving prohibitions and they are repealed, so, too, may we ask for the release of vows involving consecrated property and they are repealed. 78a). This applies both to [articles] consecrated for the upkeep of the Temple and [animals] consecrated to [be sacrificed] on the altar. When the holiness of a sacrifice is transferred from one animal to another, that holiness cannot be released. 17a), there is no reason why a release is possible after such a transfer has been effected (Radbaz, Kessef Mishneh). Nevertheless, if one regrets the original consecration, that can be nullified and then, as a matter of course, the animal to which the holiness was transferred will also lose its status (see Mishneh LeMelech).
Just as a father or a husband can nullify [a woman's] vows involving prohibitions, so, too, they can nullify vows of consecration that resemble vows involving prohibitions.
🔓 Regret, Sages & Consecrations
A person who regrets a vow may seek release from a qualified sage (or three laypeople where no sage is available), using the same formula as for oaths. Release cannot be granted before the vow takes effect. Remarkably, vows of consecration — both Temple-upkeep and altar-offerings — can also be released upon regret, as retroactive regret renders them vows made in error. However, transferred holiness (temurah) cannot be released. A father or husband may annul a woman's vows of consecration just as he annuls ordinary prohibitory vows.
When a person takes a vow, a colleague hears and says, "And also me," a third person hears and says, "And also me," if the first asks for the release of his vow and it is released, all the others are also released. If [the one who agreed to the vow] last asks for a release and it was granted, he alone is released and the others are still bound by the vow. If the second person asks for a release and it was granted, he and all those after him are released, but the first is still bound by the prohibition.
Similar principles apply when one has attached many entities to a single vow, e.g., he took a vow [forbidding] bread and extended it to meat, if he asks for release of [the prohibition against] bread and it is granted, the [prohibition against] meat is also released. If he asks for release of [the prohibition against] meat and it is granted, the [prohibition against] bread is not released.
When a person takes an oath or a vow saying: "I will not benefit from any one of you," if he asks for the release of his vow or oath concerning one of them and the release was granted, they are all released. [The rationale is that] when a vow is released in part, all of its [particulars] are also released. 1:1) derives this concept from the exegesis of Numbers 30:3: "He should act according to everything that he uttered from his mouth." Since "everything" he uttered from his mouth need not be fulfilled, nothing must be fulfilled. If part of a vow is nullified, the entire vow is nullified. When a person says: "I will not benefit from this person, and from this person, and from this person," if [the prohibition against] the first is released, [the prohibitions against] all of them are released. If the prohibition against the last is released, that prohibition is released, but the others remain binding. If he said: "I will not benefit from this one; nor from this one; nor from this one," he must ask for a release for each one indidivually. 7:10. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations.
When a person took a nazirite vow, a vow to bring a sacrifice, and an oath [forbidding himself from partaking of something], or he took a vow, but does not know concerning which of these he took the vow, one request for release [can release] all of them.
When a person takes a vow [not to benefit] from the people of a city and he asks for the release of that vow from the sage of that city or he took a vow [not to benefit] from the Jewish people and asks for the release of the vow from a Jewish sage, the vow is released.
🔗 Dependency, Order & Group Releases
When multiple parties join a vow ('and also me'), releasing the first releases all; releasing only the last releases only him. Similarly, when prohibitions are chained (e.g. bread → meat), releasing the root prohibition releases its dependents, but not vice versa. When one vows 'I will not benefit from any of you,' releasing any single component releases the whole, for a partially-released vow is entirely released. Connected by 'and': releasing the first releases all. Separated without 'and': each requires its own release. Multiple vow-types (nazirism, sacrifice, oath) taken together may be dissolved with one shared opening.
If one says: "This produce is forbidden to me today if I go to this-and-this place tomorrow," he is forbidden to partake of them that day. [This is a] decree lest he go to that place tomorrow. If he transgressed and partook of it that day and then undertook the journey on the morrow, he is liable for lashes. 4:16, to be liable for lashes, one must be given a warning. This law indicates that even if the warning was delivered conditionally, the person can be held liable for lashes. If he did not go, he is not liable for lashes.
If one says: "This produce will be forbidden to me tomorrow if I go to this-and-this place today," he is permitted to go that place today and the produce will be forbidden for him tomorrow. Similar laws apply in all analogous situations. [The rationale is that] a person is careful about not violating a prohibition, but he is not careful in keeping a condition that will cause a permitted entity to become forbidden.
When a person takes a vow to fast for ten days, whenever he desires and he was fasting one day and had [to interrupt the fast] for the sake of a mitzvah 568:9). or to honor a person of stature, he may eat and repay [the fast] on another day. [The rationale is that] he did not specify the days [he would fast] when he took the vow initially. If he took a vow that he would fast today, but forgot and ate, he must continue to refrain from eating. 1:14. the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 568:1) quotes the Rambam's ruling. The Rama adds that there are some who accept upon themselves to fast another day to compensate for the fast he did not keep. If he took a vow to fast for a day or two and when he began to fast, forgot and ate, he forfeits his fast and is obligated to fast again.
הלכה י״ז׳
⏳ City Sages, Conditions & Interrupted Fasts
One who vows not to benefit from a city may still seek release from that city's own sage — retroactively the vow is nullified as if never taken. Conditional vows tied to future travel require careful timing: if the forbidden produce is tied to tomorrow's journey, eating it today is rabbinically forbidden as a precaution; if the condition was today's travel, eating tomorrow is forbidden but today's travel is permitted. Fasting vows on unspecified days may be postponed for a mitzvah feast; but if one specified the day and forgot and ate, he must complete the fast. Vows over an unspecified number of days where one breaks the fast are forfeited — a full replacement fast is required.
7/8
🎓 Key Principles
Chapter 4
🛡️
Permitted Vow Types Are Escape Valves, Not Loopholes Coerced, exaggerated, and encouragement vows are permitted because the speaker's true intent diverges from his words. But exploiting these categories to take vows one plans to nullify violates 'He shall not desecrate his word' — the Torah demands sincerity even in speech that is technically void.
💭
Mouth and Heart Must Align — Except Under Force Ordinarily, a vow is binding when spoken with full intent. Under coercion, mental reservation is both permitted and required: the person inwardly limits the vow's scope, allowing his external compliance while preserving his integrity. This is a rare and narrow exception, not a license for double-speak.
🔓
Regret Is the Key That Unlocks Release Vow release is not a technicality — it requires genuine regret and a competent authority (sage or tribunal). The process mirrors oath release in every detail, including wording, and extends even to consecrations. The legal fiction: once regret is established, the vow is treated as if made in error from the start.
🔗
Dependency Determines Fate in Chained Vows Whether a vow releases others depends entirely on the logical chain of dependency. Releasing the root always releases what grew from it; releasing a branch never releases the root. This structural logic applies equally to chains of people, chains of prohibited items, and group vows — making careful sequencing essential when seeking release.