ט והתניא הנודר בתורה לא אמר כלום ואמר רבי יוחנן וצריך שאלה לחכם ואמר רב נחמן ותלמיד חכם אינו צריך שאלה
9 — That is necessary for what was taught: Which is the bond referred to in the Torah etc.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 12a. ');"><sup>8</sup></span> HE WHO SAYS TO HIS WIFE, BEHOLD! THOU ART UNTO ME AS MY MOTHER', etc. But a contradiction is shewn: If one says to his wife, 'Behold! thou art unto me as the flesh of my mother, as the flesh of my sister, as <i>'orlah</i>,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. ');"><sup>9</sup></span> as kil'ayim<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos. Deut. XXII, 9. ');"><sup>10</sup></span> of the vineyard, his words are of no effect.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because all these objects are forbidden by the Law. ');"><sup>11</sup></span> — Said Abaye: His words are of no effect by Biblical law, yet absolution is required by Rabbinical law. Raba answered: One refers to a scholar; the other refers to an 'am haarez.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'people of the earth' — an ignoramus. v. J.E. s.v. In the first case the vow is entirely invalid; but an ignoramus will treat vows too lightly if shewn leniency, and therefore needs absolution. ');"><sup>12</sup></span> And it was taught even so: If one vows by the Torah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' (E.g., 'I vow by the Torah not to eat of this loaf' — in reality a kind of oath. V. infra (Ran).] ');"><sup>13</sup></span> his words are of no effect. Yet R. Johanan commented: He must retract [his vow] before a Sage; while R. Nahman observed: A scholar does not need absolution.