Had her mother not seen inappropriate [aziva] matters or behavior in her that should be stopped, she would not have taken a vow with regard to her for nothing; had you known that the neighbors would say that, would you have taken a vow with regard to her? She said to him: No, and he dissolved the vow for her.

The Gemara relates: The son of the daughter of Rabbi Yannai the Elder came before Rabbi Yannai the Elder to dissolve a vow. He said to him: Had you known that when you make a vow they open your record book [pinekas] in heaven and examine your actions, would you have vowed? He said to him: No, and he dissolved the vow for him.

Rabbi Abba said: What is the verse from which it is derived that taking a vow leads to one’s deeds being examined? It is “And after vows to make inquiry” (Proverbs 20:25). This is interpreted to mean that after one takes a vow, his actions are reviewed in heaven. The Gemara comments: And although Rabbi Yannai broached dissolution with him in this way, we do not broach dissolution in this manner for one who vows, by asking if he regrets it because his actions will be examined in heaven. This is because one might be embarrassed, upon hearing such a question, to say that he does not have regret, and he will claim untruthfully that he is regretful.

And we also do not broach dissolution in this other way, as Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that Rabbi Yoḥanan said: What type of dissolution did Rabban Gamliel broach for a certain elderly man who had taken a vow and came before him for dissolution? He informed him that it is written: “There is one who speaks like the piercing of a sword, but the tongue of the wise is health” (Proverbs 12:18), which is interpreted to mean: Anyone who verbally expresses the language of a vow, it is appropriate to pierce him with a sword, but he has another option: “The tongue of the wise is health,” since the Sages can release him from his vow. Quoting this verse with its interpretation is also not an acceptable method of broaching dissolution.

We also do not broach dissolution using this other method, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Natan says: One who vows is considered as if he built a personal altar outside the Temple, which is prohibited, and one who fulfills this vow is considered as if he sacrifices an offering on it. With the first clause, we may broach dissolution by informing the one who vowed that vowing is akin to building an altar outside the Temple, but with regard to the latter clause there is a dispute among the Sages. Abaye said: We do broach dissolution by telling someone that fulfilling a vow is like sacrificing an offering on a forbidden altar, while Rava said: We do not broach dissolution with it.

Rav Kahana taught this halakha in this wording, i.e., the wording that was just cited. However, Rav Tavyumei taught this halakha in this way: With regard to what is written in the last clause, all agree that we do not broach dissolution in this way. With regard to what is written in the first clause, there is a dispute among the Sages. Abaye said: We do broach dissolution in this manner, while Rava said: We do not broach dissolution in this manner either. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that we do not broach dissolution using either the language in the first clause or the language in the latter clause.

And furthermore, we also do not broach dissolution with this statement of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: With regard to one who vows, although he fulfills it, he is called wicked. Rabbi Abbahu said: What is the verse from which this is derived? It is “But if you refrain [teḥdal] from vowing there will be no sin in you” (Deuteronomy 23:23), and he derives the word ḥadala here from the word ḥadala elsewhere. It is written here: “But if you refrain [teḥdal] from vowing,” and it is written there: “There the wicked cease [ḥadlu] from troubling” (Job 3:17). The parallel language demonstrates that vowing is an act of the wicked.

Rav Yosef said: We, too, learn in the mishna (9a): If one says he vows like the vows of the virtuous, he has not said anything. If he says: Like the vows of the wicked, he has vowed with regard to becoming a nazirite, or with regard to obligating himself in an offering, or with regard to taking an oath. From here it is also apparent that vowing is an act of the wicked.

§ Apropos the verse “There the wicked cease from troubling,” the Gemara cites a related statement: Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yonatan said: Anyone who gets angry, all kinds of Gehenna rule over him, because anger causes him to transgress all kinds of severe sins, as it is stated: “Therefore remove vexation from your heart and put away evil from your flesh” (Ecclesiastes 11:10), and the evil mentioned is nothing other than Gehenna, as it is stated: “The Lord has made everything for His own purpose and even the wicked for the day of evil” (Proverbs 16:4), which is interpreted to mean that ultimately the day of the evildoer in Gehenna will arrive.

And not only that, but also hemorrhoids will control him, as it is stated: “But the Lord shall give you there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and languishing of soul” (Deuteronomy 28:65). Which is the matter of sickness that causes failing of the eyes in pain and causes languishing of the soul? You must say this is referring to hemorrhoids.

The Gemara relates: Ulla, on his ascent to Eretz Yisrael, had two residents of Ḥozai join him. Because of a brawl between them, one arose and slaughtered the other. The assailant said to Ulla: Did I act properly? He said to him: Yes, and open the place of the slaughter, i.e., cut it more so that he will die faster. When Ulla came before Rabbi Yoḥanan, Ulla said to him: Perhaps, Heaven forbid, I strengthened the hands of sinners by commending him, although I did so merely because I was afraid that he would kill me. He said to him: You saved yourself by doing so, as it is permitted for one to say words like this in order to save his own life.

With regard to the narrative itself, Rabbi Yoḥanan wondered: Now, it is written in the passage of curses: “But the Lord shall give you there a trembling heart” (Deuteronomy 28:65) and this is written with regard to Babylonia, because in the exile an individual possesses a trembling and angry heart. How is it possible that in Eretz Yisrael a person can get so angry as to murder another? Ulla said to him: At that moment when the incident occurred