משנה: רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן כְּנוֹלָד וְאֵינָן כְּנוֹלָד וַחֲכָמִים מוֹדִין לוֹ. כֵּיצַד אָמַר קוֹנָם שֶׁאֵינִי נוֹשֶׂא פְּלֹנִית שֶׁאָבִיהָ רַע. אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ מֵת אוֹ שֶׁעָשָׂה תְשׁוּבָה. קוֹנָם לְבַיִת זֶה שֶׁאֵינִי נִכְנָס שֶׁהַכֶּלֶב רַע בְּתוֹכוֹ אוֹ שֶׁהַנָּחָשׁ בְּתוֹכוֹ אָֽמְרוּ לוֹ מֵת הַכֶּלֶב וְנֶהֱרַג הַנָּחָשׁ הֲרֵי הֵן כְּנוֹלָד וְאֵינָן כְּנוֹלָד וַחֲכָמִים מוֹדִין לוֹ. MISHNAH: Rebbi Meïr says, there are things like changed circumstances which are not really changed circumstances56There are changed circumstances which are admissible to annul a vow., and the Sagesagree with him57This is the reading in many Mishnah mss. and Gaonic and early rabbinic sources but not in the existing Babli mss. and the printed editions which read: The Sages do not agree with him. The gemara in the Babli seems to presuppose the Yerushalmi Mishnah. For details cf. The Babylonian Talmud with variant readings, Nedarim II, ed. M. Hershler, Jerusalem 1991, p. קנב, Note 49.. How is this? He said, a qônām that I shall not marry this woman for her father is evil, and they told him that he died or that he repented; a qônām that I shall not enter this house because it has a bad dog inside, or a snake; they said to him the dog died, the snake was killed; these there are things like changed circumstances which are not changed circumstances, and the Sages agree with him.
הלכה: רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר יֵשׁ דְּבָרִים שֶׁהֵן כְּנוֹלָד. שְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר מִשֵּׁם נֵדֶר טָעוּת. כְּבָר מֵת הַכֶּלֶב כְּבָר נֶהֱרַג הַנָּחָשׁ. רִבִּי אִילָּא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי לָֽעְזָר. מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא כְתוֹלֶה נִדְרוֹ בְדָבָר. בְּאוֹמֵר. קוֹנָם שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לְאִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי כָּל הַזְּמַן שֶׁהוּא לָבוּשׁ שְׁחוֹרִים. לָבַשׁ לְבָנִים מוּתָּר בּוֹ. רִבִּי זְעוּרָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. אַף הוּא אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ הֵיתֵר חָכָם. HALAKHAH: “Rebbi Meïr says, there are things like changed circumstances”. Samuel says, because of an erroneous vow; the dog was already dead, the snake had already been killed62Samuel restricts the Mishnah to the case that the dog was already dead when the vow was made. Then it is obvious that the vow would not have been made had the vower known all the facts. But if the vow was justified at the moment it was made, Samuel would deny that the death of the dog was reason enough to nullify the vow for the future.. Rebbi Hila in the name of Rebbi Eleazar, because he is like someone who makes his vow dependent on something63They hold that the vow can be nullified at the death of the dog because the reason for the vow had been stated at the beginning. As the example shows, if the vower had said, I shall not enter the house as long as there is a bad dog there, the vow would automatically be voided at the dog’s death. But because the reason was not formally stated as a condition, the vow mentioned in the Mishnah needs to be voided by a Sage.
In the Babli, 65a, the opinion of Samuel is attributed to R. Joḥanan and that of R. Hila to Rav Huna, with the discussion supporting Rav Huna.: A qônām that I shall have no benefit from this man as long as he wears black garments64The sign of a person engaged in sexual misbehavior; Babli Mo‘ed Qaṭan 17a, Ḥagigah 16a, Qiddušin 40a.. If he wore white, he would be permitted to him. Rebbi Ze‘ira in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: That one does not need the permission of a Sage.