(
Hebrew characters)
"He that has a vow upon him, with respect to profit from
his neighbour, is not to be absolved, except in that neighbour's
presence. How is this proved? Rav Nachman says, it is
proved by the words, 'And the Lord said unto Moses, in
Midian, Go return into Egypt; for all the men are dead which
sought thy life;' he said to him, In Midian thou hast vowed,
go and get absolution from thy vow in Midian, for it is written,
(Hebrew characters), 'And Moses was content.' (Exodus ii. 21.) Now
this word means nothing else but swearing, as it is written,
'And he took an oath of him.' (Ezek. xvii. 13.) It is farther
proved by the words, 'And he also rebelled against King
Nebuchadnezzar, who had made him swear by God.' (2 Chron.
xxxvi. 13.) What was the nature of his rebellion? Zedekiah
found Nebuchadnezzar eating a live hare, whereupon Nebuchadnezzar
said to him, swear to me not to reveal this, nor to
report the matter. Zedekiah swore, but afterwards he was
grieved, and went and got his oath absolved and told. Nebuchadnezzar
heard that they despised him, and sent and fetched
the Sanhedrin and Zedekiah, and said to them, Ye see what
Zedekiah has done, although he swore by the name of God not
to reveal the matter. They said to him, He got a dispensation
from his oath. He said, Is it lawful, then, to get dispensation
from an oath? They said, Yes. He said again, Is this to be
done in the other's presence or absence? They say, In his
presence," &e. (Nedarim, fol. lxv. 1.) Now this passage not
only illustrates the doctrine of dispensation, but throws much
light upon the character and knowledge of the men from
whom the tradition is derived. In the first place, it shows a
strange confusion of mind to derive (Hebrew characters), "he was willing,'
from (Hebrew characters), "he sware;" but it is stranger still out of this
mistranslation, to invent a story of Moses having sworn and
got absolution; but the most strange of all is, that any one
should be found who can believe this a sufficient warrant for
