Israel and Humanity - Vows
IV.
VOWS.
The issue of religious vows is closely connected with the cult itself. Was there something similar in Noachism? [1] does not seem that this subject has been studied in the Babylonian Talmud and Tosafot are on it contradictory [2]. But the Talmud of Jerusalem is a particularly rich on this matter. The doctors first establish the general rule that we will understand the value: "The Israelite, they say, is subject to duty in conscience not to break his vow, but a similar obligation exists for the Gentiles [3] ". Such is the rule. The following seems to be that different interpretations of the same principle. R. Jonas argues that the Israelite may be released from his vow by the rabbis, this is not the case of non-Jewish and seem to follow from this explanation that any such pledge made by the latter is irrevocable, but R . Jose heard this in a completely different way: "It is true, he says, that the Jew needs to be released from his vow by the doctors and it is not necessary for the Gentiles, that is say that they enjoy a freedom that the Israelites did not have. The Palestinian Talmud continues: "The opinion of R. Jose answers the practice of R. Abhu "and he cites the case of a Gentile woman who, if we consider that R. Abhu was admitted to the imperial court, was likely to belong to the upper classes of Roman society. This woman having presented to the Doctor to be released from a vow, R. Abhu told Abdim, Tubi's son: "Go and seek him a legitimate reason for withdrawal in some circumstances it could not foresee at the time of his vow."
The compliance of this doctrine with that of R. Jose is only in that, for the two doctors, it is possible for the Noachide, to escape his vow, although a rabbinical absolution prescribe that the other does not. The Talmud continues: "The opinion of R. Jona says irrevocable vow that agrees with that of R. Aba said that Laban and Cushan king of Mesopotamia, are one and the same person. Why was it called Cuscahan-rishathaim (two errors)? That he has indeed committed two errors: the first by violating the oath (which he had done to Jacob), the second in enslaving Israel. Therefore the hope is, too, a sort of oath would be equally inviolable.
What is the doctrine that has developed in this regard? Some [4] commentators, it is necessary to distinguish between the oath that the Noachide must always respect and the hope, the accomplishment of which he is not compelled, it is only the oath R. Jona had spoken, while R. Jose did for the wishes.
These rabbinic discussions may seem subtle to be well, but they are the least, we think, a very remarkable example of the concern showed consistently doctor Pharisees for everything concerning the religion of the Gentiles. We see that all the details of the Noachism formed, as well as various parts of the Jewish doctrine, the subject of their religious studies, even in later times.
