Bekhorot 46A

ליה אדעת רבים.

to the priest based on the consent of the public, making it a type of vow that cannot be dissolved without their consent.

אמר אמימר: הלכתא, אפילו למאן דאמר נדר שהודר ברבים יש לו הפרה, על דעת הרבים אין לו הפרה. והני מילי לדבר הרשות, אבל לדבר מצוה יש לו הפרה. כי ההוא דמקרי דרדקי, אדריה רב אחא דקא פשע בינוקי, ואהדריה רבינא, דלא אשכח דהוה דייק כוותיה.

Ameimar says: The halakha is as follows: Even according to the one who says a vow that was taken in public has the option of nullification, if it was taken based on the consent of the public it has no option of nullification. The Talmud comments: And this matter applies only to when the nullification of a vow is in order to enable one to perform an optional matter, but to enable one to perform a matter of a mitzva it has the option of nullification. As in the incident involving a certain teacher of children,upon whom Rav Aḥa administered a vow to cease teaching based on the consent of the public, as he was negligent with regard to the children by hitting them too much; and Ravina had his vow nullified and reinstated him, as they did not find another teacher who was as meticulous as he was.

והמטמא למתים כו׳. מאי שנא הכא דסגי ליה בקבלה, ומאי שנא התם דמדרינן ליה? התם יצרו תקפו.

§ The Mishnah teaches that a priest who becomes impure through exposure to corpses is disqualified from performing the Temple service until he accepts upon himself that he will no longer become impure in that manner. The Talmud asks: What is different here that it is sufficient for him merely to accept upon himself a commitment in order to continue serving in the Temple, and what is different there, where the priest marries by a transgression, that we administer a vow to him? The Talmud responds: There his desire seizes him, and it is therefore necessary for the priest to take a vow.