Kommentar zu Nedarim 11:3

קונם שאיני נהנית לבריות אינו יכול להפר – this is not from the vows of privations of the necessities of life, for behold she is able to support herself from that of her husband, for the husband is not included in the category of בריות/humanity. But our Mishnah is also according to Rabbi Yossi, and it is not the Halakha, as I have explained above (see the Bartenura commentary to Mishnah 2). And not only/needless to say, if she said, “KONAM, that I will not benefit from anyone,” that she forbids the benefit of all of humanity upon her, that he absolves her because according to the Sages, these are vows of privation of the necessities of life, but even if she said, “KONAM, that I will not benefit from this certain individual,” that she only forbade for herself the benefit of that person alone the husband absolves [the vow] because of matters between him and her, for it is trouble for him that she will not benefit from that person, and the Torah stated (Numbers 30:17): “Between a man and his wife,” everything that is between a man and his wife, the husband can absolve/annul.

Introduction The first section of the mishnah continues to discuss which vows a husband may annul. The second section of the mishnah discusses a person who swears that priests and Levites may not derive benefit from him.

ויכולה ליהנות בלקט שכחה ופאה – this is what it says, and furthermore, another reason that “KONAM that I don’t benefit from humanity,” that the husband does not annul, for she can benefit from gleanings, the forgotten sheaf and the corner of the field, that she doesn’t benefit from anyone, for these are the gifts to the poor, and it is found that there is no privations of the necessities of life.

[If she vows], “Konam, that which I benefit from mankind,” he cannot annul, and she can benefit from gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and the corners of the field. The husband cannot annul this vow because there are still people from whom she may receive benefit (food, clothing etc.). “Mankind” implies people other than her husband. Since her husband may still provide for her, this is not a vow of “self-denial”. Furthermore, she may still collect the produce which is mandated to be given to poor people from people’s fields. These do not actually belong to the owner of the field; rather they are considered ownerless. This includes “gleanings” which is the wheat which falls from people’s hands as they collect, forgotten sheaves, and the corners of fields.

קונם כהנים ולוים נהנים לי – for just as that “KONAM that I don’t benefit from anyone,” but she is permitted [to benefit from] the gifts to the poor, so also, he who makes a vow against Kohanim and Levites from benefitting from his property are permitted to the gifs of the priesthood and the Levitical class.

[If one says], “Konam be the benefit which priests and Levites have from me”, they can take [from him] against his will. A person must give certain parts of his produce to priests and Levites. He must give terumah to priests and first tithe to Levites. If he vows that priests and Levites should not be able to derive benefit from him, they still may take terumah and tithe, because these do not actually belong to the one who vowed. The connection between this section and what we learned above is that just as things left for the poor do not actually belong to the owner of the field, so too terumah and tithes do not actually belong to the person who separates them to give them to the priests and Levites.

[But if he vows,] “Konam be the benefit these priests and Levites have from me,” other [priests and Levites] should take. In this case the one who vows does not prohibit all priests and Levites from benefiting from him, just certain priests or Levites. In this case the vow is effective and other priests and Levites should take the terumah or tithes. Although as we stated above the person does not own these, he has the right to choose to whom to give them. Therefore the vow is effective.