Unqualifizierte Gelübde folgen der strengen Option und ihrer Qualifikation der milderen. [Auch wenn er sich selbst erklärt, folgen wir seiner Erklärung, wenn er ohne Qualifikation schwört, folgen wir der strengen Option; denn im Allgemeinen, wenn man schwört, ist seine Absicht zu verbieten.] Wie so? Wenn man sagte: "Lass mir dieses Ding als gesalzenes Fleisch (verboten) sein" [ein Opfer, nämlich. (3. Mose 2:13): "Mit all deinen Opfergaben sollst du Salz anbieten"], "als Weintrankopfer"—Wenn er schwor, die Absicht (des Opfers) des Himmels zu haben, ist dies verboten. wenn das des Götzendienstes ist, ist es erlaubt. Und wenn er ohne Qualifikation schwor, ist es verboten. (Wenn er sagte :) "Lass es mich als Zeremonie sein" (dediziertes Eigentum)—Wenn als die Zeremonie des Himmels, ist es verboten; wenn als die Zeremonie der Cohanim, ist es erlaubt. [Auch wenn die Zeremonie von Cohanim Mei'lah (Missbrauch von heiligem Eigentum) unterliegt, bevor sie von den Kohanim genommen wird, so dass es wie "eine Sache ist, die gelobt wird", ist die Zeremonie von Cohanim immer noch unqualifiziert bedeutet, dass der Cohein es genommen hat.] "Lass es mich als Ma'aser sein" (der Zehnte)—Wenn wie der Zehnte der Tiere, ist es verboten; und wenn wie das der Dreschfläche, ist es erlaubt. [Denn es (der Zehnte des Tieres) ist wie "etwas, das gelobt wird", denn er muss es widmen, und der (Nicht-Trennung des) Zehnten des Tieres verbietet den Viehstall nicht als (Nicht-Trennung des) Getreides - Der Zehnte verbietet die Tenne.] Und wenn er ohne Qualifikation schwor, ist es verboten. "Lass es mich als Terumah sein"—Wenn als Terumah der Lishkah (die Tempelkasse für Gemeindeopfer), ist es verboten; und wenn wie das der Dreschfläche, ist es erlaubt. Und wenn er ohne Qualifikation schwor, ist es verboten. Dies sind die Worte von R. Meir. R. Yehudah sagt: Wenn er unqualifiziert "Terumah" sagte, ist dies in Juda verboten; In Galil ist es erlaubt, denn die Männer von Galil kennen die Terumah der Lishkah nicht [denn sie waren weit von Jerusalem entfernt.] "Charamim" (Widmungen), unqualifiziert—in Juda sind sie erlaubt, und in Galil sind sie verboten, denn die Männer von Galil kennen die Charamim der Cohanim nicht [und alle ihre Charamim würden in Richtung Bedek Habayit (Tempelreparatur) gehen. Die Halacha stimmt mit R. Yehudah überein.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
ופירושם להקל – even though that when he explained his words, we follow after his explanation, for when it is undefined and he didn’t explain, we go to the most stringent [opinion], for a person who makes an undefined vow, his intention is to forbid.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
Introduction
This mishnah deals with cases where it is unclear whether the person vowing used something which can be dedicated to the Temple in the vow formula, in which case the vow is binding, or whether he used something else, in which case the vow is not binding.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
כבשר מליח – which is a sacrifice, as it is written (Leviticus 2:13): “[You shall season your every offering of grain with salt; you shall not omit from your grain offering the salt of your covenant with God;] with all your offerings you must offer salt.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
Unspecified vows are interpreted strictly, but if specified [they are interpreted] leniently. How so? This is an introductory rule which will guide the entire mishnah. If a person takes a vow and he himself is unclear what his intention was, whether it was to make a valid or invalid vow, we rule strictly and the vow is valid. However, if he states that his intention was to make an invalid vow, the vow is ruled invalid. The mishnah now lists several examples where it is unclear whether he made a valid vow by referring to something that may be donated to the Temple, or whether he referred to something which may not be donated to the Temple.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
כחרם של כהנים מותר (assigned to the private use of priests) – even though that which belongs to the priests, people commit religious sacrilege with them until they come into the hands of the Kohanim, and they are a thing that is vowed, nevertheless, undefined property of the priests implies that they have already come into the hand of a Kohen (see also Tractate Arakhin, Chapter 8, Mishnah 6)..
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
If one says, “Behold! This is to me as salted meat”; or “As wine of libation” If he vowed by that which is to Heaven, his vow is valid. If by that which is idolatrous, his vow is invalid. And if it was unspecified, his vow is valid. The first example is where a person says that a certain thing should either be to him like “salted meat” or “wine of libation”. Either could refer to something which could be put onto the altar. “Salted meat” could refer to a sacrifice and wine could refer to one of the libations offered at the Temple altar. Therefore, if his intention was to refer to something which was for “Heaven”, i.e. for the Temple, then his vow is valid. However, if his intention was that the object should be prohibited to him as is meat sacrificed for idols or wine offered to idols, his vow is invalid. As we have learned before, using a prohibited item in the vow formula does not make a vow work. If he didn’t know what his intention was, then the vow is ruled valid.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
אם כמעשר בהמה אסור – for this is something that was vowed, that one must sanctify it, but the tithe of cattle does not prohibit the stable/shed like the tithing of grain prohibits the granary/threshing floor.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
[If he says], “Behold! This is to me as herem” If as a herem to Heaven, his vow is valid; If as a herem to the priests, his vow is invalid. If it was unspecified, his vow is valid. A “herem” can either refer to an offering in the Temple, or it can refer to things that are given to the priests (see Numbers 18:14). If his intention was the former, the vow is valid, if the latter his vow is invalid. The reason is that once the “herem” was given to the priest, it is no longer forbidden for general consumption. Again, if he is unsure, the rule is strict.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
שאין אנשי גליל מכירין תרומת הלשכה – becase they were far from Jerusalem.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
“Behold! This is to me as a tithe” If he vowed, as tithes of beasts, his vow is valid. If as grain tithes, his vow is invalid. If unspecified, his vow is valid. There are several kinds of tithes. When a person vows that something should be like “tithe” to him, it could refer to animal tithes. If so, his vow is valid for animal tithes are sacrificed on the altar. However, if he refers to grain tithes, his vow is not valid, for anyone may eat grain tithes and they are not sacrificed but rather given to Levites.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
שין אנשי גליל מכירין חרמי כהנים – for everything that they would dedicate for priestly use, they would set aside for the repair of the Temple. And the Halakha is according to Rabbi Yehuda.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
“Behold! This is to me as terumah” If he vowed, as the terumah of the Temple-chamber, his vow is valid. If as the terumah of the threshing-floor, his vow is invalid. If unspecified, his vow is valid. The words of Rabbi Meir. There are several kinds of “terumah”. If he refers to “terumah of the Temple-chamber” his vow is invalid, for these were donations used to buy sacrifices. However, if he refers to the regular terumah given to priests, his vow is invalid, for this terumah is not offered to the Temple, but rather is for priests and forbidden to non-priests.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
Rabbi Judah says: An unspecified reference to terumah in Judea is a valid vow, but not in Galilee, because the Galileans are unfamiliar with the terumah of the Temple-chamber. Unspecified references to haramim in Judea are not binding but in Galilee they are, because the Galileans are unfamiliar with priestly haramim. The previous section was according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says that there are regional differences in our interpretation of vows. If he makes an unspecified vow using “terumah”, in Judea he may be referring to “terumah of the Temple-chamber”, and therefore his vow is valid. However, those of the Galilee, who live further away from the Temple, would not know as much about “terumah of the Temple-chamber” and hence we can assume that they were referring to the terumah given to priests. Similarly, unspecified vows using “herem” are interpreted leniently in Judea because they may refer to the “herem” of the priests, for many priests lived in Judea. In contrast, in the Galilee, “herem” would more typically refer to a sacrifice and therefore the vow is valid. We see here that Rabbi Judah assumes that the interpretation of the vow depends on the commonly used language of the one who vows. Since commonly used language will depend on geographical origin, it too must be taken into account.
