Kommentar zu Nedarim 2:7

ואלו מותרין. חולין שאוכל לך (and these [vows] are not binding: may what I eat of yours be unconsecrated food) – he (i.e., the teacher of the Mishnah) took these merely as a sign, ust as unconsecrated food that I may eat of yours – there is no need for a request made to a Sage (i.e., if a person makes a vow or takes an oath, or consecrates property, and afterwards regrets having done so, he may go to a Sage and request that he release him from his vow). So also, all of these that we mention in our Mishnah in the first clause there is no need for a request made to a Sage.

And these [vows] are not binding: [One who says] “What I eat of yours shall be unconsecrated”; “As the flesh of the swine”; “As an object of idolatrous worship”; “As hides pierced at the heart”; “As carrion”; “As terefoth”; “As abominations”; “As creeping things”; “As Aaron’s dough”; “As his terumah”--[in all these cases the vow is] not binding.
If one says to his wife, “Behold! You are like my mother to me”, he must be given an opening on other grounds, in order that he should not act lightly in such matters.
[If one says,] “Konam if I sleep”; “If I speak”; or “If I walk”; or if one says to his wife, “Konam if I cohabit with you,” he is liable to [the biblical prohibition] “he shall not break his word” (Numbers 30:.
[If he says,] “I swear] an oath not to sleep”, or, “talk,” or, “walk,” he is forbidden [to do so].
The first section of this mishnah deals with vows that are not binding. The second and third sections deal with vow that are semi-binding.
Section one: I shall explain each of these cases one at time.
“What I might eat of yours shall be unconsecrated”: Unconsecrated food is permitted, hence he has not stated that anything should be prohibited to him.
“As the flesh of the swine”: Vow formulas only work if the object used as a vow is something which can be vowed/dedicated to the Temple, such as an offering. While swine and the subsequent objects listed in this mishnah are forbidden, they cannot be offered to the Temple, and hence the vow is invalid.
“As an object of idolatrous worship”: This vow does not work for the same reason as above.
“As hides pierced at the heart”: These were used in idol worship.
“As carrion”; “As terefoth”; “As abominations”; “As creeping things”: These are all things which Jews may not eat. Carrion is an animal which was slaughtered improperly, “terefoth” are animals which died or would have died without being slaughtered. “Abominations and creeping things” are forbidden reptiles and other small animals, all of which are forbidden to eat. Again, the vow formula is ineffective because he didn’t vow using something which can be donated to the Temple.
“As Aaron’s dough”; “As his terumah”: These are both gifts that must be given to priests (Aaron’s sons). They are forbidden for consumption for non-priestly Jews. However, since one cannot offer them to the Temple, they cannot be used in vow formulas.
Section two: In this case, a husband attempts to forbid his wife to himself sexually, by stating that she should be to him like his mother, who is obviously prohibited to him (nothing Oedipal here). The vow does not work, since he didn’t use something that can be vowed as part of his vow formula. However, the rabbis did not want people to take these matters lightly and hence they said that he had to find an “opening” for breaking his vow. For this, he will need to see a Sage. We will learn more about how this is done towards the end of the tractate.
Section three: At the end of the previous chapter we learned that a vow does not work on something that has no substance. Therefore, when one says “Konam (a valid formula) that I should not do something” the vow is not valid, since actions do not have substance. However, our mishnah rules that the one who took such a vow should nevertheless keep his word. He still must follow the prohibition in Numbers 30:3, that a person must do all that he promised.
In contrast, oaths (shevuoth) can be made on actions, for an oath relates to the person and not to the object. Therefore, one who swears an oath not to do something is bound by Torah law to keep his word.

כעורות לבובין (like hides pierced at the heart) – they wud make incisions in the animal while it is living opposite the heart and remove the heart and sacrifice it to idolatry, and this sacrifice to idolatry is prohibited to derive any benefit.

כחלת אהרן – who was first for the Kohanim (see Numbers 15:20 – “You shall make a gift to the LORD from the first yield of your baking, throughout the ages). And it cannot be something that is vowed, for Hallah and heave-offering/Terumah come as a vow or a free-will offering.

הרי זה מותר – as it states in Scripture (Numbers 30:3): “If a man makes a vow [to the LORD],” until he should make a vow with a thing that is vowed. But a sin-offering that I won’t eat with you , as we stated in the first chapter [of Tractate Nedarim, Mishnah 4], even though it is not something that is vowed, there is reason, for it is possible that he will bring a sin-offering through a vow, as for example, that he took a vow to be a Nazir, and is liable to bring a sin-offering [upon the conclusion of the thirty-day length of serving as a Nazir].

הרי את עלי כאמא (Lo, you are like mother to me) – even though this this is not a matter that is vowed, it is more severe from all of the others that are above, he requires a release from the Rabbis if he is an illiterate individual (i.e., “Am HaAretz)

and we make an opening for retracting a vow from another place (i.e., reason) meaning to say, we request for him and opening and reason for his remorse. But it is not sufficient [to ask him]: Do you now regret [that you had vowed]? Or that your heart is upon you – that you bear a grudge (see Tractate Nedarim 21b), and all of this in order that he may not behave lightly in such a matter and that he should not become accustomed to forbid his wife upon him.

קונם שאיני ישן כו' – Lo, this is (Numbers 30:3): “he shall not break his pledge” according to the Rabbis, but from the Torah, there is no vow taking effect, for vows do not take effect other than on something that has substance (see Talmud Nedarim 15a).

קונם שאיני משמשך (that I will not have sexual relations with you) – In the Gemara (Tractate Nedarim 15b) a difficulty is raised if he is subservient to her, how is he able to release her subservience through his vow, for it is like prohibiting the produce of his fellow on his fellow? But it [i.e., the Gemara] responds, as, for example, when he stated that he takes a vow against enjoying the benefit of her sexual relations with me,” that he forbade this benefit upon himself, and we don’t feed a person something that is forbidden to him.

שבועה שאיני ישן וכו' – this is forbidden form the Torah, for oaths take effect whether there is something in it of substance, or whether it is on something that has no substance. But if he took an oath to not sleep for three consecutive days, night and day, he is flogged/whipped and he sleeps immediately, because he took an oath on something that is impossible to fulfill.

קרבן לא אכל לך כו' (KORBAN,I shall not eat with you) – he is permitted (i.e., he is not bound), for this would be like he took an oath with a KORBAN that he would become like he says: “by my Life, a KORBAN if I eat with anything with you.”

Introduction This mishnah compares vow formulas with oath formulas.

שבועה שלא אוכל לך – and we don’t say, “by my life with an oath it is said,” as we say with a KORBAN, for an oath has no substance and it doesn’t belong to say with it, “by my life with an oath.”

[If he says,] “A korban should be what I do not eat of yours”; “By a korban! If I eat of yours”; “What I do not eat of yours should not be a korban to me” the vow is not binding. I will explain each of these individually. “A korban should be what I do not eat of yours”: This is an ineffective vow, because he is not forbidding anything which he will eat. The only thing that is forbidden to him is that which he will not eat in any case. “By a korban! If I eat of yours”: This translation is based on an emendation to the mishnah, created by the Talmud. The mishnah itself states “A korban should be what I eat from you”. That should not be considered invalid formula. Therefore the Talmud suggests that the mishnah should read “By a korban! If I eat of yours.” He has not stated that the food should be forbidden, rather he has used the word “korban” to state that he will not eat from the other person. Such a formula is not valid in vows. “What I do not eat of yours should not be a korban to me”: We might have assumed that this double negative implies that what he doesn’t eat should not be a korban, but what he does eat should be a korban. However, this mishnah holds that we do not learn positive implications from negative statements. Saying that something will not be a korban does not mean that other things will.

שבועה שאוכל לך – sometimes, “the taking of an oath that I shall eat with you” is not that I will actually eat, as, for example, that his fellow would refuse him to him and he says, “I will not eat, I will not eat,” and thereafter he says, “by an oath I will eat with y,” that he will not actually eat,” and this is what he said, “with an oath that will be upon me, if I eat with you.”

[If he says], “An oath [that] I will not eat of yours”; “An oath that I eat of yours”; “No oath [that] I will not eat of yours” his oath is valid. All of the above formulas are valid if the word “shevuah” or oath is used instead of a vow. Again, I will explain them one at a time. [If he says], “An oath [that] I will not eat of yours”: This is a normal oath formula is certainly valid. “An oath that I will eat of yours”: It would seem that this statement should not cause him to be prohibited to eat from his fellow’s food. On the contrary it seems that he is saying that he will eat from his friend. The Talmud understands this to be referring to a case where Reuven is pressuring Shimon to eat at his house. Shimon says several times that he will not, and then finally blurts out “An oath that I will eat of yours”. The context of his saying makes it clear that Shimon’s intent was not to eat at Reuven’s home. However, in other contexts this is not an oath formula that would cause a prohibition. “No oath [that] I will not eat of yours”: We could deduce from here that although he has not made a prohibitive oath on that which he will not eat from his fellow, he has made a prohibitive oath on that which he will eat. Although above, in section one regarding vows we stated that we do not make positive deductions from negative statements, with regard to oaths we do.

זה חומר בשבועות – we are not able to maintain an oath that I shall not eat with you, for since it teaches that this is more stringent, it implies that it is a vow, but it is not more stringent like an an oath, and regarding “Korban, I will not eat with you,” it is taught in the Mishnah that he is not bound, and that it is not a vow at all. Because of this, one needs to establish it on what is taught above (Chapter 2, Mishnah 1): “KONAM that I shall not sleep,” “that I won’t speak,” for behold, this [applies] to (Numbers 30:3): “he shall not break his pledge.” But we establish from the Rabbis that according to the Torah, the vow has not effect other than on something which has substance, and this is the stringency regarding oaths from that of vows, that an oath takes effect even on something that has no substance.

In these instances oaths are more stringent than vows. There is [also] greater stringency in vows than in oaths. How so? If one says, “Konam be the sukkah that I make,”; “The lulav that I take”; “The tefillin that I put on”; as vows they are binding, but as oaths they are not, because one cannot swear to transgress the commandments. The mishnah now points out that since the vows made in section one were invalid whereas the oaths were valid, oaths are in some senses stricter than vows. However, in another matter vows are more strict. A person cannot take an oath not to observe a commandment, because he is already biblically obligated to observe the commandment. However, he could state that a given ritual object is forbidden to him with a “konam” vow. In such a case he is still obligated to perform the commandment. He just must perform it with another object.

תפילין שאני מניח – because he forbid a sacred object held in hand at the delivery of an oath that is upon him, and it doesn’t appear like taking a vow to void the Mitzvah, for behold, he didn’t accepted it upon himself, but rather, prohibited the sacred object upon him, but he would fulfill the Mitzvah it would a Mitzvah that comes to be fulfilled by means of a transgression and it would be similar to someone who is required to eat Mitzvah on the nights of Passover but only found Matzah of eatables forbidden pending the separation of sacred gifts or something dedicated to the Temple, which is forbidden to consumel. But all languages of oath that he forbids upon himself from doing something, for since he is liable to perform the Mitzvah, it is not within his powers to release himself from the obligation of the commandment. But if he said, “a KORBAN is upon me if I put on Tefillin, the vow takes affect and he is liable to bring a sacrifice if he put on Tefillin.

חייב על כל אחת ואחת – and he will a Nazir for thirty days if he said, I am an undefined Nazir, nad he will bring the Nazirite sacrifice and return to be a Nazir according to the number of times that he said, “I will be a Nazir.” But regarding an oath, he is not liable other than for one [sacrifice,” for he is not flogged/whipped other than one set of stripes. But if he made a request to be released on the first oath, the second oath takes effect. And similarly, if he made a request to be released on the second [oath], the third takes effect. But he is is forbidden to eat until he all of them are not binding, because it does not teach in the Mishnah, “behold this is one oath,” but rather, “he is only liable for one count only.”

Introduction This mishnah continues to draw distinctions between vows and oaths.

There is a vow within a vow, but not an oath within an oath. This section teaches that there is an additional stringency in vows that does not exist for oaths. One can make two vows on the same thing but not two oaths. The mishnah will now explain how this can happen.

How is this so? If one declares, “Behold, I will be a nazir if I eat [this thing]”; “Behold, I will be a nazir if I eat [this thing]” and then he eats [it], he is liable for each and every one. “I swear that I will not eat [this thing]”, “I swear that I will not eat [this thing]” and then he eats [it], he is only liable for one oath. If a person said twice that he will be a nazir if he eats a certain thing, and then he eats that thing, he must be a nazir twice. Since an unspecified nazirite period is thirty days (we will learn more about this in the next tractate), this person must act as a nazir for sixty days. However, if he takes two oaths that he will not eat a certain thing, and then eats it, he is only liable for breaking one oath. If he breaks the oath intentionally he only receives one set of lashes, and if accidentally, he only brings one sacrifice.

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.

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.

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.”

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.

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)..

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.

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.

[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.

שאין אנשי גליל מכירין תרומת הלשכה – becase they were far from Jerusalem.

“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.

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.

“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.

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.

בחרמו של ים – the language of a net, as in (Ecclesiastes 7:26): “[Now, I find women more bitter than death,] she is all traps , her hands are fetters, [and her heart is snares].”

Introduction This mishnah deals with a person who makes a vow using language that would normally be valid for a vow, and then subsequently claims that he had an intention which would make the vow invalid. Most of these cases involve puns. In order to emphasize the puns, which are of course in Hebrew, I have transliterated many of the words.

הרי עצמי קרבן – he forbade himself like a KORBAN/sacrifice upon his fellow.

If one vows by herem, and says, “I vowed only by a herem (a of the sea”; “Herem” can either refer to a type of vow, or to a fishing net. Obviously, if his intention was to the latter, then his vow is not valid.

אין נשאלים עליהם – it is not necessary for a request to a Sage [to release him from a vow] for they don’t take effect.

[If he says] “By a korban”, and then says, “I vowed only by korbanot ( of kings”; The word “korban” usually means sacrifice, but it could mean gifts given to kings.

ואם נשאלין – but if this person is an illiterate person/Am HaAretz who made a vow in such a manner and he came to request from a Sage [to release him] from his vow, we don’t make an opening for him for regret and we don’t release him. But if he transgressed on this vow, we excommunicate him.

[If he says] “Behold! I myself ( am a korban”, and then says, “I vowed only by the etzem ( which I keep for the purpose of vowing”; Saying “I am a korban” is a way of obligating oneself to pay one’s worth to the Temple. The Torah lists how much each person is worth (see Leviticus 27). Therefore, saying “I am a korban” is a vow. However, one cannot vow with by using a bone, the same word as “I myself”.

[If he says,] “Konam be any benefit my wife has from me”, and then says, “I spoke only of my first wife, whom I have divorced” Usually when a husband refers to his wife, he refers to a wife to whom he is currently married. However, the word “wife” could refer to his previous wife.

פוחתין לו פתח ממקום אחר – we show him that the matter exists and we make an opening for him for another reason and release him from his vow. But we don’t punish him and we are not stringent with him. And such is the Halakha.

Regarding none of these [vows] should they inquire [of a sage in order to break them], but if they inquire about them, they are punished and treated strictly, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: they are given an opening on other grounds, in order that they should not act lightly with vows. The mishnah now provides the rule in all of these cases. All of these vows are not valid, for the person claims that his intention was not to make a vow. As we learned in yesterday’s mishnah, if a person vows and then explains that his intention was not to make a valid vow, his vow is not valid. Therefore, the person should not approach a sage to ask the sage to absolve him of his vow. However, if he nevertheless does approach the sage, Rabbi Meir says he should be punished and not absolved of his vow. This is because his very asking shows that he is an ignoramus, and Rabbi Meir holds that ignoramuses should not be allowed to get out of vows, so that they will not make more vows in the future. The Sages hold that the sage who is approached to dissolve the vow should find other grounds to dissolve the vow, for the Sages hold that such a vow is actually valid. Since the likelihood is that the person intended the vow to be valid, his claim that he intended something else is not accepted. If the sage wishes to dissolve the vow he can only do so on other grounds, the same way that he dissolves all vows. Furthermore, we teach him not to make frivolous vows, however he is not punished as Rabbi Meir says.