"Gelübde der Übertreibung" [Übertreibung, wo er selbst weiß, dass es nicht so ist]: Wenn er sagte: "Konam, wenn ich auf dieser Straße nicht so viele gesehen habe, wie Ägypten verlassen haben", "wenn ich keine Schlange gesehen habe wie." (dick wie) der Strahl der Olivenpresse. " "Gelübde der Unwissenheit": Wenn er sagte: "Konam, [dieses Brot für mich], wenn ich gegessen habe oder wenn ich getrunken habe", und er erinnerte sich, dass er gegessen oder getrunken hatte [und zum Zeitpunkt des Gelübdes dachte er, er hatte nicht gegessen oder getrunken, es ist kein Gelübde.] Wenn er sagte "Konam, wenn ich esse oder trinke (von dir)", und er vergaß und aß oder trank (es ist kein Gelübde) [für zu der Zeit, als die Gelübde sollte "genommen" werden, die Zeit des Essens oder Trinkens, er hatte das Gelübde vergessen, so dass es erlaubt ist. Dies leitet sich aus Eiden ab, in denen geschrieben steht (3. Mose 5: 4): "ein Mann mit einem Eid", wobei es erforderlich ist, dass er zum Zeitpunkt des Inkrafttretens des Eides "ein Mann" ist; das heißt, dass er sich des Eides bewusst ist. Und das Gleiche gilt für Gelübde.] (Wenn er sagte :) "Konam, meine Frau hat davon profitiert, von mir zu profitieren, weil sie meine Handtasche gestohlen hat" oder "weil sie meinen Sohn geschlagen hat", und er entdeckte, dass sie ihn nicht gestohlen oder geschlagen hatte , [das sind unwissentliche Gelübde, weil sie entdeckt hat, dass sie es nicht gestohlen hat, hebt das Gelübde rückwirkend auf]. Wenn er Leute sah, die Feigen aßen, und er sagte: "Lass sie dir als Korban verboten werden", und dann stellte er fest, dass sie (die Esser) sein Vater und seine Mutter waren und andere mit ihnen—Beth Shammai sagt: Sie (seine Eltern) sind erlaubt und diejenigen mit ihnen verboten. Und Beth Hillel sagt: Beides ist erlaubt. [Denn "ein Gelübde, das teilweise ungültig ist, ist vollständig ungültig", der Gelübde, der wünscht, dass das Gelübde "nimmt", wie er es gelobt hat; und da ein Teil davon unwissentlich war, ist es völlig nichtig.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
נדרי הבאי – exaggeration and additional speech, but he himself knows that it was not the case.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
Introduction
The first section of the mishnah illustrates vows of exaggeration and the second illustrates vows that were made in error.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
קונם אם לא ראיתי – KONAM upon me this loaf of bread if I did no see, etc. (i.e., a snake as s big as the beam of an olive press).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
Vows of exaggeration: If one says, “Konam if I did not see on this road as many as departed from Egypt”; “If I did not see a snake [as thick as the] the beam of an olive press. Vows of exaggeration need not be kept, because the person did not really intend to take a vow. His only intention was to exaggerate.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
נדרי שגגות – he said, KONAM upon me this loaf of bread.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
Vows in error: [If one says, “Konam,] if I ate or drank”, and then remembered that he had; “If I eat or drink” and then forgot [his vow] and ate or drank; “Konam be any benefit which my wife has from me, because she stole my purse or beat my child, and it was subsequently learnt that she had not beaten him nor stolen”; If one saw people eating [his] figs and said to them, “Let the figs be a korban to you,” and then discovered the people to be his father or his brothers. If others were with them: (1) Beth Shammai says: his father and brothers are permitted, but the rest are forbidden. (2) Beth Hillel says: all are permitted. This section teaches the important principle that vows made in error are invalid, and that a person has not broken his vow if he broke it in error. Furthermore, vows made based on false assumptions, such as that one’s wife stole something or beat one’s child, or the false presumption that people eating one’s figs should not be eating them, are also invalid. The final question in the mishnah is whether or not a vow can be half-valid, in other words valid with regard to some people and invalid with regard to others. In the case of the figs, both Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel agree that the brothers and father can eat, because the person who vowed intended to prohibit the figs only to strangers. However, Beth Shammai holds that the figs are prohibited to others who are there eating with them. Beth Hillel holds that since part of the vow isn’t valid, the whole vow is invalid.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
אם אכלתי אם שתיתי ונזכר שאכל ושתה – and at the time of the vow he thought that he did not eat and did not drink, it would not be a vow.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
קונם שאיני אוכלך לך ואיני שותה, ושכח ואכל ושתה – that at the time that the vow takes place which is at the time of eating and/or drinking, he forgot the vow, it is permitted/annulled, as we derive it from an oath as it is written (Leviticus 5:4): “[Or when a person uttes an oath to bad or good purpose –] whatever a man may utter in an oath – [and though he has known it, the fact has escaped him, but later he realizes his guilt in any of these matters -]” that we require that he will be a man at the time when the oath takes place upon him, meaning to say, that he will be mindful from the oath, and the same law applies with regard to a vow.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
קונם אשתי נהנית לי שגנבה את כיסו – these are vows made in error, for since it became known that she did not steal from him, it is found that there was no vow.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
אלו ואלו מותרין – for a vow that was partially permitted is completely permitted, for he does not want that his vow would take place, but rather, similar to that he made the vow, and since part of it was in made inadvertently in error, all of it is nullified.
