There is no difference between bevowing benefit from one's neighbor and bevowing food from him, but "the treading of the foot" [Bevowing benefit is more stringent than bevowing food only in that one who bevows benefit may not enter the other's property, whereas one who bevows food may], and, (another difference), vessels which are not used for food preparation, [it being permitted to lend them to one who bevows food (but not to one who bevows benefit). And this, only in a place where such vessels are not hired out; but in a place where they are hired out, it is forbidden (even to one who bevows food). For (he is forbidden) any benefit resulting in food. For if this one had not benefited him (by lending him the vessel), he would be lacking a perutah's worth of food benefit. For with that perutah (saved), he can buy food.] There is no difference between vows and gifts, but that one must make good for vows, but he need not make good for gifts. [("vows":) If one says: "I take it upon me (i.e., I vow) to bring a burnt-offering," after which he separated it (the animal) and it were lost, he must bring a different one. ("gifts":) If one says: "this animal is (given) as a burnt-offering," and it were lost, he need not bring a different one, for he did not take it upon himself. But as far as liability for delay is concerned, they are both the same, it being written (Deuteronomy 23:24): "…what you have vowed to the L-rd your G-d, the gift that you spoke with your mouth, etc."
Bartenura on Mishnah Megillah
אין בין המודר הנאה – One who is forbidden by vow to derive any benefit is not more severe than one [who is forbidden] by vow from [consuming] food other than entering one’s ground, for one [who is forbidden] by vow to derive any benefit , is prohibited to enter into his [home],[whereas] one [who is forbidden] by vow from [consuming] food is permitted [to enter into his home].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Megillah
There is no difference between one who is prohibited by vow from benefiting from his fellow and one who is prohibited by vow from [benefiting from] his food, except in the matter of setting foot [on his property] and of vessels which are not used for [preparing] food. There are two things which are permitted to one who is under a vow not to derive food benefit from his neighbor which are not permitted to one who may not benefit from his neighbor at all: walking on his property and the use of things not involved in the making of food. For more information look at Nedarim 4:1.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Megillah
וכליים שאין עושין בהן אוכל נפש – It is permitted to lend them (i.e., the utensils) to one [who is forbidden] by vow from [consuming] food, and especially in a place where they do not hire and similar cases, but in a place where we hire and similar things, it is prohibited, for all benefit that brings one towards [eating] food, for if he did not derive this benefit which is wanting at least the equivalent of a Perutah/penny, it is the benefit of food, for since it is appropriate for that Perutah/penny [to be used] to purchase food.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Megillah
There is no difference between vowed offerings and freewill-offerings except that he is responsible for vowed offering but not responsible for freewill-offerings. Vowed offerings are stated using the language “Behold, I will bring an animal as an offering.” If a person sets aside an animal to be a vowed offering and the animal cannot for whatever reason be sacrificed (for instance, it gets lost or dies) he must bring a substitute. However, if he makes a freewill-offering using the language, “I will bring this animal as a sacrifice” and the animal is lost, he need not bring another. In all other respects, there is no difference between the two types of offerings.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Megillah
נדר – He who says, “behold this burnt offering is upon me,” and afterwards, he set it aside and it was lost, he is liable for his property which may be resorted to in the event of non-payment.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Megillah
נדבה – He who says, “behold this burnt offering is upon me,” and it was lost, he is not liable for his property which may resorted to in the event of non-payment, for he did not accept it upon himself, but [regarding] the matter of "בל תאחר"/that he should not be late (see Deuteronomy 23:22: “When you make a vow to the LORD your God, do not put off fulling it/לא תאחר לשלמו , [for the LORD your God will require it of you, and you will have incurred guilt.]”); both are equivalent, as it says (Deuteronomy 23:24): “…and perform what you have voluntarily vowed to the LORD your God, having made the promise with your own mouth,” for behold, vows and donations are mentioned in this matter.
