All epithets (kinuyei) of vows are like vows. [The gemara explains that the first part of our Mishnah is lacking and that this is what is meant: All yadoth ("hands") of vows are like vows; all epithets of vows are like vows. These are yadoth of vows: If one says to his neighbor: "I am 'bevowed' from you," "I am separate from you," etc. These are epithets of vows: "Konam," "Konach," "Konas," etc. "Hands of vows": (yadoth) of vows, by which the vows are held. "Kinyei nedarim" ("epithets of vows"), as in (Bava Metzia 58b) "hamechaneh shem lechavero" ("one who calls his friend by an epithet", the "epithet" (nickname) not being the name per se.] And (epithets) of dedications are like dedications, and (epithets) of oaths are like oaths, and (epithets) of Naziritism are like Naziritism. If one says to his neighbor: "I am 'bevowed' from you," "I am separate from you," "I am distanced from you," "That I not eat from you," "That I not taste from you," he is forbidden (to do so). [If he used one of these expressions: "I am 'bevowed' from you that I not eat from you and that I not taste from you," or: "I am separate from you that I not eat from you and that I not taste from you," or: "I am distanced from you that I not eat from you and that I not taste from you," these are "yadoth" ("hands") of vows, and he is forbidden to eat and taste from him. But if he said: "I am 'bevowed' from you" alone, his words imply only that he will not speak with him. And "I am separate from you" alone implies only that he will not deal with him. And "I am distanced from you" alone implies only that he will not sit in his four cubits. But he is not forbidden to eat with him unless he specifies with each one of these expressions: "that I not eat from you and that I not taste from you."] (If one said:) "I am removed ("menudeh") from you" — R. Akiva would compress 'his lips' on this towards stringency, [not wanting to say that it forbade (as a vow), but it being apparent that he held it to do so.] "As the vows of the wicked, a vow, with Nazirite and with offering, an oath." "As the vows of the upright," he has said nothing. [If he said: "I take it upon myself as the vows of the wicked, whose vows are Nazirite and offering — an oath not to eat this loaf," if he transgressed and ate it, he must be a Nazirite for thirty days, and bring a burnt-offering, and he is liable to stripes as one transgressing a vain oath; for he mentioned in his vow "Nazirite," "offering," and "oath." As to his saying: "As the vows of the wicked," this is because it is the wicked who make vows and oaths, not the upright, the upright fearing the transgression of non-fulfillment (of vows) and taking heed not to utter oaths. Therefore, if one says: "As the vows of the upright," he has said nothing.] "As their gifts, a vow, with Nazirite and with offering." [If he said: "As the gifts of the upright, I shall be a Nazirite, and this shall be an offering if I eat this loaf," if he ate it, he is liable to Naziritism and to an offering. For the upright sometimes take a vow of Naziritism to separate themselves from what is forbidden. And they give an offering as a gift, bringing their offering to the entrance of the azarah (the Temple court) and consecrating it there, so as not to go astray through it. The expression for a gift is "This (object) is" (a gift), and the expression for a vow "I take it upon myself," for which reason the upright give gifts, but do not vow, so that they not go astray.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
In the Gemara (Tractate Nedarim 2b), we maintain that our Mishnah is deficient and should be read as follows: all intimations/ידות (i.e., a term for words uttered by a person conveying a certain intention that can be understood from the context or from the general subject of the statement, although it is not clearly and explicitly expressed – are intimations regarded as explicit statements) of vows are like vows; all substitutes/כנויי for the language of vows (i.e., and it is obvious that he intended his statement to be a vow, his words assume that status) are like vows. Which are intimations of vows? A person who says to his fellow: “I am forbidden by vow from you,” “I am separated from you,” etc. Which are substitutions of vows? “A person who states (see Mishnah 2 of this chapter): קונם/Konam, קונח/Konakh, קונס/Konas, etc., (i.e., a specific type of vow whereby one prohibits himself from eating something or deriving benefit from something or someone by saying: “That person or object is to a KONAM;” the word KONAM is a substitute for the Hebrew word for offering/קרבן – and is used in order to avoid uttering that word). The intimations of vows/ידות נדרים are like the handle of a utensil that one holds it by, so are intimations of vows by which vows are held. Substitutes for vows, like [Tractate Bava Metzia 58b] when one calls his neighbor by a nickname which is not the essence of the name [of that person].
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
Introduction
Nedarim begins by clarifying the validity of substitute words used for vows. Also mentioned in this mishnah are different types of vows, all of which are mentioned in the Torah. The second part of the mishnah deals with the validity of certain statements as oaths.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
מודר אני ממך – if he said one of these linguistic formulations: “I am forbidden by vow from you that I don’t eat your [food], or/and I taste your [food],” or “I am separated from you that I don’t eat your [food], or/and if I taste your [food],” or “I am distanced from you that I don’t eat your [food] or/and I don’t taste your [food],” this is an intimation of vows and it is forbidden to eat or to taste with him. But if he said to him: “I am forbidden by vow” alone, there is no implication in his words other than he doesn’t speak with him. And “I am separated from you” alone, implies that he will not engage in business with him, and “I am distanced from you” alone, implies that he will not sit within his four cubits, and does not prohibit eating with him unless he specified and stated with one of these linguistic formulations, “that I don’t eat [food] with you,” or “I don’t taste anything with you.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
All the substitutes for vows have the validity of vows. Those for haramim have the validity of haramim, And those for oaths have the validity of oaths, And those for nazirite [vows] have the validity of nazirite [vows]. A substitute formula is just as effective at making a vow as is a regular vow formula. The mishnah lists several types of vows for which this is true. The first is a “neder”. The second is a “herem” (see Leviticus 27:28). The third is an oath (shevuah). The fourth are nazirite vows.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
רבי עקיבא היה חוכך וכו' (had some hesitation about deciding in favor of greater stringency) – meaning to say, rubbed/scratched his lips on against the other, but did not want to forbid explicitly, but it had appeared from his temperament/mind that it was forbidden.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
If one says to his fellow, “I am forbidden from you by a vow”; “I am separated from you”; “I am distanced from you”, “that I should eat from yours”, “that I should taste from yours”, he is prohibited. These are all valid vow formulas, even though he doesn’t formally say that the thing which he is forbidding upon himself would be like a sacrifice. In other words, a full formula would be “All of your food is like a sacrifice to me”. Instead he says one of the formulas in section 2, combined with one of the ones in section 2a and thus forms a vow. For instance he says, “I am forbidden from you by a vow that I should eat from yours”. Or “I am distanced from you that I should taste from yours”. In all such cases it is forbidden for the one taking a vow to subsequently eat from the other person’s food.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
כנדרי רשעים נדר בנזיר ובקרבן ובשבועה – if he said: “May this be upon me like the vows of wicked people whose vows in the case of a Nazir or in bringing a sacrifice or in taking of an oath if I eat this loaf, and he transgressed and ate it, he is liable to become a Nazir for thity days and to bring a sacrifice of a burnt offering and would liable for flogging/stripes like one who transgresses an oath on a statement (i.e., an oath taken by a person to reinforce a promise or an obligation or o confirm he veracity of a story –he brings a sacrifice based upon his financial situation/קרבן עולה ויורד ) because he mentioned in his oath the Nazir, and/or a sacrifice and/or an oath. But when he stated, “like the vows of the wicked,” since he wicked are those who make vows and take oaths, not the suitable people, for he suitable ones fear not to transgress (Deuteronomy 23:22): “[When you make a vow to the LORD your God,] do not put off fulfilling it, [for the LORD your God will require it of you, and you will have incurred guilt],” and they (i.e., the suitable/appropriate people) are warned not to bring forth an oath from their lips, and therefore “like the vows of the suitable/appropriate [people],” he has said nothing whatsoever.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
If he says: “I am banned to you”, Rabbi Akiba was inclined to rule stringently. This case is more questionable, whether the vow formula is valid. Rabbi Akiba rules that it is, but even he seems uncertain about his ruling.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
וכנדבותם נדר נזיר ובקרבן (as their free-will offerings – he has made a binding vow in the case of a Nazir or in the case of bringing an offering) – if he said, “like the free-will offerings of the suitable/appropriate [people], I will be a Nazir or this is an offering if I eat this loaf,” and he consumed it, he is liable regarding becoming a Nazir, or in bringing a sacrifice, for the suitable/appropriate people sometimes make vows of becoming a Nazir in order to separate from prohibition. But when they make a free-will donation of a sacrifice that they bring their offering to the entrance of the Temple courtyard and sanctify it there in order that they will now come through it as a hindrance/stumbling-block. And the free-will offering is when he says, “May this be,” or “A vow be upon me.” Therefore, the worthy people make a free-will offering but do not make a vow, in order that one may not be led to commit an offernse through it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
[If one says] “As the vows of the wicked”, he has vowed in respect of being a nazirite, or a sacrifice, or an oath. [If he says] “As the vows of the fit”, he has said nothing. [But if he said] “As their freewill-offerings” he has vowed in respect of being nazirite and a sacrifice. If he says a regular vow formula and then tacks on at the end the words, “As the vows of the wicked” his vow is valid, whether it be a vow, a nazirite vow or an oath. Alternatively, there might be a nazirite walking by him and he says, “Behold I am like the vows of the wicked”, he is a nazirite. Or if he says, “Like the vows of the wicked I shall not eat from you”, he can’t eat from the person’s food. We can see here that vows are viewed negatively and those who vow frequently are considered to be wicked. However, if he says, “As the vows of the fit” his formula is not valid, since people who are “fit”, do not frequently make vows. We can certainly sense here that part of the intent of this mishnah is to relate a negative message about taking frequent vows. However, if he says, “like their free-will offerings”, then his vow is valid, because fit people do make vows to bring free-will offerings.
