If one says: "An offering," "A burnt-offering," "A meal-offering," "A sin-offering," "A thank-offering," "A peace-offering" (shall be) what I eat from you, it is forbidden (to eat from him). [All of these offerings are obligatory (and a thank-offering, too, is like an obligatory one, for "Four must give thanks, etc.," so that (if we were not apprised otherwise) we might think that this is not called "vowing with respect to what is vowed."] R. Yehudah permits it. [Since he says it without a "chaf" ("As a sin-offering, etc."), it is like swearing by the life of the offering and by the life of the burnt-offering, so that neither vow nor oath obtains. The first part of the Mishnah apprises us that the first tanna differs with R. Yehudah even with respect to "Jerusalem" if he mentioned it without a chaf, holding it to be a vow. And the second part apprises us that R. Yehudah differs with the first tanna even with respect to "offering," "burnt-offering," and "meal-offering, etc." when he mentions them without a chaf, holding them not to be vows.] "The offering," "As the offering," "An offering" that I shall not eat from you — it is forbidden. [Even though all of these were already mentioned, "The offering" is necessary; for we might think that he intends thereby "By the life of the offering" (i.e., an oath), As to our learning (2:2): "'The offering that I not eat from you' — it is permitted," in that instance he says: "This offering," which connotes "By the life of the offering."] "Lekorban that I not eat from you," R. Meir forbids it. [For it is construed as "Lekorban yeheh" ("Let it be as an offering"), for which reason I shall not eat from you. The halachah is not in accordance with R. Meir.] If one says to his neighbor: "konam my mouth that speaks with you," "my hand that does with you," "my foot that walks with you," it is forbidden. [Even though vows do not "take" with something intangible, and speech is intangible, still, when he says: "Konam my mouth that speaks with you," he constrains the mouth from speaking, and the mouth is tangible. Likewise, let my hands be constrained from doing, and my feet from walking, and the like.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
האומר קרבן עולה מנחה חטאת תודה ושלמים – all of hese are obligatory sacrifices, and the thanksgiving-offering also is similar to an obligation, for four require givng thanks, but you might think I would say that this one takes a vow in something that is the legitimate subject of a vow.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
Introduction
The first three sections of this mishnah teach that instead of stating “korban” a person can name different types of sacrifices and his vow will still be effective.
The final section of the mishnah teaches that a person can make parts of his body forbidden to other people.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
ורבי יהודה מתיר – because they were said without the "כ"/KAF they are compared to someone who took an oath regarding the life of the burnt offering, and thee isn’t here either a vow nor an oath. But the first clause [of the Mishnah] teaches us that the first Tanna/teacher disputes that of Rabbi Yehuda, even regarding Jerusalem if he mentioned it without the "כ"/KAF and stated that it is a vow. But the concluding clause [of the Mishnah] comes to inform us that Rabbi Yehuda disputes that [opinion] of the first Tanna/Teacher, even with a sacrifice of a burnt-offering, etc., when he mentioned them without a "כ" /KAF – for it is not a vow.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
If one says “A korban”, “A wholly burnt-offering”, “A meal-offering”, “A sin-offering”, “A thanksgiving-offering”, “A peace-offering, should be that which I eat from you” he is bound [by his vow]. Rabbi Judah permitted [him]. In this section, instead of just stating “korban”, the person vowing names other types of sacrifices. The mishnah teaches that these are equally effective in forming vows. Rabbi Judah holds that since he didn’t say “like a …”, the vow is not valid.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
קרבן הקרבו כקרבן שאוכל לך אסור (May what I eat of yours be the Korban” “like the Korban,” [By] a Korban [do I vow] be what I eat with you, he is bound) – even though we we heard all of them already, “the KORBAN” is required for it, for you might I would say that he says, “By the life of the KORBAN.” But surely it is taught in the Mishnah further on in Chapter 2 [Mishnah 2], “Korban” be what I eat with you,” he is not bound, there it is speaking of a KORBAN/sacrifice, which implies the life of the Korban.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
[If he says] “The korban”, “like a korban”, “korban”, should be that which I eat from you he is bound [by his vow]. All of these ways of phrasing a vow are also valid.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
לקרבן אל אוכל לך רבי מאיר אוסר (for a KORBAN shall be what I eat with you) – that it is made like saying, “it shall be like a sacrifice,” therefore, I will not eat with you. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
If he says, “That which I shall not eat of yours should be a korban”, Rabbi Meir forbids [him]. In this case the person adds an additional negative to his statement. Instead of saying “that which I eat from you should be a korban”, he says “that which I shall not eat…”. Hence we might have interpreted the vow to meant that that which he doesn’t eat should be a korban, but that which he does eat should be permissible. Nevertheless Rabbi Meir rules that it is a valid vow, for the statement could also be interpreted to mean, “Your food is a korban to me, therefore I shall not eat from yours.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
קונם פי מדבר עמך – but even though that the vows do not take effect on a matter lacking substance, and speech has no substance in it, nevertheless, when he says, “KONAM be my mouth with speaks to you,” he prohibits his mouth from speaking, and his mouth spoke something that has substance. And similarly, “my hands be forbidden from their actions,” and/or “my feet from their walking,” and all similar things to this.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
If one says to his fellow, “Konam be my mouth which speaks with you”, “My hands which work for you” [or] “My feet which walk with you,’ he is forbidden. In these cases instead of stating that a certain object shall be prohibited, the person states that a certain part of his body shall not do something for his friend. Now usually one cannot make a prohibitive vow on an action. Prohibitive vows are only effective on things and not on intangibles. However, a person can make a prohibitive vow on a part of his body, since parts of bodies are things. For instance one can say “Konam be my mouth to you”, but not “Konam be my speech to you”; mouths have substance but speech does not.
