"Korban, I shall not eat from you," "Korban if I eat from you," "Not korban if I do not eat from you" — it is permitted. [For it is like swearing by the korban (the offering), i.e., "By the life of the offering if I eat something from you."] "Shevuah (an oath), I shall not eat from you" [We do not say that he means: "By the life of the oath, as we do with "korban," for since an oath has no substance, it is not possible to say: "By the life of the oath"], "Shevuah if I eat from you" [Sometimes this connotes "I shall not eat from you." As when one importunes his friend to eat, and the other says: "I shall not eat, I shall not eat," adding: "Shevuah if I eat from you," in which instance it connotes: "I shall not eat from you," viz.: "May I be in transgression of an oath if I eat from you."], "Not shevuah if I do not eat from you" — it is forbidden. This is a stringency of oaths over vows. [We cannot understand this as referring to "Shevuah, I shall not eat from you, etc." For since we learned: "This is a stringency, etc.," the implication is that a vow obtains, but that it does not have the stringency of an oath. But "it is permitted" was taught in respect to "Korban, I shall not eat from you," which is not a vow at all. Therefore, we must understand it as referring to what we learned above (2:1): "Konam that I not sleep, that I not eat" comes under "He may not break his word," which was understood as a rabbinic ordinance, a vow not "taking" with something lacking in substance. And this is a stringency of oaths over vows; for an oath "takes" even with something lacking in substance.] And a stringency of vows over oaths: How so? (If one says:) "Konam" if I make a succah, if I take a lulav, if I wear tefillin. With vows it is forbidden; with oaths it is permitted, for there is no oath in transgression of mitzvoth. [For (with oaths) one forbids a thing to himself, so that there is no appearance of vowing to void a mitzvah; for he did not take this upon himself, but (just) forbade the object to himself. So that if he fulfills the mitzvah, it is a mitzvah being performed by means of a transgression. This is similar to one's being obligated to eat matzoh on Pesach night and finding only matzoh of tevel or of hekdesh, which it is forbidden to eat. But with all "shevuah" terminology, one forbids himself to do a thing. And since he is commanded to do the mitzvah, he can in no way release himself from this obligation. And if one said: "A korban upon me if I wear tefillin," the vow takes, and he must bring an offering if he wears tefillin.]
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
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.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
Introduction
This mishnah compares vow formulas with oath formulas.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
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.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
[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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
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.”
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
[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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
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.
