Nedarim 2

וְאֵלּוּ מֻתָּרִין. חֻלִּין שֶׁאֹכַל לָךְ, כִּבְשַׂר חֲזִיר, כַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, כְּעוֹרוֹת לְבוּבִין, כִּנְבֵלוֹת, כִּטְרֵפוֹת, כִּשְׁקָצִים, כִּרְמָשִׂים, כְּחַלַּת אַהֲרֹן וְכִתְרוּמָתוֹ, מֻתָּר. הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, הֲרֵי אַתְּ עָלַי כְּאִמָּא, פּוֹתְחִין לוֹ פֶתַח מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר, שֶׁלֹּא יָקֵל רֹאשׁוֹ לְכָךְ. קוֹנָם שֶׁאֵינִי יָשֵׁן, שֶׁאֵינִי מְדַבֵּר, שֶׁאֵינִי מְהַלֵּךְ, הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, קוֹנָם שֶׁאֵינִי מְשַׁמְּשֵׁךְ, הֲרֵי זֶה בְלֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵינִי יָשֵׁן, שֶׁאֵינִי מְדַבֵּר, שֶׁאֵינִי מְהַלֵּךְ, אָסוּר:

And these are permitted: (Let it be as) "chullin (non-consecrated food), what I eat from you." [(This is simply a sign, viz.: Just as "Chullin, what I eat from you" does not require consultation of a sage (for absolution), so all of these mentioned in the first part of our Mishnah do not require consultation of a sage.)], "As the flesh of pig," "As idolatry," "As the hides of levuvin" [They would incise the beast around the heart while it was still alive, take out the heart, and offer it to idolatry, and it is not permitted to derive benefit from idolatrous offerings.], "As neveiloth" (carcass), "As treifoth" (organically defective animals), "As shekatzim and remasim" (forbidden animals and reptiles), "As the challah of Aaron" [the first of the Cohanim] and as his terumah [Challah is not "a thing that is vowed," challah and terumah not coming through vow and gift.] — these are permitted [For Scripture states (Numbers 30:3): "A man, if he vow a vow" — (The forsworn object does not become forbidden to him) unless he vows (to abjure it) against something which is itself vowed (and not forbidden by its very nature). As to (1:4): "A sin-offering, that I not eat from you," which is forbidden, even though it (a sin-offering) is not a thing that is vowed, there (the reason is that) it is possible to make oneself liable for a sin-offering as the result of a vow, as when one takes a Nazirite vow and becomes liable for a sin-offering.] If one says to his wife: "You are (forbidden) to me as my mother" [Even though this is not "something that is vowed," it is more stringent than all of those mentioned above, requiring absolution by the rabbis if he is an am ha'aretz (unlearned)], an opening is provided for him from "elsewhere" [i.e., an opening and a "rationale" is provided for his recantation, it not sufficing that he be asked "Do you regret it now?" or "Do you still feel the same?" (all this,) so that he not treat the matter lightly (and not become accustomed to forbidding his wife to himself.)] "Konam" that I not sleep, that I not speak, that I not walk, [he may not break his word. This, by rabbinical ordinance; for, by Torah law such a vow does not "take," vows taking only with matters of "substance"]; if one says to his wife: "Konem that I not cohabit with you," he comes under (Numbers 30:3): "He may not break his word." [The gemara asks: Is he not obliged to (cohabit with) her? How can he release himself from this obligation through his vow? This is comparable to one's forbidding his friend's fruit to his friend! And the gemara answers: (It obtains) when he says: "The pleasure of cohabiting with you is konam to me," where he forbids the pleasure to himself; and a man may not be fed what is forbidden to him.] (If he says;) "An oath" that I not sleep, that I not speak, that I not walk — it is forbidden. [It is forbidden by Torah law; for oaths "take" both with things of substance and with things lacking substance. And if he swears that he will not sleep three days in a row, day and night, he receives stripes and sleeps immediately, having sworn to do the impossible.]

קָרְבָּן לֹא אֹכַל לָךְ, קָרְבָּן שֶׁאֹכַל לָךְ, לֹא קָרְבָּן לֹא אֹכַל לָךְ, מֻתָּר. שְׁבוּעָה לֹא אֹכַל לָךְ, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֹכַל לָךְ, לֹא שְׁבוּעָה לֹא אֹכַל לָךְ, אָסוּר. זֶה חֹמֶר בַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת מִבַּנְּדָרִים. וְחֹמֶר בַּנְּדָרִים מִבַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת, כֵּיצַד, אָמַר, קוֹנָם סֻכָּה שֶׁאֲנִי עוֹשֶׂה, לוּלָב שֶׁאֲנִי נוֹטֵל, תְּפִלִּין שֶׁאֲנִי מֵנִיחַ, בַּנְּדָרִים אָסוּר, בַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת מֻתָּר, שֶׁאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין לַעֲבֹר עַל הַמִּצְוֹת:

"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.]

יֵשׁ נֶדֶר בְּתוֹךְ נֶדֶר, וְאֵין שְׁבוּעָה בְּתוֹךְ שְׁבוּעָה. כֵּיצַד, אָמַר הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר אִם אֹכַל, הֲרֵינִי נָזִיר אִם אֹכַל, וְאָכַל, חַיָּב עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אֹכַל, וְאָכַל, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא אֶחָת:

There is a vow within a vow, but there is no oath within an oath. How so? If he said: "I shall be a Nazirite if I eat; I shall be a Nazirite if I eat," he is liable for each vow. (If he said:) "I swear I shall not eat; I swear I shall not eat," and he ate, he is liable only for one. [He becomes a Nazirite for thirty days if he said: "I shall be a Nazirite," unqualified. And he brings the Nazirite offering, and again becomes a Nazirite according to the number of times that he vowed. And with an oath, he is liable only for one, receiving stripes only once. But if he gains absolution for the first oath, the second stands. And, similarly, if he gains absolution for the second oath, the third stands; and he is not permitted to eat until he is absolved of all. For we did not learn: "It is one oath," but: "He is liable only for one."]

סְתָם נְדָרִים לְהַחְמִיר, וּפֵרוּשָׁם לְהָקֵל. כֵּיצַד, אָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי כְּבָשָׂר מָלִיחַ, כְּיֵין נֶסֶךְ, אִם שֶׁל שָׁמַיִם נָדַר, אָסוּר. אִם שֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה נָדַר, מֻתָּר. וְאִם סְתָם, אָסוּר. הֲרֵי עָלַי כְּחֵרֶם, אִם כְּחֵרֶם שֶׁל שָׁמַיִם, אָסוּר. וְאִם כְּחֵרֶם שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים, מֻתָּר. וְאִם סְתָם, אָסוּר. הֲרֵי עָלַי כְּמַעֲשֵׂר, אִם כְּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה נָדַר, אָסוּר. וְאִם שֶׁל גֹּרֶן, מֻתָּר. וְאִם סְתָם, אָסוּר. הֲרֵי עָלַי כִּתְרוּמָה, אִם כִּתְרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה נָדַר, אָסוּר. וְאִם שֶׁל גֹּרֶן, מֻתָּר. וְאִם סְתָם, אָסוּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, סְתָם תְּרוּמָה בִּיהוּדָה אֲסוּרָה, בַּגָּלִיל מֻתֶּרֶת, שֶׁאֵין אַנְשֵׁי גָלִיל מַכִּירִין אֶת תְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. סְתָם חֲרָמִים, בִּיהוּדָה מֻתָּרִין, וּבַגָּלִיל אֲסוּרִין, שֶׁאֵין אַנְשֵׁי גָלִיל מַכִּירִין אֶת חֶרְמֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים:

Unqualified vows follow the stringent option, and their qualification, the lenient one. [Even though, when he explains himself, we follow his explanation, if he vows without qualification, we follow the stringent option; for, generally, when one vows, his intent is to forbid.] How so? If one said: "Let that thing be (forbidden) to me as salted meat," [an offering, viz. (Leviticus 2:13): "With all your offerings shall you offer salt"], "as wine libation" — if he vowed intending (the offering) of Heaven, it is forbidden; if that of idolatry, it is permitted. And if he vowed without qualification, it is forbidden. (If he said:) "Let it be to me as cherem" (dedicated property) — If as the cherem of Heaven, it is forbidden; if as the cherem of the Cohanim, it is permitted. [Even though the cherem of Cohanim is subject to mei'lah (abuse of sacred property) before it is taken by the Cohanim, so that it is like "a thing that is vowed," still, "the cherem of the Cohanim" unqualified connotes the Cohein's having taken it.] "Let it be to me as ma'aser" (the tithe) — If as the tithe of beasts, it is forbidden; and if as that of the threshing floor, it is permitted. [For it (the beast tithe) is as "something which is vowed," for he must dedicate it, and the (non-separation of the) beast tithe does not forbid the cattle shed as the (non-separation of the) grain-tithe forbids the threshing floor.] And if he vowed without qualification, it is forbidden. "Let it be to me as terumah" — If as the terumah of the lishkah (the Temple treasury for congregational sacrifices), it is forbidden; and if as that of the threshing floor, it is permitted. And if he vowed without qualification, it is forbidden. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yehudah says: If he stated "terumah," unqualified, in Judah it is forbidden; in the Galil, it is permitted, for the men of the Galil are not familiar with the terumah of the lishkah [for they were far from Jerusalem.] "Charamim" (dedications), unqualified — in Judah they are permitted, and in the Galil, they are forbidden, for the men of the Galil are not familiar with the charamim of the Cohanim [and all of their charamim would go towards bedek habayit (Temple repair). The halachah is in accordance with R. Yehudah.]

נָדַר בְּחֵרֶם וְאָמַר, לֹא נָדַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בְחֶרְמוֹ שֶׁל יָם. בְּקָרְבָּן, וְאָמַר, לֹא נָדַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בְקָרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁל מְלָכִים. הֲרֵי עַצְמִי קָרְבָּן, וְאָמַר, לֹא נָדַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בְעֶצֶם שֶׁהִנַּחְתִּי לִי לִהְיוֹת נוֹדֵר בּוֹ. קוֹנָם אִשְׁתִּי נֶהֱנֵית לִי, וְאָמַר לֹא נָדַרְתִּי אֶלָּא בְאִשְׁתִּי הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁגֵּרַשְׁתִּי, עַל כֻּלָּן אֵין נִשְׁאָלִים לָהֶם. וְאִם נִשְׁאֲלוּ, עוֹנְשִׁין אוֹתָן וּמַחְמִירִין עֲלֵיהֶן, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, פּוֹתְחִין לָהֶם פֶּתַח מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר, וּמְלַמְּדִים אוֹתָן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יִנְהֲגוּ קַלּוּת רֹאשׁ בַּנְּדָרִים:

If he vowed by "cherem," and said: "I intended the 'cherem' (net) of the sea ["metzodah" (a net), as in (Koheleth 7:26): "metzodim vacharamim"]; by "korban," and he said: "I intended the korbanoth (gifts) of kings,"; "'Atzmi' (generally, "myself") korban," [If he forbade himself as a "korban" to his friend], and he said: "I only vowed by the bone (etzem) which I had set aside for vowing" (to deceive others); "Konam, my wife from deriving benefit from me," and he said: "I intended only my first wife, whom I had divorced" — with all of these there is no consultation [A sage is not consulted (for absolution), for these vows do not "take."] And if there were consultation [i.e., if such a vow were made by an am ha'aretz, and he came (to a sage) for absolution, he is punished and treated with severity. [He is not granted absolution, and if he transgressed this vow, he is ostracized.] These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: An opening (for absolution) is opened to them from "elsewhere," and they are taught, so as not to treat vows lightly. [He is shown that the vow takes effect, and they provide him with an opening for absolution from "elsewhere," but they do not punish him and treat him with severity. And this is the halachah.]