פירוש על נדרים 1:3

לחולין שאוכל לך – The LAMED/ל has the vocalization of a PATACH, and it implies Something not unconsecrated will be what I will eat with you, but rather holy/sanctified.

If one says “Not-unconsecrated food shall I not eat from you”, “Not fit”, or “Not pure”, “Clean” or “Unclean”, “Remnant” or “Piggul he is bound [by his vow].
[If one says, “May it be to me], as the lamb”, “As the Temple pens”, “As the wood [on the altar]”, “As the fire [on the altar]”, “As the altar”, “As the Temple” or “As Jerusalem”; [or] if one vowed by reference to the altar utensils, even though he did not mention “korban”, behold this one was vowed by a korban.
Rabbi Judah said: He who says “Jerusalem” has said nothing.
The normal way of making a prohibitive vow is for a person to say that a certain something is like a sacrifice, a “korban”, which is forbidden to him. Our mishnah talks about various ways in which a person can make a valid vow without actually saying the word “korban”. As we could see in the first two mishnayoth of Nedarim, people were hesitant to actually say the word “korban” and hence looked for substitutes.
Section one: In this section a person says something which is interpreted to mean “That which I eat from you should be to me like x”, and the “x” is prohibited to him and therefore he has prohibited the food upon himself. There are seven examples.
1) “Not-unconsecrated food”, meaning the food should be to the one swearing as if it were consecrated like a sacrifice.
2) “Not fit” interpreted to mean, not fit for people to eat but rather fit for sacrifice on the altar.
3) “Not pure” your food shall not be pure and permitted for me to eat, but rather set aside for sacrifice on the altar.
4) “Clean” your food shall be pure, as is a sacrifice, and hence not permitted to me.
5) “Unclean” your food shall be considered unclean to me, but clean for sacrifice on the altar.
(6+7) “Remnant” or “Piggul” your food shall be prohibited to me as remnant (sacrificial meat which has been kept too long after being sacrificed and is forbidden), or piggul (sacrificial meat prohibited because it was sacrificed with the wrong intent). Since both of these are forbidden, the vow is effective.
Section two: In this section the person swearing states that food that belongs to another should be to him like something in the Temple. Although he doesn’t say that the food is like a “korban”, these statements are sufficient to make the vow valid. The examples are 1) a sacrificial lamb; 2) pens in the Temple used to store the sacrifices; 3) the wood used to fuel the fire on the altar; 4) the fire itself; 5) the altar itself; 6) the Temple; 7) Jerusalem, which could be interpreted to refer to the sacrifices eaten in Jerusalem. A vow formula may also employ any of the utensils used at the altar. In all of these cases, even though he did not say that the food would be like a “korban”, the vow is valid and binding.
According to Rabbi Judah, saying that food should be “Jerusalem” is not sufficient because he may be referring to other things in Jerusalem besides the Temple. As we shall learn in the next mishnah, Rabbi Judah also holds that in order for the vow to be valid he has to say “Like x”, and not just “x” itself. Since he did not say “like Jerusalem”, the vow is not valid.

לא כשר – it will be, but rather invalid. And these are Holy Things that are connected with things that are fit/appropriate and invalid/inappropriate.

לא דכי – not permitted, like a pure species of locust (see Tractate Eduyot, Chapter 8, Mishnah 4), in Tractate Avodah Zarah [37a – which is kosher, according to Rashi] and even though that the language of permitted and forbidden belongs also regarding a carrion that died of itself and an animal torn by a wild beast, but we hold that we don’t cause to take hold of it other than with something that is vowed or made as a free-will offering, for since there is an implication in “permitted” also in Holy Things, therefore it is taught in the Mishnah (Tractate Nedarim, Chapter 2, Mishnah 4): “Vows that are not spelled out are subject to a more stringent ruling,” for since it is his intention to cause to take hold of a vow, we state regarding a thing that is vowed he intended.

טהור – if he stated: “it is not pure what I eat of yours.”

טמא נותר פיגול – if he said: “it is impure what I eat of yours,” and similarly for all of them. It is forbidden, that all of these things that are engaged with the Holy Things.

כאימרא – like the lamb/young sheep of a Sacrifice.

כדירים – like the chamber of wood or like the chamber of lambs.

כעצים – like the pieces of wood of the pile of wood on he altar in the Temple.

כאישים – like the sacrifices that are upon the fire.

כמזבח – like the sacrifices that are upon the altar.

כהיכל – like the sacrifices that are in the hall of the golden altar.

כירושלים – like the sacrifices that are in Jerusalem. Another explanation: like the walls of Jeruslaem, for he holds that the walls of Jerusalem from the remnants of the chamber they have come.

באחד מכל משמשי המזבח (by one of the utensils used for the altar) – as, for example, the forks, bowls (out of which the sprinkling is done), coal-pans. If he said, “like the forks that I eat of yours,” or “like the bowls that I eat of yours,” and similarly for all of them, even though he didn’t mention [specifically], “sacrifice,” behold this is like making a vow for a sacrifice.

רבי יהודה אומר האומר ירושלים – without the “KAF/כ ,” he did not say anything. But the first Tanna/teacher disputes him. And the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Yehuda.