„Korban, nie będę jadł od ciebie”, „Korban, jeśli zjem od ciebie”, „Nie korban, jeśli nie zjem od ciebie” —jest to dozwolone. [Albowiem jest to jak przysięganie na korbana (ofiarę), tj. „Do życia ofiarnego, jeśli coś od ciebie zjem”.] „Szewuah (przysięga), nie będę jadł od ciebie” [Nie będziemy jeść powiedzieć, że ma na myśli: „Przez życie przysięgi, tak jak to robimy z„ korbanem ”, ponieważ ponieważ przysięga nie ma treści, nie można powiedzieć:„ Przez życie przysięgi ”],„ Szewuah, jeśli ja jeść od ciebie ”[Czasami to kojarzy się z„ Nie będę jadł od ciebie ”. Tak jak wtedy, gdy jeden upomina swojego przyjaciela, aby jadł, a drugi mówi:„ Nie będę jadł, nie będę jadł ”, dodając:„ Szewuach, jeśli zjem od ciebie, "w takim przypadku oznacza to:" Nie będę jadł z ciebie ", a mianowicie:" Obym naruszał przysięgę, jeśli będę jadł od ciebie. "]," Nie szewu, jeśli nie jem od ciebie. "—to jest zabronione. To jest surowość przysięgi nad ślubami. [Nie możemy tego zrozumieć jako nawiązania do „Szewu, nie będę jadł od ciebie itp.” Ponieważ bowiem dowiedzieliśmy się: „To jest surowość itp.”, Implikacją jest to, że ślub zostaje spełniony, ale nie ma rygoru przysięgi. Ale „wolno” było nauczane w odniesieniu do „Korbanu, nie będę jadł od ciebie”, co wcale nie jest przysięgą. Dlatego musimy rozumieć to jako odniesienie do tego, czego dowiedzieliśmy się powyżej (2: 1): „Konam, że nie śpię, że nie jem” podlega określeniu „On nie może złamać swego słowa”, co było rozumiane jako zarządzenie rabiniczne, przysięga nie „brać” czegoś pozbawionego treści. I to jest surowość przysięgi wobec ślubów; bo przysięga „bierze” nawet z czymś nieistotnym.] I surowość ślubów nad przysięgami: Jak to? (Jeśli ktoś mówi :) „Konam”, jeśli zrobię succah, jeśli wezmę lulav, jeśli założę tefilin. Przy ślubach jest to zabronione; pod przysięgą jest to dozwolone, gdyż nie ma przysięgi w przestępstwie micwot. [Albowiem (przysięgając) ktoś sobie coś zakazuje, tak że nie ma pozoru przysięgi unieważnienia micwy; bo nie wziął tego na siebie, ale (po prostu) zabronił sobie tego przedmiotu. Tak więc, jeśli wypełnia micwę, jest to micwa wykonywana za pomocą występku. Jest to podobne do obowiązku jedzenia macy w noc Pesach i znajdowania tylko macy z tevel lub hekdesh, których spożywanie jest zabronione. Ale przy całej terminologii „szewuah” zabrania się sobie robienia czegoś. A ponieważ przykazano mu zrobić micwę, w żaden sposób nie może zwolnić się z tego obowiązku. A jeśli ktoś powiedział: „Korban na mnie, jeśli noszę tefilin”, ślubuje się i musi przynieść ofiarę, jeśli nosi tefilin.]
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.
