Można ślubować haragin, charamin i mochsin, że coś jest terumah, chociaż nie jest to terumah. ["haragin": rabusie, którzy zabijają ludzi i zabierają im pieniądze. „charamin”: złodzieje, którzy nie zabijają. Uczy się nas: „Nie tylko te (tj. Haragin), ale nawet te (tj. Charamin)”. „mochsin”: Odnosi się do samozwańczego mochess (poborcy podatkowego), ale jeśli został wyznaczony przez króla, czy to króla Izraela, czy nieżydowskiego króla, i bierze on ustaloną kwotę zgodnie z prawem królestwa, Prawo królestwa jest prawem ”i nie wolno uchylać się od podatku i, co oczywiste, składać mu przysięgi i przysięgać fałszywie. „że to jest terumah”: chociaż zabijają i kradną, nie jedzą zakazanego jedzenia. Albo może być tak, że terumah nie jest przez nich ceniona, jest zjadana tylko przez Cohanim w stanie czystości, tak że jest tanio sprzedawana.] (I można ślubować), że należy do pałacu, mimo że nie jest należą do pałacu. Beth Shammai mówią: Przy wszystkich (wyrażeniach) można ślubować, z wyjątkiem przysięgi. A Beth Hillel mówi: Nawet pod przysięgą. Beth Shammai mówi: Nie powinien otwierać go przysięgą. [Jeśli złodziej nie poprosił go o ślubowanie, nie powinien tego robić z własnej woli]. Beth Hillel mówi: Może nawet mu otworzyć. Beth Shammai mówią: Tym, co mu daje. [Jeśli złodziej prosi go o ślubowanie, powinien ślubować tylko w odniesieniu do tego, o co go poproszono, a nie w odniesieniu do czegoś innego.] A Beth Hillel mówi: Nawet jeśli chodzi o to, o co go nie proszono. Jak to? Gdyby mu powiedzieli: Powiedz: „Konam, moja żona korzysta ze mnie”, a on powiedział „Konam, moja żona i dzieci czerpią korzyści ze mnie”, Beth Shammai powiedzą: Jego żona jest dozwolona, a jego dzieci zabronione. I Beth Hillel mówi: Oba są dozwolone. [Przy wszystkich tych czterech ślubach naszej Miszny, prawa ślubów i przysięgi są takie same, co jest dozwolone w przypadku ślubów dozwolonych przysięgą. A rozgrzeszenie jest wymagane tylko w przypadku „ślubów pilnych , „Jest to zarządzenie uczonych w Piśmie, z tego powodu nie wolno im składać przysięgi].
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
להרגין – robbers that kill a person and take his money.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
Introduction
This mishnah discusses the second types of “forced vows”, those made under coercion. While all rabbis agree that one is allowed to make a false vow in order to protect oneself or one’s property, Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel disagree with regard to some of the details.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
ולחרמים – thieves that do not kill, and not only this, even that is taught (i.e., the cases in the Mishnah that are in descending order of demonstrability).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
One may vow to murderers, robbers, or tax collectors that it [the produce which they demand] is terumah, even if it is not; [or] that it belongs to the royal house, even if it does not. One is allowed to make a false vow that one’s produce is terumah in order to prevent it from being taken away. What is strange here is that the mishnah assumes that while someone might be willing to murder, rob or illegitimately collect taxes, he will not take terumah. Indeed, this is truly hard to imagine; after all, what worse crime is there than murder. Albeck explains that the terumah vow refers only to tax collectors, who would not collect taxes from terumah. He refers to Josephus who says that the Romans allowed terumah to be exempt from taxes. The second false vow referred to is stating that the property belongs to the king. Indeed, it is easier to imagine a murderer or robber fearing taking property that belongs to the king.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
ולמוכסין – a customs/tax collector that stands on his own. But a tax-collector that was appointed by the king (i.e., “the state”) whether the king is an Israelite or a non-Jew and takes a specified amount as the law of the kingdom, “the law of the land is the law,” and it is forbidden to flee from the tax-collector, and all the more so, that it is forbidden to take a vow or to swear to him a falsehood/lie.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
Beth Shammai says: one may make any form of vow, except an oath; But Beth Hillel says: even an oath. The mishnah now begins a series of debates between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel. Beth Shammai holds that since oaths are more consequential than vows, one may not make a false oath, even under this type of coercion. Beth Hillel says even false oaths may be made.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
שהן של תרומה – even though they kill and steal, we don’t eat something that is forbidden (other than to Kohanim). Alternatively, heave-offering is not important to them because it is not eaten other to pure Kohanim and is sold very cheaply.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
Beth Shammai says: he must not volunteer to vow; Beth Hillel says: he may do so. Beth Shammai says that one may not initiate taking the vow. If the murderer or robber did not ask the person to vow that the produce was terumah or belonged to the king, then he should not. Beth Hillel says even if not asked, he may take a vow.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
לא יפתח לו בנדר – if the violent man did not ask of him to take an oath, he should not begin with an oath.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Nedarim
Beth Shammai says: [he may vow] only as far as he makes him vow; Beth Hillel says: even in respect of what he does not make him vow. How so? If they said to him, say: “Konam be any benefit my wife has of me”, and he said, “Konam be any benefit my wife and children have of me,” (1) Beth Shammai says: his wife is permitted, but his children are forbidden; (2) Beth Hillel says: both are permitted. Beth Shammai says that the person should only vow exactly what was asked of him by the murderer/robber. If he, upon his own initiative, adds on to the vow, then that which he added has validity. Beth Hillel says he may add on, and just as his vow has no validity regarding that which the murderer/robber told to him to swear, so too the part he added has no validity.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Nedarim
כמה שהוא מדירו ([one takes a vow] only in the matter concerning which a vow is imposed) – if the violent man did not ash of hm to take a vow, he should not take a vow to him other than in what he asked alone, and not take a vow to him in another matter. And ll of these four vows that are taught in our Mishnah, the laws of vows and oaths are equal, but what is permissible in a vow is permissible in an oath and it doesn’t require a release, except for vows of incitement alone, that require release from the words of the Scribes, therefore, an oath is forbidden with them.
