Комментарий к Недарим 1:9

In the Gemara (Tractate Nedarim 2b), we maintain that our Mishnah is deficient and should be read as follows: all intimations/ידות (i.e., a term for words uttered by a person conveying a certain intention that can be understood from the context or from the general subject of the statement, although it is not clearly and explicitly expressed – are intimations regarded as explicit statements) of vows are like vows; all substitutes/כנויי for the language of vows (i.e., and it is obvious that he intended his statement to be a vow, his words assume that status) are like vows. Which are intimations of vows? A person who says to his fellow: “I am forbidden by vow from you,” “I am separated from you,” etc. Which are substitutions of vows? “A person who states (see Mishnah 2 of this chapter): קונם/Konam, קונח/Konakh, קונס/Konas, etc., (i.e., a specific type of vow whereby one prohibits himself from eating something or deriving benefit from something or someone by saying: “That person or object is to a KONAM;” the word KONAM is a substitute for the Hebrew word for offering/קרבן – and is used in order to avoid uttering that word). The intimations of vows/ידות נדרים are like the handle of a utensil that one holds it by, so are intimations of vows by which vows are held. Substitutes for vows, like [Tractate Bava Metzia 58b] when one calls his neighbor by a nickname which is not the essence of the name [of that person].

Introduction Nedarim begins by clarifying the validity of substitute words used for vows. Also mentioned in this mishnah are different types of vows, all of which are mentioned in the Torah. The second part of the mishnah deals with the validity of certain statements as oaths.

מודר אני ממך – if he said one of these linguistic formulations: “I am forbidden by vow from you that I don’t eat your [food], or/and I taste your [food],” or “I am separated from you that I don’t eat your [food], or/and if I taste your [food],” or “I am distanced from you that I don’t eat your [food] or/and I don’t taste your [food],” this is an intimation of vows and it is forbidden to eat or to taste with him. But if he said to him: “I am forbidden by vow” alone, there is no implication in his words other than he doesn’t speak with him. And “I am separated from you” alone, implies that he will not engage in business with him, and “I am distanced from you” alone, implies that he will not sit within his four cubits, and does not prohibit eating with him unless he specified and stated with one of these linguistic formulations, “that I don’t eat [food] with you,” or “I don’t taste anything with you.”

All the substitutes for vows have the validity of vows. Those for haramim have the validity of haramim, And those for oaths have the validity of oaths, And those for nazirite [vows] have the validity of nazirite [vows]. A substitute formula is just as effective at making a vow as is a regular vow formula. The mishnah lists several types of vows for which this is true. The first is a “neder”. The second is a “herem” (see Leviticus 27:28). The third is an oath (shevuah). The fourth are nazirite vows.

רבי עקיבא היה חוכך וכו' (had some hesitation about deciding in favor of greater stringency) – meaning to say, rubbed/scratched his lips on against the other, but did not want to forbid explicitly, but it had appeared from his temperament/mind that it was forbidden.

If one says to his fellow, “I am forbidden from you by a vow”; “I am separated from you”; “I am distanced from you”, “that I should eat from yours”, “that I should taste from yours”, he is prohibited. These are all valid vow formulas, even though he doesn’t formally say that the thing which he is forbidding upon himself would be like a sacrifice. In other words, a full formula would be “All of your food is like a sacrifice to me”. Instead he says one of the formulas in section 2, combined with one of the ones in section 2a and thus forms a vow. For instance he says, “I am forbidden from you by a vow that I should eat from yours”. Or “I am distanced from you that I should taste from yours”. In all such cases it is forbidden for the one taking a vow to subsequently eat from the other person’s food.

כנדרי רשעים נדר בנזיר ובקרבן ובשבועה – if he said: “May this be upon me like the vows of wicked people whose vows in the case of a Nazir or in bringing a sacrifice or in taking of an oath if I eat this loaf, and he transgressed and ate it, he is liable to become a Nazir for thity days and to bring a sacrifice of a burnt offering and would liable for flogging/stripes like one who transgresses an oath on a statement (i.e., an oath taken by a person to reinforce a promise or an obligation or o confirm he veracity of a story –he brings a sacrifice based upon his financial situation/קרבן עולה ויורד ) because he mentioned in his oath the Nazir, and/or a sacrifice and/or an oath. But when he stated, “like the vows of the wicked,” since he wicked are those who make vows and take oaths, not the suitable people, for he suitable ones fear not to transgress (Deuteronomy 23:22): “[When you make a vow to the LORD your God,] do not put off fulfilling it, [for the LORD your God will require it of you, and you will have incurred guilt],” and they (i.e., the suitable/appropriate people) are warned not to bring forth an oath from their lips, and therefore “like the vows of the suitable/appropriate [people],” he has said nothing whatsoever.

If he says: “I am banned to you”, Rabbi Akiba was inclined to rule stringently. This case is more questionable, whether the vow formula is valid. Rabbi Akiba rules that it is, but even he seems uncertain about his ruling.

וכנדבותם נדר נזיר ובקרבן (as their free-will offerings – he has made a binding vow in the case of a Nazir or in the case of bringing an offering) – if he said, “like the free-will offerings of the suitable/appropriate [people], I will be a Nazir or this is an offering if I eat this loaf,” and he consumed it, he is liable regarding becoming a Nazir, or in bringing a sacrifice, for the suitable/appropriate people sometimes make vows of becoming a Nazir in order to separate from prohibition. But when they make a free-will donation of a sacrifice that they bring their offering to the entrance of the Temple courtyard and sanctify it there in order that they will now come through it as a hindrance/stumbling-block. And the free-will offering is when he says, “May this be,” or “A vow be upon me.” Therefore, the worthy people make a free-will offering but do not make a vow, in order that one may not be led to commit an offernse through it.

[If one says] “As the vows of the wicked”, he has vowed in respect of being a nazirite, or a sacrifice, or an oath. [If he says] “As the vows of the fit”, he has said nothing. [But if he said] “As their freewill-offerings” he has vowed in respect of being nazirite and a sacrifice. If he says a regular vow formula and then tacks on at the end the words, “As the vows of the wicked” his vow is valid, whether it be a vow, a nazirite vow or an oath. Alternatively, there might be a nazirite walking by him and he says, “Behold I am like the vows of the wicked”, he is a nazirite. Or if he says, “Like the vows of the wicked I shall not eat from you”, he can’t eat from the person’s food. We can see here that vows are viewed negatively and those who vow frequently are considered to be wicked. However, if he says, “As the vows of the fit” his formula is not valid, since people who are “fit”, do not frequently make vows. We can certainly sense here that part of the intent of this mishnah is to relate a negative message about taking frequent vows. However, if he says, “like their free-will offerings”, then his vow is valid, because fit people do make vows to bring free-will offerings.

קונם קונח קונס הרי אלו כנויין לקרבן – these are the languages of non-Jews, and there are from them one who calls for a certain sacrifice, and there is one wo calls such, and in every language when he states from these [forms of language] he causes to take hold of a sacrifice.

Introduction This mishnah continues to discuss the various substitutes for vows. All of the cases here are words that sound like the normal word used for taking a vow, or a typical substitute. Interestingly, there is a debate in the Talmud over the source of these substitutes. R. Yochanan says that their source is the language of the Gentiles and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says that the Sages invented them so that people would not actually say the real word.

נדר במותא – meaning to say that he took an oath to curse, which is a substitute of an oath/imprecation, and it is a an oath in the language of an Aramaic translation

One who says, “konam” “qonah” or “qonas”: these are the substitutes for korban. The normal substitute for “korban”, a sacrifice is “konam”. Our mishnah lists substitutes for “konam”. All are valid as vows.

“Herek” “herech” or “heref,” these are substitutes for herem. All of these are words that have just been slightly changed from the real word “herem” which we already saw in yesterday’s mishnah.

“Nazik” “naziah” “paziah” these are substitutes for nazirite vows. All of these are slight modifications of the word “nazir”, the Hebrew for nazirite.

“Shevuthah” “shekukah” or one who vows with the word “mota” these are substitutes for shevuah (an. The first two are slight modifications of “shevuah”, an oath. “Mota” is a modification of the Aramaic word, “momta”, which means oath. In all of these cases the substitution is effective.

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.

האומר קרבן עולה מנחה חטאת תודה ושלמים – all of hese are obligatory sacrifices, and the thanksgiving-offering also is similar to an obligation, for four require givng thanks, but you might think I would say that this one takes a vow in something that is the legitimate subject of a vow.

Introduction The first three sections of this mishnah teach that instead of stating “korban” a person can name different types of sacrifices and his vow will still be effective. The final section of the mishnah teaches that a person can make parts of his body forbidden to other people.

ורבי יהודה מתיר – because they were said without the "כ"/KAF they are compared to someone who took an oath regarding the life of the burnt offering, and thee isn’t here either a vow nor an oath. But the first clause [of the Mishnah] teaches us that the first Tanna/teacher disputes that of Rabbi Yehuda, even regarding Jerusalem if he mentioned it without the "כ"/KAF and stated that it is a vow. But the concluding clause [of the Mishnah] comes to inform us that Rabbi Yehuda disputes that [opinion] of the first Tanna/Teacher, even with a sacrifice of a burnt-offering, etc., when he mentioned them without a "כ" /KAF – for it is not a vow.

If one says “A korban”, “A wholly burnt-offering”, “A meal-offering”, “A sin-offering”, “A thanksgiving-offering”, “A peace-offering, should be that which I eat from you” he is bound [by his vow]. Rabbi Judah permitted [him]. In this section, instead of just stating “korban”, the person vowing names other types of sacrifices. The mishnah teaches that these are equally effective in forming vows. Rabbi Judah holds that since he didn’t say “like a …”, the vow is not valid.

קרבן הקרבו כקרבן שאוכל לך אסור (May what I eat of yours be the Korban” “like the Korban,” [By] a Korban [do I vow] be what I eat with you, he is bound) – even though we we heard all of them already, “the KORBAN” is required for it, for you might I would say that he says, “By the life of the KORBAN.” But surely it is taught in the Mishnah further on in Chapter 2 [Mishnah 2], “Korban” be what I eat with you,” he is not bound, there it is speaking of a KORBAN/sacrifice, which implies the life of the Korban.

[If he says] “The korban”, “like a korban”, “korban”, should be that which I eat from you he is bound [by his vow]. All of these ways of phrasing a vow are also valid.

לקרבן אל אוכל לך רבי מאיר אוסר (for a KORBAN shall be what I eat with you) – that it is made like saying, “it shall be like a sacrifice,” therefore, I will not eat with you. But the Halakha is not according to Rabbi Meir.

If he says, “That which I shall not eat of yours should be a korban”, Rabbi Meir forbids [him]. In this case the person adds an additional negative to his statement. Instead of saying “that which I eat from you should be a korban”, he says “that which I shall not eat…”. Hence we might have interpreted the vow to meant that that which he doesn’t eat should be a korban, but that which he does eat should be permissible. Nevertheless Rabbi Meir rules that it is a valid vow, for the statement could also be interpreted to mean, “Your food is a korban to me, therefore I shall not eat from yours.”

קונם פי מדבר עמך – but even though that the vows do not take effect on a matter lacking substance, and speech has no substance in it, nevertheless, when he says, “KONAM be my mouth with speaks to you,” he prohibits his mouth from speaking, and his mouth spoke something that has substance. And similarly, “my hands be forbidden from their actions,” and/or “my feet from their walking,” and all similar things to this.

If one says to his fellow, “Konam be my mouth which speaks with you”, “My hands which work for you” [or] “My feet which walk with you,’ he is forbidden. In these cases instead of stating that a certain object shall be prohibited, the person states that a certain part of his body shall not do something for his friend. Now usually one cannot make a prohibitive vow on an action. Prohibitive vows are only effective on things and not on intangibles. However, a person can make a prohibitive vow on a part of his body, since parts of bodies are things. For instance one can say “Konam be my mouth to you”, but not “Konam be my speech to you”; mouths have substance but speech does not.