🤝 Mishnah Nedarim 2

Chapter 2 of Mishnah Nedarim

Verses: 5

Verses

Verse 1

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 the vows in which the one who takes the vow attempts to create a prohibition on an item by associating it with an item in an ineffective manner, rendering the vow void and leaving the item permitted: If one says: That which I will eat of yours will be non-sacred [ḥullin]; or: That which I will eat of yours will be like pig meat; or: Like an object of idol worship; or: Like the hides of animal offerings whose hearts were removed as a form of idol worship, and it is therefore prohibited to derive benefit from those animals; or: Like animal carcasses and animals with a wound that will cause them to die within twelve months [tereifot]; or: Like non-kosher repugnant creatures and non-kosher creeping animals; or: Like the ḥalla of Aaron, the first priest, or like his teruma; in all these cases, the food is permitted. Although none of these items may be eaten, they are forbidden by Torah law, not by means of a vow. Therefore, it is impossible to extend their prohibition to other items by means of a vow that associates them with those items. With regard to a man who says to his wife: You are hereby to me like my mother, i.e., deriving benefit from you should be forbidden to me like engaging in sexual intercourse with my mother, dissolution is broached with him by suggesting a different extenuation, i.e., a halakhic authority suggests other, extenuating circumstances that enable the dissolution of the vow. Although this vow does not take effect either, as engaging in sexual intercourse with one’s mother is prohibited by Torah law, by rabbinic law this is treated like an actual vow and requires dissolution by a halakhic authority, so that he will not take genuine vows lightly. With regard to one who says: Sleeping is forbidden for me as if it were an offering [konam], thereby prohibiting himself from sleeping; or: Speaking is konam for me; or: Walking is konam for me; or one who says to his wife: Engaging in sexual intercourse with you is konam for me, if he violates the vow he is in violation of the prohibition “He shall not profane his word” (Numbers 30:3). If one says: I take an oath that I will not sleep, or: That I will not speak, or: That I will not walk, this activity is prohibited to him.

Verse 2

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:

As taught earlier (10a), one of the primary methods of taking a vow is by invoking an offering. The mishna provides several examples where invoking the term korban is not effective. If one says: An offering [korban] that I will not eat of yours, or: This offering [ha korban] that I will eat of yours, or: That which I will not eat of yours is not an offering [la korban], the food is permitted. If one says: An oath that I will not eat of yours, or: This is an oath that I will eat of yours [she’okhal lekha], or: Not an oath that I will not eat of yours, the food is forbidden. This rule, that oaths can render actions, which do not have actual substance, either prohibited or obligatory, is a stringency of oaths vis-à-vis vows, which do not take effect with regard to matters that do not have actual substance. And there is also a stringency of vows vis-à-vis oaths. How so? With regard to one who said: Making a sukka is konam for me, or: Taking a lulav is konam for me, or: Donning phylacteries is konam for me, in the case of vows, the items are rendered forbidden, and he may not perform the mitzva until the vow is dissolved. However, in the case of similar oaths, these items are permitted, as one cannot take an oath to transgress the mitzvot.

Verse 3

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. It is possible to impose an additional prohibition, by means of a vow, on an item that is already forbidden by means of a vow. But there is no oath within an oath. If one takes an oath twice with regard to the same action, the second oath does not take effect. How so? If one said: I am hereby a nazirite if I eat, and then repeated: I am hereby a nazirite if I eat, and then he ate, he is obligated to observe naziriteship for thirty days for each and every one of the vows, as both vows took effect. However, if he said: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat, and repeated: I hereby take an oath that I will not eat, and then he ate, he is liable to bring an offering for only one violation of an oath.

Verse 4

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:

Unspecified vows are treated stringently, but their specification, if specification is necessary, is treated leniently. How so? If one said: This item is prohibited to me like salted meat, or: This item is prohibited to me like the wine used for libations, if he vowed in reference to meat or libations of a peace-offering, i.e., if he claimed that his intention was that the item will be forbidden to him like the salted meat of an offering, or like wine that is used for libations on the altar, it is forbidden, as he associated the item of the vow with an item forbidden by means of a vow, i.e., the offering. If he claims that he vowed in reference to meat or libations of idol worship, i.e., that the item will be like the salted meat of an offering for an idol, or like wine that is used for libations as idol worship, it is permitted, as the item of the vow was associated with an item forbidden by the Torah. By enabling the one who took the vow to later clarify his intent, the vow is treated leniently. And if the vow was without specification, i.e., the one who took the vow did not specify whether his intention was to associate the item with an offering for Heaven or to associate the item with idol worship, it is forbidden. Similarly, if one said: This item is hereby forbidden to me like an item dedicated to the Temple, if his intention was that it would be like a dedication to Heaven, which is a form of consecration, it is forbidden. And if his intention was that it would be like a dedication to priests, whereby one pledges his asset as a gift to priests, it is permitted, as this type of gift is not forbidden at all. And if he said it without specification, it is forbidden. Likewise, if he said: This item is hereby forbidden to me like tithes, if he took a vow with the intention that it would be like the animal tithe, it is forbidden, as the item of the vow was associated with an item forbidden by a vow. And if his intention was that it will be like the tithe of the granary, i.e., grain that is given to the Levites and has no sanctity, it is permitted. And if he said it without specification, it is forbidden. Similarly, if he said: This item is hereby forbidden to me like teruma, if he took a vow with the intention that it would be like the collection of the Temple treasury chamber [terumat halishka], which is a tax for the communal offerings, it is forbidden, his vow was associated with an item forbidden by a vow. And if his intention was that it would be like teruma of the granary that is given to the priests, it is permitted, as teruma is not an item forbidden by a vow. And if the vow was taken without specification, it is forbidden. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: Unspecified teruma in Judea is forbidden. However, in the Galilee it is permitted, as the people of the Galilee are unfamiliar with the collection of the chamber. When they say teruma they are referring to the teruma allotted to the priests, which is familiar to them. Conversely, unspecified dedications in Judea are permitted, but in the Galilee they are forbidden, as the people of the Galilee are unfamiliar with dedications allotted to the priests, so when they say dedication they are referring to dedication to Heaven.

Verse 5

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:

One who took a vow by associating an item with a dedication [ḥerem], saying: This item is hereby forbidden to me like an item dedicated to the Temple, and then said: I took a vow only with the intention that it would be like a sea net [ḥermo shel yam] that is used to catch fish; or one who took a vow by associating an item with an offering, and then said: I took a vow only with reference to offerings to kings, i.e., a gift for a king, not an offering to God. Or one who said: I am hereby an offering myself [atzmi], and then said: I took a vow only with reference to a bone [etzem] that I set aside for myself to vow with, as atzmi means both myself and my bone, i.e., he set aside a bone so as to pretend to take a vow upon himself; or one who said: Deriving benefit from me is konam for my wife, and then said: I took a vow only with regard to my first wife whom I divorced, not with regard to my current wife. For all of the above vows, those who took them do not need to request of a halakhic authority to dissolve them, as the speaker interpreted the vows in a manner that caused them not to take effect at all. However, if they requested dissolution, apparently due to their being uncertain of their explanations, the court punishes them and treats them stringently and the vows are not dissolved. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: These vows are not treated stringently. Rather, dissolution is broached with them by suggesting a different extenuation, i.e., the halakhic authority suggests extenuating circumstances that undermine the vow but do not pertain to its wording. And we teach them that they should not take this kind of vow in the future, in order that they will not take vows lightly.