MISHNAH: The following vows are permitted: Profane I would eat with you; like pork that what I would eat from you is like pork, he would be forbidden since he referred to the sacrifice. , like idolatry, like carcasses. 14:21 . , like meat from a torn animal. 22:30 . , like abominations. 11:29 ff. , like crawling things. 9:3 . , like Aaron’s ḥallah and his heave, the heave from dough, are holy. Sacrifices can only be brought from sources that are profane before dedication. Therefore, heave and ḥallah cannot become sacrifices. As long as the person making the vow does not mention qorbān or any of its substitutes, there is no vow. , are permitted. One who says to his wife, you are for me like my mother 5:6 ). (Cf. Qor‘an 58:2.) , one finds for him an opening from another place that he should not be flippant about this. A qônām that I shall not sleep, that I shall not speak, that I shall not walk, or one who says to his wife, a qônām that I shall not sleep with you, he is under the obligation. 30:3 . As long as qorbān or one of its substitutes is not mentioned, sleeping, speaking, and walking are all immaterial and there really is no vow. But since there was intent to make a vow, the verse may be applied (at least by rabbinic standards). “he shall not profanate his word.” An oath that I shall not sleep, that I shall not speak, that I shall not walk, he is forbidden.
HALAKHAH: “The following vows are permitted,” etc. “To the Eternal. 30.3 . ”, nobody can forbid anything on himself unless it could be given to the Eternal In the language of the Babli, 14a , “there is no vow unless it relates to something that can be vowed.” A lenghty paraphrase in Sifry Num . 153. . What is stated in the House of Rav disagrees: “From where that one may not make and dissolve vows which are dissolved for you from Heaven but people consider them as binding? The verse says. 30.3 . , ‘he shall not profanate his word.’ He should not make his words profane.” They wanted to say, for example using “ qorbān ” or “oath”; but in all other respects it would be permitted. It comes to tell you, also all other respects. “To prohibit a prohibition on himself. 30.3 . ”. There are Tannaїm who state: on himself, not on others. There are Tannaїm who state: even on others. They wanted to say that he who says on himself, not on others, to forbid others’ property. 153 one reads: “‘To prohibit a prohibition on himself’, he prohibits for himself but not for others.” This is opposed to both Talmudim. , but he who says even on others, to forbid his own property for others, but not the property of others for himself.
“One who says to his wife, you are for me like my mother”. Your cohabitation is for me like cohabitation with my mother, like my mother’s flesh; he did not say anything. If he said, this loaf is for me like cohabitation with my mother, what? Let us hear from the following: A qônām that I shall not sleep with you, Rav says, he is forbidden, Samuel says he is permitted. How does Samuel uphold “he shall not profanate his word”? As if he shall not profanate his word. Rav sticks with his opinion: The Tannaїm in the House of Rav disagree: “From where that one may not make and dissolve vows which are dissolved for you from Heaven but people consider them as binding? The verse says. 30.3 . , ‘he shall not profanate his word.’ He should not make his words profane.”
“An oath that I shall not sleep for three days,” one whips him and he can sleep immediately. “An oath that I shall not eat for three days,” one waits until he eats and then whips him.
MISHNAH: Qorbān [shall be] what I shall not eat at your place, or qorbān [shall be] what I shall eat from you or any other substitute would be valid and the person making the vow would be forbidden to eat from the other person since then the intent would be clear. It is only the use of the word which refers directly to sacrifice which makes the vow invalid. , no qorbān [shall be] what I shall not eat from you; he is permitted. An oath that I shall not eat at your place, an oath that I shall eat from you, no oath that I shall not eat from you; he is forbidden. That is more restrictive for oaths than for vows. What is more restrictive for vows than for oaths? If he said qônām that I shall not make a sukkah . 23:42 . The hut must at least get a new roof each year, Mishnah Sukkah 1:1 . , that I shall not take a lulab . 23:40 , the palm branch of the “4 kinds”. , that I shall not put on phylacteries. 13:9 , 16 . , as a vow he is forbidden, as an oath he is permitted since one cannot swear to transgress commandments II, 12–15; Damascus Document CD XIV 9. .
HALAKHAH: “ Qorbān [shall be] what I shall not eat at your place,” etc. Why did we not state: An oath that I shall eat from you, he is permitted? Only because we stated: “That is more restrictive for oaths than for vows.” We wanted to say about “an oath that I shall not eat of yours,” that the words of the Sages are: he is forbidden. Therefore it was not stated.
“That is a sacrifice, that is for a sacrifice, that is like a sacrifice,” is permitted. “That is an oath, that is for an oath, that is like an oath,” is forbidden is stated alone or modified by one of the inseparable prepositions. In the Babli, 15a , it is held that R. Meїr would not accept this statement since he holds that לַקָּרְבָּן might be understood as a negation לָא קָרְבָּן = לָקָרְבָּן. .
“That is more restrictive for oaths than for vows. What is more restrictive for vows than for oaths?” “Or a person who swears to lightly express with his lips for bad or for good. 5:4 . .” Just as doing good is a matter of choice, so doing bad is a matter of choice; that excludes any prohibition which is a commandment. They wanted to say, inadvertently, but not intentionally. It was found stated: Rebbi Ismael says, “ anything that comes out of his mouth he shall do,. 30:3 . In the Babli, this verse frees him from the sin of not keeping his vow. In the Yerushalmi, it extends the rule to any oath, including an intentional one. ” not what comes out of Heaven’s mouth. Should we say that this is the same for vows of sanctification? Rebbi Yose in the name of Rebbi Hila: For a man may vow his sukkah to Heaven 7:2 : Anything whatsoever can be vowed to support the Temple. .
MISHNAH: A vow inside a vow is possible, an oath inside an oath is impossible. For example, if one said, I shall be a nazir if I would eat, I shall be a nazir if I would eat, if he eats he is obligated for each pronouncement separately and bring two sets of sacrifices. . An oath that I will not eat, an oath that I will not eat, if he eats he is guilty only once.
HALAKHAH: “A vow inside a vow is possible,” etc. 3:8. Rebbi Yose asked: An oath, an oath, an oath that I shall not eat, but he ate? Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Abun said, let us hear from the following 3:8. : “An oath that I shall not eat this loaf, an oath that I shall not eat, an oath that I shall not eat. If he ate, he is guilty only once.” Because he said this . Therefore, if he had not said this , he would be guilty for each of the oaths. 28b/29a . Avime the brother of Ḥefa said, I studied vows, I studied oaths. Ḥefa wanted to examine him: There were five loaves before him and he said, an oath that I shall not eat this loaf. Then he said, these two loaves. Then he said, these three loaves. Then he said, these four loaves. Then he said, these five loaves. Then he ate the first, what are the rules? He said to him, he is guilty for each [oath] separately. He said to him, he is guilty only once. From the moment he mentioned “oath” about it, he made it like carcass meat. 14:21 . . From there on he is as if he wanted to apply oaths to prohibitions, but no oath can be applied to prohibitions. He examined him a second time. There were five loaves and he said, an oath about these five loaves. Then he said, these four. Then he said, these three. Then he said, these two. Then he said, this single one. Then he ate all of them? He said to him, he is guilty only once. He said to him, he is guilty for each [oath] separately. If somebody had said, an oath that I shall not eat five, and he ate four, would he be free from punishment? Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable following Ḥefa’s brother in the last case, following Ḥefa in the first.
MISHNAH: Indeterminate oaths are interpreted restrictively and explicit ones liberally. How is this? If one said, this is for me like salted meat. 2:13 ). , like libation wine. 15:1–13 . , if his intent was for Heaven, he is forbidden, if for idolatry, he is permitted. , if indeterminate he is forbidden. This is for me like a ban, if by a ban for Heaven, he is forbidden, if priest’s, he is permitted, if indeterminate he is forbidden. This is for me like tithe, if animal tithe, he is forbidden. 27:32 ); it is qorbān . , if from grain, he is permitted, if indeterminate he is forbidden. This is for me like heave, if Temple heave 3:1 . , he is forbidden, if heave from the threshing floor, he is permitted, if indeterminate he is forbidden, the words of Rebbi Meїr. But the Sages say, indeterminate heave in Judea is prohibited, in Galilee permitted, since Galileans do not know of Temple heave. . Indeterminate bans in Judea are permitted, in Galilee prohibited, since Galileans do not know of priest’s bans.
HALAKHAH: “Indeterminate oaths are interpreted restrictively,” etc. They wanted to say, salted for preservation, not short-term salted. Rebbi Yudan said, since we have stated: “this is for me like salted meat that is meat dipped twice in salt. , like libation wine,” this imples that short-term salted is called “salted”. What is short-term salted? As it was stated: “He puts the limbs on the salt and turns them over.” Rebbi Abba Mari said, there is a difference, for if he leaves them there, they become salted meat 21a : “He puts salt on the limb, turns it over, and puts salt on the other side”. . But which text says it? As Rebbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, “one who takes olives from the vat dips each single one in salt and eats it 4:3 (Notes 50,51) speaking about the agricultural worker who may eat untithed olives during the harvest. .” That implies that short-term salted is called “salted”.
“This is for me like heave, if Temple heave, he is forbidden,” therefore ‘heave of thanksgiving’ is permitted. “If heave from the threshing floor, he is permitted,” therefore ‘heave of thanksgiving’ is forbidden. Here you say, forbidden; there, you say, permitted. Let us hear from the following: “Like Aaron’s ḥallah and his heave” is permitted, therefore ‘heave of thanksgiving’ is forbidden. 7:11–14 ) needs a concurrent gift of 40 loaves, of which 4 are given to the officiating priest as heave ( v. 14 ). This is a heave not mentioned in the Mishnah. Since Mishnah 1 notes only agricultural heave as not subject to vows, it follows that any accessory to a sacrifice must be vowed together with the sacrifice and, therefore, can represent a vow. The Babli, 12a/b , comes to the same conclusion by a very involved argument. .
“But the Sages say, indeterminate heave in Judea is prohibited, in Galilee permitted, since Galileans do not know of Temple heave.” But if they did know it, the indeterminate would be forbidden. “Indeterminate bans in Judea are permitted, in Galilee prohibited, since Galileans do not know of priest’s bans.” But if they did know it, the indeterminate would be permitted. Here you say permitted, but there you say forbidden. Rebbi Eleazar says, these are statements of two Tannaïm. Rebbi Jeremiah said, all is from one Tanna, following the one who said 8:6 , opinion of R. Jehudah ben Bathyra. : “indeterminate bans are for the upkeep of the Temple.” But for the one who said 29a , states that in the absence of a Temple, bans for the upkeep of the Temple can be redeemed by pennies. , “indeterminate bans are for priests,” even in Galilee they would be permitted. In Galilee where they are used to invoke Akhan’s ban 7:25–26 , the expression of an absolute and irredeemable prohibition of all use. , you have to say forbidden; in Judea where they are not used to invoke Akhan’s ban, you have to say permitted.
MISHNAH: If somebody made a vow of ḥerem and said, I referred the vow only to mariner’s nets, or made a vow of qorbān and said, I referred the vow only to the gifts for kings, or said, my bone is qorbān and said, I referred the vow only to the bone that I keep in my house for purposes of vows, [or said] a qônām that my wife may not have any use from me and said, I referred the vow only to my first wife whom I divorced, all these do not need a question. If they do question, one punishes them and makes it difficult for them, the words of Rebbi Meïr, but the Sages say, one finds for them an opening from another place and teaches them that they should not be flippant about vows.
HALAKHAH: “If somebody made a vow of ḥerem ,” etc. A person made a vow by one of these expressions. He came before Rebbi Meїr who sent him to Rebbi Jehudah and told him, inform him that you came to me and I sent you to him. He came before Rebbi Jehudah who sent him to Rebbi Yose and told him, inform him that you came to Rebbi Meïr who sent you to me and I sent you to him. He came to Rebbi Yose, who told him, if the first one does not permit it, nobody else can permit it to you, for he holds that “if they do question, one punishes them and makes it difficult for them.” He returned before Rebbi Meïr and said to him, since you knew that, why did you not tell me from the start? He said to him, I saw you flippant and made it difficult for you.