Nedarim 13

דמחית בשר בכור ומחית בשר דהאיך גביה ואמר זה כזה ותנאי היא

that he places the meat of a firstborn animal in one place and he places another piece of meat next to it, and he said: This second piece of meat is hereby like that meat of the firstborn animal, and it is a dispute between tanna’im about whether he is referring to the original forbidden status of the firstborn animal or its current permitted status?

לא דכולי עלמא לפני זריקת דמים ומאי טעמא דמאן דשרי אמר קרא כי ידר עד שידור בדבר הנדור לאפוקי בכור דדבר האסור הוא

The Gemara responds: No, everyone agrees that he is referring to the status of the animal before the sprinkling of the blood, and what is the reason of the one who renders it permitted? The verse states: “When a man takes a vow” (Numbers 30:3), which indicates that he has not done so until he takes a vow with an item forbidden by means of a vow, i.e., by extending the status of an item that itself was forbidden by a means of a vow. This comes to exclude a firstborn, which is an item that is forbidden by the Torah rather than by means of a vow; a firstborn animal is sacred simply because it is born first.

ומאן דאסר אמר קרא לה׳ לרבות דבר האסור

And the one who renders it forbidden holds that it is because the verse states: “To the Lord” (Numbers 30:3), which comes to include one who takes a vow by associating an object with an item that is forbidden by the Torah.

ומאן דשרי לה׳ מאי עביד ליה מיבעי ליה למתפיס בחטאת ואשם

The Gemara asks: And the one who renders it permitted based on the principle that one cannot take a vow by associating the item with an item that is forbidden by the Torah, what does he do with the expression “to the Lord”? The Gemara answers: He requires this expression to include the case of one who associates the object of his vow with a sin-offering and a guilt-offering. Although these offerings are obligatory rather than voluntary, and in that regard they are dissimilar to items forbidden by means of a vow, one can render another item forbidden by associating it with these offerings.

ומה ראית לרבות חטאת ואשם ולהוציא את הבכור מרבה אני חטאת ואשם שהוא מתפיס בנדר ומוציא אני את הבכור שהוא קדוש ממעי אמו

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to include a sin-offering and a guilt-offering and to exclude the firstborn? The Gemara answers: I include the sin-offering and guilt-offering due to the fact that he associates the object of his vow with an animal forbidden by means of a vow, as it is the individual who designates a particular animal for one of these offerings. And I remove the firstborn, because it is sacred from its mother’s womb.

ומאן דאסר בכור נמי מתפיסו בנדר הוא דתניא משום רבי אמרו מנין לנולד בכור בתוך ביתו שמצוה להקדישו שנאמר הזכר תקדיש

And the one who renders it forbidden is of the opinion that one who says that a piece of meat shall be considered for him like the meat of a firstborn also associates the object of his vow with an item forbidden by a vow, as it is taught in a baraita: They said in the name of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: From where is it derived that if one has a firstborn animal born in his home it is still a mitzva to consecrate it? As it is stated: “The males you shall consecrate” (Deuteronomy 15:19). Although a firstborn animal is considered consecrated from birth, its owner is still commanded to declare it consecrated, and it is therefore considered an item forbidden by means of a vow.

ומאן דשרי כי לא מקדיש ליה מי לא מיקדיש

And the one who renders it permitted in this case argues that although the owner is required to declare it consecrated, if he does not consecrate it, is it not consecrated? Since it is consecrated in any event, it is considered to have been rendered forbidden by the Torah rather than through a vow.

כאימרא כדירים

§ It is taught in the mishna that if one says that food shall be considered like the lamb [imra] of the daily offering, or like the animals designated as offerings and kept in special enclosures, the vow takes effect.

תנא אימרא לאימרא כאימרא דירים לדירים כדירים עצים לעצים כעצים אישים לאישים כאישים מזבח למזבח כמזבח היכל להיכל כהיכל ירושלים לירושלים כירושלים כולן שאוכל לך אסור לא אוכל לך מותר

It was taught in a baraita: If one says that food shall be considered a lamb, for a lamb, like a lamb; enclosures, for enclosures, like enclosures; wood, for wood, like wood; fires, for fires, like fires; the altar, for the altar, like the altar; the Sanctuary, for the Sanctuary, like the Sanctuary; Jerusalem, for Jerusalem, like Jerusalem; with regard to all of them, if he adds: That which I will eat of yours, it is forbidden. This is because his intent is that whatever he eats that belongs to the other individual should be forbidden to him like one of these consecrated items. However, if he adds: That which I will not eat of yours, the food is permitted, since the only implication of his statement is that whatever he does not eat shall be forbidden.

מאן שמעינן ליה דלא שני ליה אימרא לאימרא כאימרא רבי מאיר היא

The Gemara asks: Who is the Sage of whom we have heard, for whom there is no difference whether one said a lamb, for a lamb, or like a lamb, that I eat of yours? It is Rabbi Meir. Conversely, Rabbi Yehuda holds that the vow takes effect only if one says: Like a lamb.

אימא סיפא וכולן לא אוכל לך מותר והתנן לקרבן לא אוכל לך רבי מאיר אוסר ואמר רבי אבא נעשה כאומר לקרבן יהא לפיכך לא אוכל לך

However, say the latter clause of the baraita: With regard to all of them, if he adds: That which I will not eat of yours, the food remains permitted. But didn’t we learn in the next mishna that if one says: That which I will not eat of yours shall be for an offering [lekorban], Rabbi Meir prohibits him from eating food belonging to the other individual? And Rabbi Abba said in explanation of this ruling that it is as though he said: It shall be for an offering [lekorban], and therefore I will not eat that which is yours. Apparently, according to Rabbi Meir the food is forbidden even if he said: That which I will not eat of yours.

לא קשיא הא דאמר לא לאימרא הא דאמר לאימרא

The Gemara responds: This is not difficult: This baraita is referring to a case where one said: That which I do not eat from you shall not [la] be for a lamb [le’imra]. Although this statement implies that what he does eat shall be considered like the lamb of the daily offering, Rabbi Meir holds that one cannot infer a positive statement from a negative statement. Conversely, that mishna is referring to a case where he said: For a lamb [le’imra]. In that case, his statement is interpreted as though he said: It shall be considered the lamb used for the daily offering, and therefore I will not eat it.

מתני׳ האומר קרבן עולה מנחה חטאת תודה שלמים שאני אוכל לך אסור רבי יהודה מתיר הקרבן כקרבן קרבן שאוכל לך אסור לקרבן לא אוכל לך רבי מאיר אוסר

MISHNA: With regard to one who says: An offering, a burnt-offering, a meal-offering, a sin-offering, a thanks-offering, or a peace-offering, and adds: That which I eat of yours, the vow takes effect and the food is forbidden. Rabbi Yehuda renders the food permitted in all these cases. If one says: The offering, like an offering, or an offering, and adds: That which I will eat of yours, the food is forbidden. If he says: That which I will not eat of yours shall be for an offering, Rabbi Meir renders the food forbidden.

גמ׳ קתני קרבן הקרבן כקרבן שאוכל לך אסור סתמא תנא כרבי מאיר דלא שני ליה בין אימרא לאימרא

GEMARA: It teaches in the mishna that if one says: An offering, the offering, or like an offering, and then adds: That which I will eat of yours, it is forbidden. This indicates that this unattributed opinion in the mishna was taught in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, for whom there is no difference whether one says a lamb [imra] or as a lamb [le’imra].

[אי רבי מאיר הא] דקתני הקרבן שאוכל לך אסור והתניא מודים חכמים לרבי יהודה באומר הא קרבן והא עולה והא מנחה והא חטאת שאוכל לך שמותר שלא נדר זה אלא בחיי קרבן

The Gemara asks: However, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir, that which it teaches is difficult. It teaches that if one says: The offering [hakorban], and adds: That which I will eat of yours, the food is forbidden. But isn’t it taught in a baraita that the Rabbis concede to Rabbi Yehuda that with regard to one who says: This offering [ha korban], or this burnt-offering [ha ola], or this meal-offering [ha minḥa], or this sin-offering [ha ḥatat], and then adds: That I will eat of yours, the vow does not take effect and the food is permitted? The reason for this is that the individual did not take a vow that the item should be associated with an offering; rather, he took a vow by the life of the offering, which is not a valid expression of a vow.

לא קשיא הא דאמר הא קרבן והא דאמר הקרבן מאי טעמא חיי קרבן קאמר

The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. This case, where the vow does not take effect, is where one said: This offering [ha korban], and that case, where the vow does take effect, is where one said: The offering [hakorban]. What is the reason that the vow does not take effect when he says this offering [ha korban]? It is because he is saying that he is taking a vow by the life of this offering, which is not a valid way to express a vow.

קתני לקרבן לא אוכל לך רבי מאיר אוסר והא לית ליה לרבי מאיר מכלל לאו אתה שומע הן אמר רבי אבא נעשה כאומר לקרבן יהא לפיכך לא אוכל לך

The mishna teaches that if one says: That which I will not eat of yours is lakorban, which indicates la korban, it is not an offering, Rabbi Meir prohibits him from eating food belonging to the other individual. This is because his statement indicates that what he does eat shall be considered an offering. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it true that Rabbi Meir does not hold that from a negative statement you can infer a positive statement? The Gemara answers that Rabbi Abba said: It is as though he said: It shall be for an offering [lekorban], and therefore I will not eat that which is yours.

מתני׳ האומר לחבירו קונם פי מדבר עמך ידי עושה עמך רגלי מהלכת עמך אסור

MISHNA: One who says to another: It is konam for me for my mouth to speak with you, or: It is konam for me for my hand to work with you, or: It is konam for me for my foot to walk with you, it is prohibited for him to speak with, work with, or walk with the other individual.

גמ׳ ורמינהו חומר בשבועות מבנדרים ובנדרים מבשבועות חומר בנדרים שהנדרים חלים על המצוה כברשות מה שאין כן בשבועות וחומר בשבועות שהשבועות חלות על דבר שיש בו ממש ושאין בו ממש מה שאין כן בנדרים

GEMARA: The Gemara raises a contradiction from the following baraita: There is a stricture that applies to oaths beyond the strictures that apply to vows, and there is a stricture that applies to vows beyond the strictures that apply to oaths. The stricture that applies to vows is that vows take effect with regard to a mitzva as they do with regard to optional activities, which is not the case with regard to oaths, as one cannot take an oath to neglect a mitzva. And the stricture that applies to oaths is that oaths take effect upon a matter that has substance and a matter that does not have substance, which is not the case with regard to vows, which take effect only upon a matter that has substance. This contradicts the mishna, which states that a vow can apply to speech or actions, which are not physical items that have concrete substance.

אמר רב יהודה באומר יאסר פי לדיבורי ידי למעשיהם רגלי להילוכן דיקא נמי דקתני פי מדבר עמך ולא קתני שאני מדבר עמך

Rav Yehuda said: The mishna is referring to one who says: My mouth shall be forbidden with regard to my speech, or: My hands shall be forbidden with regard to their work, or: My feet should be forbidden with regard to their walking. In these cases the vow applies to a limb, which is a concrete item, and therefore it takes effect. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise according to this interpretation, as it teaches: For my mouth to speak with you, and it does not teach: That which I speak with you. This indicates that he imposed the vow upon his mouth and not upon the act of speaking.

הדרן עלך כל כנויי

ואלו מותרין חולין שאוכל לך כבשר חזיר כעבודה זרה כעורות לבובין כנבילות וטריפות כשקצים ורמשים כחלת אהרן וכתרומתו מותר

MISHNA: 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.

האומר לאשתו הרי את עלי כאימא פותחין לו פתח ממקום אחר שלא יקל ראשו לכך

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.

גמ׳ טעמא דאמר חולין שאוכל לך הא אמר לחולין שאוכל לך משמע לא לחולין ליהוי אלא קרבן

GEMARA: It may be inferred from the first case in the mishna that the reason the vow does not take effect is that he said: That which I will eat of yours will be ḥullin; but if he said: That which I will eat of yours will be laḥullin, that indicates that he is saying: It will not [la] be non-sacred [ḥullin], but rather like an offering, which is a vow that takes effect.

מני מתניתין אי רבי מאיר הא לית ליה מכלל

Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? If it is the opinion of Rabbi Meir, isn’t he of the opinion that one does not say: From