MISHNAH. ALL THE SUBSTITUTES FOR [THE FORMULAS OF] VOWS HAVE THE VALIDITY OF VOWS.1 THOSE FOR HARAMIM ARE LIKE HARAMIM,2 THOSE FOR OATHS ARE LIKE OATHS, AND THOSE FOR NEZIROTH ARE LIKE NEZIROTH.3 IF ONE SAYS TO HIS NEIGHBOUR, 'I AM DEBARRED FROM YOU BY A VOW, [OR] I AM SEPARATED FROM YOU,' [OR] 'I AM REMOVED FROM YOU, IN RESPECT OF AUGHT4 THAT I MIGHT EAT OF YOURS OR THAT I MIGHT TASTE OF YOURS,' HE IS PROHIBITED. IF HE SAYS: I AM BANNED TO YOU,' THEN R. AKIBA WAS INCLINED TO GIVE A STRINGENT RULING.5
GEMARA. ALL THE SUBSTITUTES FOR [THE FORMULAS OF] VOWS HAVE THE VALIDITY OF VOWS: Why other clauses1 not stated in [the Mishnah of] Nazir,2 whilst [our Mishnah of] Nedarim includes them all? — Because oaths and Vows are written side by side [in the Bible]3 they are both stated, and since the two are mentioned, the others are stated also. Then let OATHS be taught immediately after VOWS? — Because he states vows In which the article is forbidden to the person, he follows it up with HARAMIM, where likewise the article is forbidden to the person. OATHS, however, are excluded [from the category of vows], since oaths bind the person to abstain from a thing;4 [hence they cannot immediately follow vows].
The Mishnah commences with substitutes: ALL THE SUBSTITUTES FOR [THE FORMULAS OF] VOWS etc., yet proceeds to explain the laws of abbreviations of VOWS: IF ONE SAYS TO HIS NEIGHBOUR: I AM DEBARRED FROM YOU BY A VOW … WITH HIS VOW;5 moreover, [the Tanna] has altogether omitted to state that abbreviations [are binding]? — [The Tanna does] speak of them, but our text is defective,6 and this is what was really meant: ALL SUBSTITUTES and abbreviations OF VOWS HAVE THE VALIDITY OF VOWS. Then let substitutes be first explained? — The clause to which [the Tanna] has last referred is generally first explained, as we have learned: Wherewith may [the Sabbath lights] be kindled, and wherewith may they not be kindled? They may not be kindled etc.7 Wherein may food be put away [to be kept hot for the Sabbath], and wherein may it not be put away? It may not be put away [etc.].8 Wherewith may a woman go out (from her house on the Sabbath], and wherewith may she not go out? She may not go out from etc.9 [Is it then a universal rule] that the first clause is never explained first? But we have learnt: Some relations inherit from and transmit [their estate] to others; some inherit but do not transmit. Now, these relations inherit from and transmit to each other etc.10 Some women are permitted to their husbands but forbidden to their husbands' brothers;11 others are the reverse. Now, these are permitted to their husbands but forbidden to their husbands' brothers etc.12 Some meal offerings require oil and frankincense, others require oil but no frankincense. Now, these require both oil and frankincense etc.13 Some mealofferings must be taken [by the priest to the south-west corner of the altar], but do not need waving;14 others are the reverse. Now, these must be taken to the altar etc.15 Some are treated as first-borns in respect of inheritance16 but not in respect of the priest;17 others are treated as first-borns in respect of the priest but not in respect of inheritance. Now who is regarded as a first-born in respect of inheritance but not in respect of the priest etc.?18 — In these examples [the first clause is explained first] because it contains numerous instances [to which its law applies]. But, 'Wherewith may a beast go out on the Sabbath, and wherewith may it not go out?' where [the first clause does] not contain numerous instances, yet it is explained [first], viz., a camel may go out etc.?
- To Next Folio -