## Nedarim Daf 13b

###### Nedarim 13b:1
[Nedarim 13b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/13b:1)

לָא קַשְׁיָא: הָא דְּאָמַר ״הָא קׇרְבָּן״, וְהָא דְּאָמַר ״הַקׇּרְבָּן״. מַאי טַעְמָא? חַיֵּי קׇרְבָּן קָאָמַר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Nedarim 13b:2
[Nedarim 13b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/13b:2)

קָתָנֵי: ״לַקׇּרְבָּן לֹא אוֹכַל לָךְ״, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹסֵר. וְהָא לֵית לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר מִכְּלָל לָאו אַתָּה שׁוֹמֵעַ הֵן! אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא: נַעֲשָׂה כְּאוֹמֵר: לְקׇרְבָּן יְהֵא, לְפִיכָךְ לֹא אוֹכַל לָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Nedarim 13b:3
[Nedarim 13b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/13b:3)

**מַתְנִי׳** הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ ״קֻוֽנָּם פִּי מְדַבֵּר עִמָּךְ״, ״יָדִי עוֹשָׂה עִמָּךְ״, ״רַגְלִי מְהַלֶּכֶת עִמָּךְ״ — אָסוּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nedarim 13b:4
[Nedarim 13b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/13b:4)

**גְּמָ׳** וּרְמִינְהוּ: חוֹמֶר בַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת מִבַּנְּדָרִים וּבַנְּדָרִים מִבַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת. חוֹמֶר בַּנְּדָרִים, שֶׁהַנְּדָרִים חָלִים עַל הַמִּצְוָה כְּבָרְשׁוּת, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת. וְחוֹמֶר בַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת, שֶׁהַשְּׁבוּעוֹת חָלוֹת עַל דָּבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ וְשֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ, מַה שֶּׁאֵין כֵּן בַּנְּדָרִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nedarim 13b:5
[Nedarim 13b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/13b:5)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה: בְּאוֹמֵר ״יֵאָסֵר פִּי לְדִיבּוּרִי״, ״יָדַי לְמַעֲשֵׂיהֶם״, ״רַגְלַי לְהִילּוּכָן״. דַּיְקָא נָמֵי, דְּקָתָנֵי ״פִּי מְדַבֵּר עִמָּךְ״, וְלָא קָתָנֵי ״שֶׁאֲנִי מְדַבֵּר עִמָּךְ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nedarim 13b:6
[Nedarim 13b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/13b:6)

**הַדְרָן עֲלָךְ כׇּל כִּנּוּיֵי**


###### Nedarim 13b:7
[Nedarim 13b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/13b:7)

**מַתְנִי׳** וְאֵלּוּ מוּתָּרִין: ״חוּלִּין שֶׁאוֹכַל לָךְ״, ״כִּבְשַׂר חֲזִיר״, ״כַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה״, ״כְּעוֹרוֹת לְבוּבִין״, ״כִּנְבֵילוֹת וּטְרֵיפוֹת״, ״כִּשְׁקָצִים וּרְמָשִׂים״, ״כְּחַלַּת אַהֲרֹן וְכִתְרוּמָתוֹ״ — מוּתָּר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nedarim 13b:8
[Nedarim 13b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/13b:8)

הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ ״הֲרֵי אַתְּ עָלַי כְּאִימָּא״ — פּוֹתְחִין לוֹ פֶּתַח מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר. שֶׁלֹּא יָקֵל רֹאשׁוֹ לְכָךְ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Nedarim 13b:9
[Nedarim 13b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/13b:9)

**גְּמָ׳** טַעְמָא דְּאָמַר ״חוּלִּין שֶׁאוֹכַל לָךְ״ הָא אָמַר ״לַחוּלִּין שֶׁאוֹכַל לָךְ״, מַשְׁמַע: לָא לְחוּלִּין לֶיהֱוֵי אֶלָּא קׇרְבָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Nedarim 13b:10
[Nedarim 13b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Nedarim/r/13b:10)

מַנִּי מַתְנִיתִין? אִי רַבִּי מֵאִיר — הָא לֵית לֵיהּ מִכְּלָל

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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**