MISHNAH: The following vows are permitted¹: Profane I would eat with you²; like pork³ that what I would eat from you is like pork, he would be forbidden since he referred to the sacrifice., like idolatry, like carcasses⁴. 14:21., like meat from a torn animal⁵. 22:30., like abominations⁶. 11:29 ff., like crawling things⁷. 9:3., like Aaron’s ḥallah and his heave⁸, 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 mother⁹ 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 obligation¹⁰. 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 forbidden¹¹.

footnotes: ¹ Even though they sound like vows, they are not vows. ² Since he vows to eat what is permitted, there is nothing to it. ³ As the Halakhah explains, a vow must refer to something which can be a sacrifice. Since swine cannot be sacrificial animals, if he says “what I would eat from you is like pork”, there is no vow and no legal consequence. If he would say, a qônām ⁴ Forbidden food, Deut ⁵ Forbidden food, Ex ⁶ Forbidden food, Lev ⁷ Forbidden food, anything not on the list of permitted animals. These are explicitly permitted to Gentiles, Gen ⁸ Heave and ḥallah ⁹ He says that sexual relations with his wife should be forbidden as they are with his mother. Since his mother cannot be a sacrifice, there is no vow but the rabbi is not permitted to tell him this but must find another reason (e. g., do you realize how much money a divorce would cost you?) to find a cause to annul the vow because people should be made uncomfortable vowing. If the vow is not dissolved within one week, the wife can ask the court to force a divorce; the husband being the guilty party (Mishnah Ketubot ¹⁰ Num ¹¹ Since an oath does not depend on any material substrate (Chapter 1, Note 4).

HALAKHAH: “The following vows are permitted,” etc. “To the Eternal¹². 30.3.”, nobody can forbid anything on himself unless it could be given to the Eternal¹³ 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 says¹². 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 respects¹⁴. “To prohibit a prohibition on himself¹². 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’ property¹⁵. 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.

footnotes: ¹² Num ¹³ The comparison used in a vow must refer either to a sacrifice or to something that could be a sacrifice or a ḥerem. ¹² Num ¹⁴ The opinion of R.Yose, Chapter 1, Notes 64 ff. ¹² Num ¹⁵ This sentence has been badly distorted by editors and commentators of recent editions of the Yerushalmi. The original scribe of the ms. wrote in both cases על אחדים. The corrector changed the first occurence into של אחרים. It seems that the correct version is על של אחרים “[to forbid his own property] to others.” It is clear that in both opinions, a person may forbid his own property (permanently) on another (in the Babli, 47a, compared to the power of a father to disinherit a son), but only according to the second opinion one may not forbid the property of others, over which he has no control, to himself. The second opinion has no parallel in either Talmud.In Sifry Num

“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 anything¹⁶. If he said, this loaf is for me like cohabitation with my mother, what¹⁷? 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 word¹⁸. Rav sticks with his opinion¹⁹: 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 says¹². 30.3., ‘he shall not profanate his word.’ He should not make his words profane.”

footnotes: ¹⁶ The translation and interpretation of these sentences are uncertain. Another approach to the text, based on a different reading of the meaning of the periods, would be: “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.” In that case, the first example is an explanation of the Mishnah, the second is a separate statement which might not conflict with the Mishnah. This is the approach of the Babli, 14a. If the translation in the text is chosen, the requirement that a formal annulment of the vow is required, is restricted to the wording in the Mishnah, where it is not so clear even to the unlearned that the vow is null and void. ¹⁷ What are the rules? ¹⁸ The statement of the Mishnah is purely rabbinical; it cannot possibly have a biblical basis. ¹⁹ From the previous paragraph. ¹² Num

“An oath that I shall not sleep for three days,” one whips him and he can sleep immediately²⁰. “An oath that I shall not eat for three days,” one waits until he eats and then whips him²¹.

footnotes: ²⁰ Since nobody can go without sleep for three days, this is a vain oath forbidden by the Third Commandment. For the transgression he is sentenced to whipping; the oath itself is void. A similar statement, attributed to R. Joḥanan, appears in the Babli, 15a. ²¹ Since people can live for three days without food, the oath is not in vain and he can be punished only if he transgresses his oath.

MISHNAH: Qorbān [shall be] what I shall not eat at your place²², or qorbān [shall be] what I shall eat from you²³ 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 you²⁴; 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 you²⁵; he is forbidden²⁶. 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 sukkah²⁷. 23:42. The hut must at least get a new roof each year, Mishnah Sukkah 1:1., that I shall not take a lulab²⁸. 23:40, the palm branch of the “4 kinds”., that I shall not put on phylacteries²⁹. 13:9, 16., as a vow he is forbidden, as an oath he is permitted since one cannot swear to transgress commandments³⁰ II, 12–15; Damascus Document CD XIV 9..

footnotes: ²² Since he forbids only what he did not eat but nobody can forbid another person’s property for other people, he did not say anything. ²³ This clause is extremely difficult to explain since it is formulated exactly the standard way in which a person can prohibit another’s food for himself. The Babli reads הָקָרְבָּן, an expression which had been determined not to be an oath (Chapter 1, Note 153). It is clear in all three cases that the same vow declared as qônām ²⁴ This clearly is idle talk. ²⁵ For a person who holds that a double negation is a positive this is an oath that he will eat; this excludes R. Meїr who does not accept that argument, cf. Chapter 1, Note 158. ²⁶ He is bound by his oath for negative or positive. ²⁷ Lev ²⁸ Lev ²⁹ Ex ³⁰ This is a principle accepted by all Jewish groups: Philo, The Special Laws

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 permitted³¹? 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.

footnotes: ³¹ He not only is permitted, he is obligated to eat at the other person’s place. whereas in the case of a vow he would be free to eat or not to eat.

“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 forbidden³² 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..

footnotes: ³² In all cases quoted in the Mishnah, it makes no difference whether qorbān

“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 good³³. 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 commandment³⁴. 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,³⁵. 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 Heaven³⁶ 7:2: Anything whatsoever can be vowed to support the Temple..

footnotes: ³³ Lev ³⁴ In the Babli, 16b/17a, this verse, dealing with the obligation of a sacrifice for an oath inadvertently not kept, only frees the maker of an oath to violate some commandment from the obligation to bring a sacrifice. ³⁵ Num ³⁶ Mishnah Temurah

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 separately³⁷ 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 once³⁸.

footnotes: ³⁷ If he drinks wine after eating, he can be sentenced to two whippings. If he keeps his vow, he has to observe two 30-day periods of nezirut ³⁸ If he breaks his oath, he can be punished only once.

HALAKHAH: “A vow inside a vow is possible,” etc. ³⁹ 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 following⁴⁰ 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 oaths⁴¹. ⁴² 28b/29a. Avime the brother of Ḥefa⁴³ 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] separately⁴⁴. He said to him, he is guilty only once. From the moment he mentioned “oath” about it, he made it like carcass meat⁴. 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 punishment⁴⁵? Rebbi Yose said, it is reasonable following Ḥefa’s brother in the last case, following Ḥefa in the first⁴⁶.

footnotes: ³⁹ The entire Halakhah is also in Šebuot ⁴⁰ Mishnah Šebuot ⁴¹ This paragraph admits of two quite different interpretations. The first, by R. David Fraenckel, notes that in the question, the three oaths are mentioned before the object of the oath is specified, but in the Mishnah the object is specified before the second oath is pronounced. In the Mishnah, the second and third oaths are void since the loaf is already forbidden. But in R. Yose’s question, nothing is forbidden when the second and third oaths are pronounced; therefore, they all are valid and with one act the person who then eats the loaf commits three sins in one act.The second, not very likely, explanation, by R. Moses Margalit, assumes that many loaves are before the person when he makes the multiple oath and one may assume that each single oath refers to a different loaf. Therefore, if he eats all of them he is guilty for each loaf separately since the Mishnah states only that if he expressly refers to the same loaf each time he swears, he is guilty only once. ⁴² There is a parallel in the Babli, Šebuot ⁴³ In the Babli, he is called ‘Epha. In the Babli, where Avime is called “his brother”, Avime is the superior scholar. In the Munich ms., the notation “his brother” is missing. ⁴⁴ Assuming that the first loaf was included in every subsequent oath. ⁴ Forbidden food, Deut ⁴⁵ Since he did not keep his oath. But in Avime’s opinion, the first oath voids all the subsequent ones. ⁴⁶ In no case can an oath be added to an oath.

MISHNAH: Indeterminate oaths are interpreted restrictively and explicit ones liberally. How is this? If one said, this is for me like salted meat⁴⁷. 2:13)., like libation wine⁴⁸. 15:1–13., if his intent was for Heaven, he is forbidden, if for idolatry, he is permitted⁴⁹., if indeterminate⁵⁰ he is forbidden. This is for me like a ban, if by a ban for Heaven⁵¹, he is forbidden, if priest’s⁵², he is permitted, if indeterminate he is forbidden. This is for me like tithe, if animal tithe, he is forbidden⁵³. 27:32); it is qorbān., if from grain, he is permitted⁵⁴, if indeterminate he is forbidden. This is for me like heave, if Temple heave⁵⁵ 3:1., he is forbidden, if heave from the threshing floor, he is permitted⁵⁶, 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 heave⁵⁷.. Indeterminate bans in Judea are permitted, in Galilee prohibited, since Galileans do not know of priest’s bans⁵⁸.

footnotes: ⁴⁷ I. e., a sacrifice (Lev ⁴⁸ Num ⁴⁹ Since everything destined for idolatrous worship is forbidden for any use, it cannot become qorbān ⁵⁰ If the person making the vow had nothing special in mind, his words have to be interpreted as referring to an instance which makes his vow valid. ⁵¹ A gift to the Temple which is forbidden for any use until redeemed from the Temple treasury. ⁵² Bans given to priests become their fully profane private property, not restricted in any way. A referral to such bans cannot prohibit. ⁵³ Animal tithe is automatically a sacrifice which does not need dedication (Lev ⁵⁴ Tithe from which its heave was separated is totally profane in the Levite’s hand. ⁵⁵ The half-šeqel yearly Temple tax which was used to buy public sacrifices; cf. Mishnah Šeqalim ⁵⁶ Since heave is private property of the receiving Cohen; cf. Note 8. ⁵⁷ The Temple tax there was never known as “Temple heave” but as “half-šeqel ⁵⁸ They know bans only as expression of total prohibitions for everybody.

HALAKHAH: “Indeterminate oaths are interpreted restrictively,” etc. ⁵⁹ They wanted to say, salted for preservation⁶⁰, not short-term salted. Rebbi Yudan said, since we have stated: “this is for me like salted meat⁶¹ 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 meat⁶² 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 it⁶³ 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”.

footnotes: ⁵⁹ This paragraph is a copy of the parallel in Halakhah 6:3, where the question is what a person forbids to himself if he vows not to eat salted meat. ⁶⁰ Salted meat than can be stored a long time (without refrigeration). ⁶¹ As explained in the baraita, ⁶² Taking a piece of meat, putting it into a large vessel full of salt, turning it over there, and not washing the salt off, makes the meat much more salty than salting for immediate consumption. In the parallel in the Babli, Menaḥot ⁶³ Mishnah Ma‘serot

“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 forbidden⁶⁵. 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..

footnotes: ⁶⁵ A thanksgiving sacrifice (Lev

“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 forbidden⁶⁶. “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 forbidden⁶⁷. Rebbi Eleazar says, these are statements of two Tannaïm⁶⁸. Rebbi Jeremiah said, all is from one Tanna, following the one who said⁶⁹ 8:6, opinion of R. Jehudah ben Bathyra.: “indeterminate bans are for the upkeep of the Temple.” But for the one who said⁷⁰ 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 ban⁷¹ 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.

footnotes: ⁶⁶ The meaning of vows has to be determined by popular usage. Since learned people are not supposed to make vows, it is clear that the interpretation of vows depends on the meaning of the words in the vernacular, independent of the place where the vow was made. ⁶⁷ This is an attempt to explain the rules in legal terminology, without appeal to the vernacular. The indeterminate vow would be a case of doubt; in one case one rules that doubt removes the vow, in the other that it confirms the vow. This is the attitude of the Babli, 19b. ⁶⁸ This is the solution of the Babli and Tosephta 1:6 which ascribe the statement on bans to R. Eleazar ben R. Ṣadoq. This solution is appropriate for the Yerushalmi, the Munich and Cambridge mss. of the Babli, and the quotes in many Medieval authors, which ascribe both statements to “the Sages” who would be free to rule in one case with R. Jehudah and in the other with R. Eleazar ben R. Ṣadoq. But in the printed Babli which, together with most independent Mishnah mss., attributes the statement of the Sages to R. Jehudah, the two-Tanna solution, rejected in the Yerushalmi but given in the Babli in the name of the Fourth Century Amora Abbai, is rather forced. ⁶⁹ Mishnah Arakhin ⁷⁰ The anonymous Sages. The Babli, Arakhin ⁷¹ Jos.

MISHNAH: If somebody made a vow of ḥerem and said, I referred the vow only to mariner’s nets⁷², or made a vow of qorbān and said, I referred the vow only to the gifts for kings⁷³, or said, my bone⁷⁴ 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 question⁷⁵. If they do question⁷⁶, 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 place⁷⁷ and teaches them that they should not be flippant about vows.

footnotes: ⁷² A homonym of חרם “ban”, derived from חרם II, Arabic خرم “to break, to make holes”, as a net is composed of holes. “Ban” is from חרם I, Arabic حرم “prohibit, excommunicate”. ⁷³ Crown money, the “voluntary” tax exacted at the accession of an emperor. ⁷⁴ “My bone” means “myself” in biblical and rabbinic Hebrew. ⁷⁵ Obviously these are no vows and they are invalid in themselves. ⁷⁶ If an uneducated person has qualms about such a vow it shows that he considers it as a vow and, therefore, it must be considered a vow even if the language does not qualify it as such. ⁷⁷ One finds a reason that he should repent having made the vow and permits it; cf. Note 9 and Halakhah 3:1.

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.