משנה: אֵילּוּ נְדָרִים מוּתָּרִין חוּלִין שֶׁאוֹכַל לָךְ כַּבְּשַׂר חֲזִיר כַּעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה כַּנְּבֵילוֹת כַּטְּרֵיפוֹת כַּשְּׁקָצִים כָּֽרְמָשִׂים כְּחַלַּת אַהֲרֹן וְכִתְרוּמָתוֹ מוּתָּר. הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ הֲרֵי אַתְּ עָלַי כְּאִימָּא פּוֹתְחִין לוֹ פֶּתַח מִמָּקוֹם אַחֵר שֶׁלֹּא יָקֵל רֹאשׁוֹ לְכָךְ. קוֹנָם שֶׁאֵינִי יָשֵׁן שֶׁאֵינִי מְדַבֵּר שֶׁאֵינִי מְהַלֵּךְ הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ קוֹנָם שֶׁאֵינִי מְשַׁמְּשֵׁךְ הֲרֵי זֶה בְּלֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵינִי יָשֵׁן שֶׁאֵינִי מְדַבֵּר שֶׁאֵינִי מְהַלֵּךְ אָסוּר. MISHNAH: The following vows are permitted1Even though they sound like vows, they are not vows.: Profane I would eat with you2Since he vows to eat what is permitted, there is nothing to it.; like pork3As 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 that what I would eat from you is like pork, he would be forbidden since he referred to the sacrifice., like idolatry, like carcasses4Forbidden food, Deut. 14:21., like meat from a torn animal5Forbidden food, Ex. 22:30., like abominations6Forbidden food, Lev. 11:29 ff., like crawling things7Forbidden food, anything not on the list of permitted animals. These are explicitly permitted to Gentiles, Gen. 9:3., like Aaron’s ḥallah and his heave8Heave and ḥallah, 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 mother9He 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 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 obligation10Num. 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 forbidden11Since an oath does not depend on any material substrate (Chapter 1, Note 4)..
הלכה: אֵילּוּ נְדָרִים מוּתָּרִין כול׳. לַיי֨. אֵין אָדָם אוֹסֵר עָלָיו דָּבָר אֶלָּא שֶׁהוּא לַיי. תַּנֵּי דְבֵית רַב פְּלִיג. מְנַיִין לִנְדָרִים שֶׁהֵן מוּתָּרִין לָךְ מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבְנֵי אָדָם נוֹהֲגִין בָּהֶן בְּאִיסּוּר שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא נוֹדֵר וּמְבַטֵּל. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה דְבָרָיו חוּלִין. הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מֵימַר. כְּגוֹן הַקָּרְבָּן בִּשְׁבוּעָה. הָא בִשְׁאָר כָּל־הַדְּבָרִים לֹא. אָתָא מֵימַר לָךְ. אֲפִילוּ בִשְׁאָר כָּל־הַדְּבָרִים. לֶאְסוֹר אִסָּר עַל נַפְשׁוֹ. אִית תַּנָּײֵ תַנֵּי. עַל נַפְשׁוֹ לֹא עַל אֲחֵרִים. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֲפִילוּ עַל אֲחֵרִים. הֲווֹן בָּעֵי מֵימַר. מָאן דָּמַר. עַל נַפְשׁוֹ לֹא עַל אֲחֵרִים. לוֹסַר נְכָסָיו שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים. וּמָאן דָּמַר. אֲפִילוּ עַל אֲחֵרִים. לוֹסַר נְכָסָיו עַל אֲחֵרִים. הָא נִיכְסֵי אֲחֵרִים עָלָיו לוֹ. HALAKHAH: “The following vows are permitted,” etc. “To the Eternal12Num. 30.3.”, nobody can forbid anything on himself unless it could be given to the Eternal13The comparison used in a vow must refer either to a sacrifice or to something that could be a sacrifice or a ḥerem. 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 says12Num. 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 respects14The opinion of R.Yose, Chapter 1, Notes 64 ff.. “To prohibit a prohibition on himself12Num. 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’ property15This 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. 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.
הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ הֲרֵי אַתְּ עָלַי כְּאִימָּא. בִּיאָתֵךְ עָלַי כְּבִיאַת אִימָּא. כִּבְשַׂר אִימָּא. לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. אָמַר הַכִּכָּר הַזֶּה עָלַי כְּבִיאַת אִימָּא. מָהוּ. נִישְׁמְעִינָהּ מִן הָדָא. הָאוֹמֵר לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. קוֹנָם אֵינִי מְשַׁמְּשֵׁךְ. רַב אָמַר. אָסוּר. וּשְׁמוּאֵל אָמַר. מוּתָּר. מַה מְקַייֵם שְׁמוּאֵל בְּלֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ. כְּאִילּוּ בַּל יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ. רַב כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. תַּנָּיֵי דְבֵית רַב פְּלִיג. מְנַיִין לִנְדָרִים שֶׁהֵן מוּתָּרִין לָךְ מִן הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבְנֵי אָדָם נוֹהֲגִין בָּהֶן בְּאִיסּוּר כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא נוֹדֵר וּמְבַטֵּל. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר לֹא יַחֵל דְּבָרוֹ. שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה דְבָרָיו חוּלִין. “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 anything16The 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.. If he said, this loaf is for me like cohabitation with my mother, what17What are the rules?? 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 word18The statement of the Mishnah is purely rabbinical; it cannot possibly have a biblical basis.. Rav sticks with his opinion19From the previous paragraph.: 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 says12Num. 30.3., ‘he shall not profanate his word.’ He should not make his words profane.”
שְׁבוּעָה שֶלֹּא אִישָׁן שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים. מַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ וְיָשֵׁן מִיַּד. שְׁבוּעָה שֶלֹּא אוֹכַל שְׁלֹשָׁה יָמִים. מַמְתִינִין אוֹתוֹ עַד שֶׁיֹּאכַל וּמַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ. “An oath that I shall not sleep for three days,” one whips him and he can sleep immediately20Since 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.. “An oath that I shall not eat for three days,” one waits until he eats and then whips him21Since 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..