משנה: הָאוֹמֵר קָרְבָּן עוֹלָה וּמִנְחָה חַטָּאת תּוֹדָה וּשְׁלָמִים שֶׁאֵינִי אוֹכַל לָךְ אָסוּר וְרִבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר. הַקָּרְבָּן כַּקָּרְבָּן קָרְבָּן שֶׁאוֹכַל לָךְ אָסוּר. לַקָּרְבָּן לֹא אוֹכַל לָךְ רִבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹסֵר. הָאוֹמֵר לַחֲבֵירוֹ קוֹנָם פִּי הַמְדַבֵּר עִמָּךְ וְיָדִי עוֹשָׂה עִמָּךְ וְרַגְלִי מְהַלֶּכֶת עִמָּךְ אָסוּר. MISHNAH: If somebody says sacrifice, elevation offering, or flour offering, purification offering, or well-being offering, that I will not eat with you, he is forbidden; Rebbi Jehudah permits149R. Jehudah requires that the object to which the vow refers be mentioned. Therefore, if he had said “like a sacrifice, like an offering” it would be a valid vow (Tosephta 1:2).. The sacrifice, like a sacrifice, sacrifice if I would eat with you, he is forbidden150Since in this case one might read the sentence as: Any food I would eat from you should be a (the, like a) sacrifice.. It is for sacrifice what I will not eat with you, Rebbi Meїr forbids. If somebody says to another person, a qônām that my mouth speaks with you, that my hand works with you, that my foot goes with you, he is forbidden151At first glance it seems that these vows are not object-oriented since speech, working, and walking are no concrete objects. But since mouth, hand, and foot are concrete objects, the vow can refer to them and then this person’s mouth, hands, and feet are forbidden any contact with the other person, which can be realized only if the person swearing the oath refrains from doing anything for the person intended by the vow..
הלכה: הָאוֹמֵר קָרְבָּן עוֹלָה וּמִנְחָה. כול׳. כָּל־עַמָּא מוֹדֵיי. הָקָרְבָּן מוּתָּר. כַּקָּרְבָּן אָסוּר. מַה פְלִיגִין. קָרְבָּן. רִבִּי יוּדָה אוֹמֵר. הָאוֹמֵר קָרְבָּן כָּאוֹמֵר הָקָרְבָּן וְהוּא מוּתָּר. וְרַבָּנִין אָֽמְרִין. קָרְבָּן כָּאוֹמֵר כַּקָּרְבָּן וְהוּא אָסוּר. אָמַר לָהֶן רִבִּי יוּדָה. אֵין אַתֶּם מוֹדִין לִי בָּאוֹמֵר שְׁבוּעָה כָּאוֹמֵר הָשְׁבוּעָה וְהוּא אָסוּר. וָכָא הָאוֹמֵר קָרְבָּן כָּאוֹמֵר כַּקָּרְבָּן וְהוּא מוּתָּר. וְרַבָּנִין מַטִּילִין אוֹתוֹ לַחוּמְרִין. הָאוֹמֵר שְׁבוּעָה כָּאוֹמֵר הָשְׁבוּעָה וְהוּא אָסוּר. וָכָא הָאוֹמֵר קָרְבָּן כָּאוֹמֵר הָקָרְבָּן וְהוּא אָסוּר. HALAKHAH: “If somebody says sacrifice, elevation offering, or flour offering,” etc. Everybody agrees this sacrifice153הָא קָרְבָּן “this is a sacrifice” is not an expression of referral. is permitted, like a sacrifice is forbidden. Where do they disagree? Sacrifice. Rebbi Jehudah says, he who says ‘sacrifice’ is as if he said ‘this sacrifice’ and is permitted; but the rabbis say, he who says ‘sacrifice’ is as if he said ‘like a sacrifice’ and is forbidden. Rebbi Jehudah said to them: Do you not agree that one who said “oath” is like one who said “this oath” and is forbidden154If he would say “like an oath” it would be a denial of oath and would be invalid, but “like a sacrifice” is the essential formula of a vow.? And here he who says ‘sacrifice’ is as if he said ‘this sacrifice’ and is permitted! But the rabbis throw restrictions on it155In matters of vows and oaths, the translation of the vernacular into the formal language of the law always must follow the restrictive interpretation (Mishnah 2:4).. One who said “oath” is like one who said “this oath” and is forbidden. But here, he who says ‘sacrifice’ is as if he said ‘like a sacrifice’ and is forbidden.
חָלִיל הֶחָלִיל לְחַלִיל בֶּחָלִיל. בֵּין שֶׁאוֹכַל לָךְ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל לָךְ. מוּתָּר. לָחוּלִין שֶׁאוֹכַל לָךְ. אָסוּר. חוּלִין שֶׁאוֹכַל לָךְ. מוּתָּר. Fife, the fife, with a fife, either ‘that I shall eat with you’ or ‘that I shall not eat with you’, is permitted156Ḥālîl “fife” is derived from the root חלל II, Arabic خلّ “to pierce, make a hole” (among other meanings). Nobody takes this as close to ḥûlîn “profane”, derived from חלל I, Arabic حلّ “being permitted, not holy” (among other meanings) or חָלִילָה “desecration, God forbid!”. The expression cannot be interpreted as a vow.. No profane food157Read לָא חוּלִין. that I would eat with you, forbidden. Profane food I would eat with you, permitted.
רִבִּי יָסָא בְשֵׁם רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי מֵאִיר מִמַּשְׁמַע לָאו אַתְּ שׁוֹמֵעַ הֵין. לֹא קָרְבָּן מִזֶּה. דְּלָ נָא אֲכִיל מִן דִּילָךְ. הָא מַה דָנָא אֲכִיל מִן דִּידָךְ חוּלִין הוּא. לֵית הוּא קָרְבָּן. Rebbi Yasa in the name of Rebbi Joḥanan: Are there words of Rebbi Meїr that from a negative one understands a positive? There is no sacrifice from this. What I shall not eat from you. Therefore, what I shall eat from you is profane, it is not qorbān158The Mishnah about לָא קָרְבָּן mentions only R. Meїr but does not mention the anonymous majority which must hold that no vow is intended. It is generally accepted that R. Meїr does not accept to derive a positive statement from the inversion of a negative (Babli 11a, 13b; Šebuot 36a, Soṭah 17a; Yerushalmi Erubin 3, 21b 1. 24, Qiddušin 1:3 64a 1. 16, Šebuot 4:14 35d 1. 66, 7:1 37c 1. 45). It is obvious that the first sentence is a rhetorical question..
הִילּוּכִי עָלֶיךָ. דִּיבּוּרִי עָלֶיךָ. לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. לָמָּה. שֶׁמַּתְפִּיס אֶת הַנֶּדֶר בְּדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ. נֶדֶר נֶדֶר. מַה נֶדֶר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר לְהַלָּן דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ. אַף נֶדֶר שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ. עֵינִי רוֹאָה לָךְ. אָזְנִי שׁוֹמַעַת לָךְ. אָסוּר. אַתְּ אוֹמֵר. יָדִי עוֹשָׂה עִמָּךְ. אָסוּר. חָרַשׁ עִמּוֹ בַקַּרְקַע עַד כַּמָּה הוּא אָסוּר. עִמּוֹ כְּדֵי שְׂכָרוֹ אוֹ עַד כְּדֵי הֲנָייַת קַרְקַע. גְָּדַר עִמּוֹ בַתַּנּוּר עַד כַּמָּה הוּא אָסוּר. עַד כְּדֵי שְׂכָרוֹ אוֹ עַד כְּדֵי הֲנָייַת תַּנּוּר. ‘My going [is forbidden] to you, my speech [is forbidden] to you,’ he said nothing. Why? Because he referred the vow to something immaterial. “Vow, vow”159This is an application of the second hermeneutical rule gezerah šawah (cf. Berakhot Chapter 1, Note 70) that in legal texts, a word has only one definite meaning. The word “vow” is used in Lev. 27:2 to describe the pledge of a predetermined sum of money, which is material. Therefore in Num. 30:3, the word “vow” also must refer to something material.. Just as “vow” which was said there refers to something (im-)material160The context requires that both times the expression שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ “immaterial” must be emended to שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מַמָּשׁ “material”. Unfortunately, there are no parallels to this argument in talmudic literature., so “vow” said here refers to something (im)material. ‘My eye [is forbidden] to see for you, my ear [is forbidden] to hear you,’ he is forbidden161Since now the vow is referred to something material.. You say, ‘my hand [is forbidden] to work with you,’ he is forbidden. If he ploughed with him162If the worker makes a vow not to enjoy anything from his employer, can he work for him since the transaction is a simple exchange of work for money, or is he forbidden to work in case his work causes a permanent improvement of the employer’s property? The question is not answered. on the ground, what is forbidden to him? Up to the amount of his wages or any improvement of the ground? If he fenced in163Some commentators and editors want to emend here either to גרר “to grate”, or גדד “to cut”. There seems to be no reason for emendation. an oven with him, what is forbidden to him? Up to the amount of his wages or any improvement of the oven?