משנה: קָרְבָּן לֹא אוֹכַל לָךְ וְקָרְבָּן שֶׁאוֹכַל לָךְ לֹא קָרְבָּן לֹא אוֹכַל לָךְ מוּתָּר. שְׁבוּעָה לֹא אוֹכַל לָךְ שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאוֹכַל לָךְ לֹא שְׁבוּעָה לֹא אוֹכַל לָךְ אָסוּר. זֶה חוֹמֶר בַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת מִבַּנְּדָרִים. וְחוֹמֶר בַּנְּדָרִים מִבַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת. כֵּיצַד אָמַר קוֹנָם סוּכָּה שֶׁאֵינִי עוֹשֶׂה לוּלָב שֶׁאֵינִי נוֹטֵל. תְּפִילִין שֶׁאֵינִי נוֹתֵן בַּנְּדָרִים אָסוּר בַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת מוּתָּר. שֶׁאֵין נִשְׁבָּעִין לַעֲבוֹר עַל הַמִּצְוֹת. MISHNAH: Qorbān [shall be] what I shall not eat at your place22Since he forbids only what he did not eat but nobody can forbid another person’s property for other people, he did not say anything., or qorbān [shall be] what I shall eat from you23This 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 (Nedarim 1:4:2" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.1.4.2">Chapter 1, Note 153). It is clear in all three cases that the same vow declared as qônām 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 you24This clearly is idle talk.; 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 you25For 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. Nedarim 1:4:4" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Nedarim.1.4.4">Chapter 1, Note 158.; he is forbidden26He is bound by his oath for negative or positive.. 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 sukkah27Leviticus.23.42">Lev. 23:42. The hut must at least get a new roof each year, Sukkah 1:1:1" href="/Jerusalem_Talmud_Sukkah.1.1.1">Mishnah Sukkah 1:1., that I shall not take a lulab28Leviticus.23.40">Lev. 23:40, the palm branch of the “4 kinds”., that I shall not put on phylacteries29Exodus.13.9">Ex. 13:9, Exodus.13.16">16., as a vow he is forbidden, as an oath he is permitted since one cannot swear to transgress commandments30This is a principle accepted by all Jewish groups: Philo, The Special Laws II, 12–15; Damascus Document CD XIV 9..
הלכה: קָרְבָּן לֹא אוֹכַל לָךְ כול׳. וְלָמָּה לֹא תַנִּינָן. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁלֹּא אוֹכַל לָךְ. מוּתָּר. אֶלָּא בְגִין דְּתַנִינָן. חוֹמֶר בַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת מִבַּנְּדָרִים. וְסָֽבְרִנָן מֵימַר. שְׁבוּעָה לֹא אוֹכַל לָךְ. דִּבְרֵי חֲכָמִים אָסוּר. לְפוּם כֵּן לֹא תַנִּינָן. 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 permitted31He 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.? 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.
הֲרֵי הוּא קָרְבָּן. הֲרֵי הוּא לַקָּרְבָּן. הֲרֵי הוּא כְקָרְבָּן. מוּתָּר. הֲרֵי הוּא שְׁבוּעָה. הֲרֵי הוּא לַשְּׁבוּעָה. הֲרֵי הוּא כִשְׁבוּעָה. אָסוּר. “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 forbidden32In all cases quoted in the Mishnah, it makes no difference whether qorbān is stated alone or modified by one of the inseparable prepositions. In the Nedarim.15a">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..
זֶה חוֹמֶר בַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת מִבַּנְּדָרִים. וְחוֹמֶר בַּנְּדָרִים מִבַּשְּׁבוּעוֹת. כֵּיצַד. אוֹ נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תִשָּׁבַע לְבַטֵּא בִשְׂפָתַיִם לְהָרַע אוֹ לְהֵ[י]טִיב. מַה הַטָּבָה רְשׁוּת אַף הָרָעָה רְשׁוּת. יָצָא דָבָר שֶׁלְּאִיסּוּר בַּדָּבָר שֶׁל מִצְוָה. הֲווֹן בָּעֵיי מֵימַר. שׁוֹגֵג. הָא הַמֵּזִיד לֹא. אַשְׁכָּח תַּנֵּי. רִבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר. כְּכָל־הַיּוֹצֵא מִפִּיו יַעֲשֶׂה. לֹא הַיּוֹצֵא מִפִּי שָׁמַיִם. וָמַר. אַף בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ כֵּן. רִבִּי יוֹסֵה בְשֵׁם רִבִּי הִילָא. שֶׁכֵּן אָדָם מַקְדִּישׁ סוֹכָּתוֹ לַשָׁמַיִם. “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 good33Leviticus.5.4">Lev. 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 commandment34In the Nedarim.16b-17a">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.. 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,35Numbers.30.3">Num. 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 Heaven36Temurah 7:2" href="/Mishnah_Temurah.7.2">Mishnah Temurah 7:2: Anything whatsoever can be vowed to support the Temple..