משנה: הֲרֵינִי עָלֶיךָ חֵרֶם הַמּוּדָּר אָסוּר. הֲרֵי אַתְּ עָלַי חֵרֶם הַנּוֹדֵר אָסוּר. הֲרֵינִי עָלֶיךָ וְאַתְּ עָלַי שְׁנֵיהֶן אֲסוּרִין. וּשְׁנֵיהֶן מוּתָּרִין בְּדָבָר שֶׁלְּעוֹלֵי בָבֵל וַאֲסוּרִין בְּדָבָר שֶׁלְּאוֹתָהּ הָעִיר. MISHNAH: “I am ḥerein for you44Ḥerem is an expression for a gift to the Temple of offerings that cannot be redeemed, Lev. 27:28. As a term for a vow, it is equivalent to qorbān.”, the addressee is forbidden45To have any usufruct from the vower’s property.. “You are for me ḥerem,” the vower is forbidden. “I am for you and you are for me,” both are forbidden. Both are permitted the institutions of the returnees from Babylonia46These are detailed in Mishnah 5. They were destined for public use and are immune against private vows. and forbidden the institutions of their own town47Since both of them are partners in the public institutions of the town; cf. Mishnah 1..
הלכה: הֲרֵינִי עָלֶיךָ חֵרֶם כול׳. קוֹנָם שֶׁאֵינִי נֶהֱנֶה לָךְ לְנִשְׁאַל לוֹ עָלֶיךָ. נִשְׁאַל עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵינוֹ נִשְׁאַל עַל הַשֵּׁינִי. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. נִשְׁאַל בֵּין עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן בֵּין עַל הַשֵּׁינִי. שְׁמוּאֵל בְּרֵיהּ דְּרִבִּי יוֹסֵף בֵּירִבִּי בּוּן אָמַר. כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. לְאַחַר הָאִיסָּר. בְּרַם כְּמָאן דְּאָמַר. לְאַחַר הַנֵּדֶר. נֶדֶר שֶׁבָּטַל מִקְצָתוֹ בָטַל כּוּלּוֹ. HALAKHAH: “ “I am ḥerem for you”, etc. ‘A qônām that I shall not have any usufruct from you and anyone I would ask about you’, he has to ask about the first but not the second. Some Tannaïm state: He has to ask both about the first and the second48If a person vows not to have anything from a certain other person and any rabbi who would dissolve this vow, if he has second thoughts and asks a rabbi to disolve the vow, there are differing opinions on whether he then has to ask a second rabbi to dissolve his vow regarding the first rabbi. In the Babli, 90a/b, two questions are raised which are not found in the Yerushalmi: (1) What means first and second; maybe first is the rabbi whom he has to approach and second the object of the vow? (2) Is it clear whether a vow can be dissolved that has not yet led to any prohibition?. Samuel the son of Rebbi Joseph ben Rebbi Abun said, that follows the one who said “after the prohibition”49This refers to the disagreement of R. Ismael and R. Aqiba (Chapter 3, Note 128; Halakhah 11:9, Babli 89a) whether the point in time which determines the rules is the moment the vow is made or the moment the prohibition is slated to begin. For R. Ismael, who holds that the moment of prohibition is determining, the second prohibition starts the moment the vower goes to see a rabbi. Therefore, that prohibition has to be dissolved also. But for R. Aqiba, who goes after the moment the vow was made, there is a vow only about one person and when that prohibition is lifted, the vow and the second case with it disappear.. But for the one who said “after the vow”, a vow which is partially invalid is totally invalid50Mishnah 9:6, cf. Chapter 3, Note 84..
הַנּוֹדֵר מִבְּנֵי הָעִיר וּבָא אַחֵר וְיָשַׁב שָׁם שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם מוּתָּר בּוֹ. מִיּוֹשְׁבֵי הָעִיר וּבָא אַחֵר וְיָשַׁב שָׁם שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם אָסוּר בּוֹ. קוֹנָם הֲנָייָתִי עַל בְּנֵי עִירִי. אֵינוֹ נִשְׁאַל לְזָקֵן שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם. הֲנָייַת בְּנֵי עִירִי עָלַי. נִשְׁאַל לְזָקֵן שֶׁיֵּשׁ שָׁם. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי אֲפִילוּ עַל קַדְמִייָתָא נִשְׁאַל. שֶׁאֵינוֹ כְמֵיפֵר נִדְרֵי עַצְמוֹ. נֵדֶר שֶׁלָּרַבִּים אֵין לוֹ הֵיתֵר. הַנּוֹדֵר בָּרַבִּים. אֵין לוֹ הֵיתֵר. הַמּוּדָּר הֲנָייָה מֵחֲבֵירוֹ בְפָנָיו לֹא יִשְׁאַל לוֹ אֶלָּא בְּפָנָיו. שֶׁלֹּא בְּפָנָיו נִשְׁאֲלִין לוֹ בֵּין בְּפָנָיו בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בְפָנָיו. רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר. מִפְּנֵי הַבּוּשָׁה. רִבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר. מִפְּנֵי הַחֲשָׁד. 51Tosephta 2:10, a slightly different version in the Babli, Baba Batra 8a, Sanhedrin 112a.“A person who makes a vow ‘to forbid himself the people of the town,’ if another person came and dwelled there for thirty days, [the vower] is permitted to deal with him. ‘From the inhabitants of the town,’ if another person came and dwelled there for thirty days, [the vower] is prohibited from dealing with him.52“People of the town” are its taxpayers. The obligation to pay local taxes starts only with a residence of 12 months. “Town dwellers” are those who have to contribute to the local welfare fund. That obligation starts after thirty days.” ‘A qônām that the people of my town cannot have any usufruct from me,’ he cannot ask the local rabbi53Since he is an interested party.. ‘The usufruct of the people of my town [is forbidden] to me’, he can ask the local rabbi. Some Tannaïm state, even in the first case he can ask, for it does not mean that [the rabbi] would dissolve his own vow54The rabbi does not have to disqualify himself since formally he is only forbidden to dissolve his own vows and it is probably embarrassing to him to deal with a person who makes that kind of vow.. A vow of the community cannot be dissolved55This is generally agreed on (Babli Giṭṭin 36a, Makkot 16a); since voter rolls change continuously, it is impossible to get all people who voted for the vow together to ask for dissolution.. A vow made in public cannot be dissolved56The Babli, Giṭṭin 36a, decides against this.. 57Tosephta 2:10.“If somebody made a vow that another should not have usufruct from him, if the vow was made in the other’s presence, he can request the vow to be dissolved only in the other’s presence; if the vow was not made in the other’s presence, he can request the dissolution either in the other’s presence or in his absence.” Rebbi Joḥanan said, because of the shame; Rebbi Joshua ben Levi said, because of the suspicion58R. Joḥanan feels that the maker of an inappropriate vow should be shamed, R. Joshua ben Levi requires the other party to be present lest he thought that the vower broke his vow. The Babli, 65a, disagrees and holds that the rule is biblical. Since Moses had sworn to Reuel to stay in Midian (Ex. 2:21), God dissolved his vow not at the Senna-bush but in Midian, with the consent of his family (Ex. 3:18)..
וְאַתְייָן אִילֵּין פְּלוּגְװָתָא כְּאִילֵּין פְּלוּגְװָתָא. דְּתַנֵּי. יוֹם הַכִּיפּוּרִים צָרִיךְ לִפְרוֹט אֶת מַעֲשָׂיו. דִּבְרֵי רִבִּי יוּדָה בֶּן בְּתֵירָה. רִבִּי עֲקִיבָה אוֹמֵר. אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִפְרוֹט אֶת הַחֵטְא. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. צָרִיךְ לִפְרוֹט אֶת הַנֵּדֶר. אִית תַּנָּיֵי תַנֵּי. אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִפְרוֹט אֶת הַנֵּדֶר. חַד בַּר נַשׁ נָדַר דְּלָא מִרְװְחָא. אָתָא לְגַבֵּי רִבִּי יוּדָן בַּר שָׁלוֹם. אָמַר לֵיהּ. מִמַּאי אִישְׁתַּבָּעַת. אֲמַר לֵיהּ. דְּלָא מִרְװְחָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רִבִּי יוֹדָן. וְכֵן בַּר נַשׁ עֲבִיד. [אֲמַר לֵיהּ בְּקֻבְּיוֹסְטָא]. אָמַר. בָּרוּךְ שֶׁבָּחַר בַּתּוֹרָה וּבַחֲכָמִים שֶׁאָֽמְרוּ. צָרִיךְ לִפְרוֹט אֶת הַנֵּדֶר. It turns out that one disagreement is like an other other disagreement, as it was stated: On the Day of Atonement, one has to detail one’s deeds, the words of Rebbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. Rebbi Aqiba says, one does not have to detail the sin60Yoma, Yerushalmi 1:9 (45c, 1. 48); Babli 86b. [There, the first author is R. Jehudah ben Baba. In the first hand of the Munich ms. the second author is R. Jehudah; this seems to have been the reading of Maimonides (Tešubah 2:3) and Tosafot Yešenim ad loc.]. Some Tannïm state, one has to detail the vow; some Tannïm state, one does not have to detail the vow. A person made a vow not to earn money. He came before Rebbi Yudan bar Shalom. He asked him, what did you forswear to yourself? He said to him, not to earn money. Rebbi Yudan said to him, is there anyone doing that? He said to him, as a gambler61Perhaps Greek κυβευτής, ὁ “gambler”. (In rabbinic practice, a professional gambler is inadmissible as a witness.). He said, praise to Him Who chose the Torah and the Sages who said, one has to detail the vow62If he had not asked, he would have dissolved the vow which did not warrant dissolution..