Nedarim, Chapter 1, Mishnah 4. This mishnah follows the previous one in presenting a list of terms, only that this time the list consists of offerings themselves, which serve as wording for a vow. True, saying that a particular item is an offering is the basic way of making a vow, as we have already mentioned, but the novelty here is that the list also includes obligatory offerings - offerings that a person is required to bring.
The principle of hatpasah (attachment):
A person must attach his vow to an offering, or to something else that is a "davar hanadur" - an item that a person forbids to himself through the power of a vow. In contrast, one who says that an item shall be forbidden to him like pork - his vow does not take effect, because pork is a "davar ha'asur": it is not the person who forbade it but the Torah that forbade it, and therefore it is not considered something to which a vow can be attached.
Since the offerings in our mishnah are obligatory offerings, which a person is required to bring, one might have thought that they are not a valid means of attaching a vow. The mishnah comes to teach that this is not so: even though the requirement to bring these offerings is an obligation, the very act of turning the item into an offering is accomplished through a person's declaration and active statement, and therefore this is a valid way of making a vow.
The wording of the mishnah:
"HaOmer: korban, olah, minchah, chatas, todah, shelamim, she'eini ochel lach - asur" - one who says: an offering, a burnt offering, a meal offering, a sin offering, a thanksgiving offering, a peace offering, that I will not eat of yours - it is forbidden. And these are the offerings that were listed:
"Korban" - the general term for an offering and a sacrifice.
"Olah" - an offering that is entirely burned.
"Minchah" - a meal offering.
"Chatas" - an offering brought for a sin.
"Todah" - a thanksgiving offering.
"Shelamim" - an offering from which the owner eats his portion together with the kohanim.
One who uses one of these expressions regarding his fellow's food, meaning that he will not eat of it and that it shall be forbidden to him - it is indeed forbidden.
Two versions of the wording of the mishnah:
Some have the version "she'ani ochel lach" rather than "she'eini ochel lach." The reason: a vow forbids an object, whereas an oath forbids a person from performing an action, and the wording "she'eini ochel lach" (that I will not eat of yours) sounds like an oath. Some explain that even when one says "she'eini ochel lach" the intent is a vow - that he is merely forbidding the object, even though the wording sounds like the prohibition of an action. And some say that the text should be emended to read "she'ani ochel lach," meaning: the item of yours that I would eat shall be forbidden.
The view of Rabbi Yehudah:
Rabbi Yehudah, as we mentioned in the previous mishnah, says that all these cases are permitted and are not a valid vow, because the person did not use the comparative kaf - the kaf that indicates comparison. He did not say "like a burnt offering, like a meal offering, like a sin offering," but rather "a burnt offering, a meal offering, a sin offering," and in Rabbi Yehudah's opinion the kaf is required.
"HaKorban, k'korban, korban she'ochlach":
Each of these three expressions, whose meaning is that the item of yours that I eat shall be considered an offering - is forbidden.
"Lo korban lo ochlach" - that which I will not eat of yours shall not be an offering - Rabbi Meir forbids, and as we mentioned at the beginning of the previous mishnah: this wording can be interpreted as saying that the item shall be like an offering, and therefore he will not eat of it. Even though the word "therefore" does not appear in his statement, this is the understanding of his words.
"Konam pi medaber imach":
One who says to his fellow "konam pi medaber imach" (my mouth is konam from speaking with you) seeks to forbid himself from speaking with him. Speech is an action, and seemingly it cannot be forbidden through a vow but only through an oath, by saying "I will not speak with you." However, since with this wording the person mentions a physical object, it can be treated as a vow: he is not forbidding the action, but rather forbidding his mouth from speaking with him.
Therefore, one who says "Konam pi medaber imach, yadi osah imach, ragli mehaleches imach - asur" - my mouth is konam from speaking with you, my hand from working with you, my foot from walking with you - it is forbidden, and all of these are considered a prohibition by force of a vow and not by force of an oath.
In summary: In this mishnah we learned that even obligatory offerings serve as wording for a vow, since making an item into an offering is accomplished through a person's active statement. We listed the offering terms in the mishnah, examined the two versions "she'eini ochel lach" and "she'ani ochel lach" and the distinction between a vow, which forbids an object, and an oath, which forbids an action, we brought the view of Rabbi Yehudah, who requires the comparative kaf, and the opinion of Rabbi Meir regarding the wording "lo korban lo ochlach," and finally we saw how even speaking, working and walking can be forbidden with the wording of a vow - by directing the prohibition toward the limbs of the body.