מתני׳ סְתַם נְדָרִים לְהַחְמִיר, וּפֵירוּשָׁם לְהָקֵל. כֵּיצַד? אָמַר ״הֲרֵי עָלַי כְּבָשָׂר מָלִיחַ״ ״כְּיֵין נֶסֶךְ״, אִם בְּשֶׁל שְׁלָמִים נָדַר – אָסוּר,

Unspecified vows are treated stringently, but their specification, if specification is necessary, is treated leniently. How so? If one said: This item is prohibited to me like salted meat, or: This item is prohibited to me like the wine used for libations, if he vowed in reference to meat or libations of a peace-offering, i.e., if he claimed that his intention was that the item will be forbidden to him like the salted meat of an offering, or like wine that is used for libations on the altar, it is forbidden, as he associated the item of the vow with an item forbidden by means of a vow, i.e., the offering.

אִם בְּשֶׁל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה נָדַר – מוּתָּר, וְאִם סְתָם – אָסוּר.

If he claims that he vowed in reference to meat or libations of idol worship, i.e., that the item will be like the salted meat of an offering for an idol, or like wine that is used for libations as idol worship, it is permitted, as the item of the vow was associated with an item forbidden by the Torah. By enabling the one who took the vow to later clarify his intent, the vow is treated leniently. And if the vow was without specification, i.e., the one who took the vow did not specify whether his intention was to associate the item with an offering for Heaven or to associate the item with idol worship, it is forbidden.

״הֲרֵי עָלַי כְּחֵרֶם״, אִם כְּחֵרֶם שֶׁל שָׁמַיִם – אָסוּר, וְאִם כְּחֵרֶם שֶׁל כֹּהֲנִים – מוּתָּר, וְאִם סְתָם – אָסוּר.

Similarly, if one said: This item is hereby forbidden to me like an item dedicated to the Temple, if his intention was that it would be like a dedication to Heaven, which is a form of consecration, it is forbidden. And if his intention was that it would be like a dedication to priests, whereby one pledges his asset as a gift to priests, it is permitted, as this type of gift is not forbidden at all. And if he said it without specification, it is forbidden.

״הֲרֵי עָלַי כְּמַעֲשֵׂר״, אִם כְּמַעֲשַׂר בְּהֵמָה נָדַר – אָסוּר, וְאִם שֶׁל גּוֹרֶן – מוּתָּר, וְאִם סְתָם – אָסוּר.

Likewise, if he said: This item is hereby forbidden to me like tithes, if he took a vow with the intention that it would be like the animal tithe, it is forbidden, as the item of the vow was associated with an item forbidden by a vow. And if his intention was that it will be like the tithe of the granary, i.e., grain that is given to the Levites and has no sanctity, it is permitted. And if he said it without specification, it is forbidden.

״הֲרֵי עָלַי כִּתְרוּמָה״, אִם כִּתְרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה נָדַר – אָסוּר, וְאִם שֶׁל גּוֹרֶן – מוּתָּר, וְאִם סְתָם – אָסוּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר.

Similarly, if he said: This item is hereby forbidden to me like teruma , if he took a vow with the intention that it would be like the collection of the Temple treasury chamber [ terumat halishka ], which is a tax for the communal offerings, it is forbidden, his vow was associated with an item forbidden by a vow. And if his intention was that it would be like teruma of the granary that is given to the priests, it is permitted, as teruma is not an item forbidden by a vow. And if the vow was taken without specification, it is forbidden. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.

רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: סְתַם תְּרוּמָה, בִּיהוּדָה – אֲסוּרָה, בַּגָּלִיל – מוּתֶּרֶת, שֶׁאֵין אַנְשֵׁי גָּלִיל מַכִּירִין אֶת תְּרוּמַת הַלִּשְׁכָּה. סְתַם חֲרָמִים, בִּיהוּדָה – מוּתָּרִין, בַּגָּלִיל – אֲסוּרִין, שֶׁאֵין אַנְשֵׁי גָּלִיל מַכִּירִין אֶת חֶרְמֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים.

Rabbi Yehuda says: Unspecified teruma in Judea is forbidden. However, in the Galilee it is permitted, as the people of the Galilee are unfamiliar with the collection of the chamber. When they say teruma they are referring to the teruma allotted to the priests, which is familiar to them. Conversely, unspecified dedications in Judea are permitted, but in the Galilee they are forbidden, as the people of the Galilee are unfamiliar with dedications allotted to the priests, so when they say dedication they are referring to dedication to Heaven.

גמ׳ וְהָתְנַן: סְפֵק נְזִירוּת לְהָקֵל!

The Gemara raises a problem with the principle stated in the mishna that unspecified vows are treated stringently. But didn’t we learn in a mishna ( Taharot 4:12): Uncertainty with regard to naziriteship is treated leniently? And naziriteship is a type of vow.

אֲמַר רַבִּי זֵירָא: לָא קַשְׁיָא; הָא רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, הָא – רַבָּנַן. דְּתַנְיָא: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ חַיָּיתוֹ וּבְהֶמְתּוֹ – הִקְדִּישׁ אֶת הַכּוֹי, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: לֹא הִקְדִּישׁ אֶת הַכּוֹי.

Rabbi Zeira said: This is not difficult. That mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, and this mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with him. As it is taught in a baraita : One who consecrates his undomesticated animal and his domesticated animal has consecrated the koy as well, although it is uncertain whether it is an undomesticated or a domesticated animal. Rabbi Eliezer says: He has not consecrated the koy .

מַאן דְּאָמַר מָמוֹנוֹ מְעַיֵּיל לִסְפֵיקָא – גּוּפֵיהּ נַמִי מְעַיֵּיל, וּמַאן דְּאָמַר מָמוֹנוֹ לָא מְעַיֵּיל לִסְפֵיקָא – גּוּפֵיהּ (נַמִי),

The Rabbis who said that one puts his possessions into a state of uncertainty, and therefore a koy is included in the aforementioned vow, hold that one enters himself into a state of uncertainty as well. Therefore, uncertainty with regard to naziriteship is treated stringently. And Rabbi Eliezer, who said that one does not put his possessions into a state of uncertainty, and therefore the phrase: Undomesticated and domesticated animals, refers only to definitely undomesticated and definitely domesticated animals,