(a) (Mishnah): If one said 'like Imra (lambs)' or 'like pens' (this forbids).
(b) (Beraisa): If one said 'Imra', 'for Imra', or 'like Imra' and finished 'that I will eat from you', he is forbidden;

1. The same applies if he began with 'pens', 'wood', '(things that go on the) fires', 'Mizbe'ach', 'Heichal', 'Yerushalayim', or if he prefaced any of these with 'for' or 'like';
2. If he began with any of these and concluded 'that I will not eat from you', he is permitted.

(c) Question: Who is this Tana, who does not distinguish between 'Imra', 'for Imra', or 'like Imra'?
(d) Answer: It is R. Meir.
(e) Question (Seifa): If he began with any of these and concluded 'that I will not eat from you', he is permitted.

1. This is unlike R. Meir!
2. (Mishnah - R. Meir): If one says "l'Korban (is) what I will not eat of yours," he is forbidden.
3. (R. Aba): He means "what I eat from you is like a Korban, therefore I will not eat from you."

(f) Answer: When he says "Lo Imra (some texts - l'Chulin"), this means 'not Kodesh', therefore he is permitted (R. Meir does not deduce the positive from the negative.) When he says "l'Imra", this means 'Kodesh', therefore he is forbidden, like R. Aba taught.
(g) (Mishnah): If one said "Korban", "Olah", "Minchah", "Chatas" or "Shelamim", and concluded "that I eat of yours," he is forbidden.
(h) R. Yehudah permits.
(i) If he said "ha'Korban", "like a Korban" or "Korban", and concluded "that I eat of yours", he is forbidden;
(j) R. Meir forbids one who said "l'Korban (is) what I will not eat of yours".
(k) (Gemara): The penultimate clause forbids "ha'Korban", "k'Korban" or "Korban that I eat of yours", he is forbidden. This is like R. Meir (above), who does not distinguish between "Imra" and "l'Imra". (The following question does not depend on the authorship of our Mishnah.)
(l) Contradiction (Beraisa): Chachamim (forbid without saying 'like'. They) agree with R. Yehudah that if one said "Ha (this) Korban", "Ha Olah", "Ha Minchah", "Ha Chatas" or "Ha Shelamim", and concluded "that I eat of yours," he is permitted, for he vowed by the life of the Korban (which is meaningless).

(m) Answer: All permit when he said "Ha Korban", for he vowed by the life of the Korban. R. Meir is stringent when he said "ha'Korban".
(n) (Mishnah - R. Meir): If one said "l'Korban (is) what I will not eat of yours", he is forbidden.
(o) Question: R. Meir holds that we do not deduce the positive from the negative!
(p) Answer (R. Aba): He means "what I eat from you is like a Korban, therefore I will not eat from you."

(a) (Mishnah): If Levi said to David 'Konam is my mouth from speaking with you, or my hands from working with him, or my feet from walking with you', he is forbidden.
(b) (Gemara) Contradiction (Beraisa): There is a stringency of oaths over vows, and a stringency of vows over oaths:

1. The stringency of Nedarim is that they can take effect on a Mitzvah, just like on Reshus (something optional). This does not apply to Shevuos;
2. The stringency of Shevuos is that they can take effect on tangible and intangible matters, but Nedarim do not (they apply only to tangible matters. Talking, working, and walking are intangible!)

(c) Answer (Rav Yehudah): In the Mishnah he forbade his mouth to speak (with Levi), his hands to work with him, and his legs to walk with him.
(d) Support (Mishnah): 'Konam is my mouth...'

1. He did not say 'that I will speak...'

(a) (Mishnah): The following Nedarim are permitted:

1. He said "Chulin (is) what I will eat of yours", or (what I will eat) is like pork, idolatry, hides pierced to allow removal of the heart (for idolatry), Neveilos, Tereifos, vermin, insects, or the Chalah of Aharon and his Terumah.

(b) If one told his wife "you are forbidden to me like my mother," we permit it through a different Pesach (than his mother's honor), so he will not take the matter lightly.
(c) (Gemara) Inference: He is permitted because he said "Chulin (is) what I will eat of yours." Had he said "l'Chulin" it would mean that it is not Chulin, rather Korban (and he is forbidden).