Explanation (cont.): Also if we say [that he means] "it will be a Korban, what I do not eat from you", he is permitted, for he puts an Isur Korban only on what he does not eat.

Explanation: Also this is permitted, for he means the life of the Korban. People are wont to swear based on this, and it means nothing.

Assertion: It seems to me that the text says "Ha Korban", like I wrote, and similarly regarding Shevu'ah "Ha Shevu'ah";

What was taught that it is permitted regarding Korban, it says (in the coming Mishnah) that it is forbidden regarding Shevu'ah.

Implied Suggestion: Perhaps the text says "ha'Korban".

Rejection: We taught above (13a) that R. Meir forbids ha'Korban. How can our Mishnah permit? The Gemara establishes our Mishnah like R. Meir! Rather, surely it is like we said.

Gemara: 'La'Korban I will not eat from you.' (pertains to the previous Daf)

Explanation: Also this is permitted, since with a Patach under the Lamed, he means Lo Korban.

Implied Suggestion: We should say that from the negative, we infer that what he eats should be a Korban!

Rejection: We establish our Mishnah like R. Meir. He does not infer the positive from the negative.

Explanation: 'Shevu'ah Lo Ochel Lecha' implies [I accept with] a Shevu'ah that I will not eat from you;

[Also] Ha Shevu'ah she'Ochel Lecha connotes like this (a Shevu'ah forbids that I will eat from you);

We cannot explain it to mean in the life of the Shevu'ah, like we say "in the life of the Korban", for people do not talk (Hagahos Yeshanos - swear) like this.

Also [if he said] 'la'Shevu'ah Lo Ochel', even with a Patach under the Lamed, he is forbidden.

Implied question: A Patach under the Lamed connotes "Lo". Our Mishnah is R. Meir, who does not infer the positive from the negative. Even so, regarding Shevu'ah, he is forbidden!

Answer: It seems to me that the reason is because we conclude in Shevu'os (36a) that R. Meir does not infer the positive from the negative, i.e. regarding Mamon, or Isur that entails Mamon;

However, regarding only Isur, he infers [the positive from the negative]. A Neder is an Isur that entails Mamon, for we do not find a Neder without an object. It does not take effect on something intangible. (Tal Torah asks that 'Konam Pi Medaber' takes effect in an object without Mamon. I ask that it applies even to Hefker, i.e. 'Konam the sea that I will enter it.' - PF)

However, Shevu'ah is only Isur. It takes effect on the person. Since it is Isur alone, even R. Meir agrees that we infer the positive from the negative.

Gemara: Who [authored] our Mishnah (15b)? It is R. Meir.

Explanation: He does not distinguish between Korban and k'Korban. He does not require the Kaf of comparison;

If it were R. Yehudah, why does it say 'Korban, I will not eat from you' is permitted? He permits even 'Korban, I will eat from you'!

Gemara: Here he said l'Korban, here he said la'Korban.

Explanation: L'Korban with a Sheva under the Lamed, implies 'for a Korban.' However, la'Korban with a Patach under the Lamed, implies 'Lo (not also Korban.'

Gemara - Inference: 'She'Ochel' implies that I will eat. (pertains to Amud A)

Source: The Mishnah discusses negative and positive ('she'Ochel' and 'she'Lo Ochel', so we must say that the former means 'I will eat').

Observation: According to this version, just like we need a proof to show that "she'Ochel" means [she'Iy Ochel,] that I will not eat, we similarly need a proof to show that "she'Ochel" means that I will eat.

Contradiction: In Shevu'os (20a), the way Abaye himself establishes [our Mishnah], it connotes unlike this. Rather, Stam, without any proof, "she'Ochel" means that I will eat!

Answer: I already wrote there that this is one of the Sugyos that varies [in different places in the Gemara].

Ruling: I wrote there also that the Sugya there is preferable.

Gemara: He elongated] his expression (pronunciation. Also Nimukei Yosef cites this; it is not in our text.)

Explanation: He elongated the Aleph, and appears like one who says 'she'Iy (that I will not) eat; really, he meant she'Ochel.

We would think so (that he meant she'Ochel) for people do not normally say 'she'Iy Ochel', rather, she'Lo Ochel.

Gemara: And he said "Shevu'ah that I will not eat" - this implies 'I will eat.'

Explanation: This does not means that he is Mushba (a Shevu'ah obligates him) to eat, rather, he is not Mushba not to eat;

So he told [the one pressuring him to eat] - did I swear that I will not eat with you?! I already told you that I will eat!

Gemara: And regarding the Halachah.

Opinion #1: I already wrote in Shevu'os (21b) that the Rambam rules like Abaye, and like the Sugya there. I elaborated there about the reason, with Hash-m's help.

Opinion #2: However, the Ramban rules like Rav Ashi, that she'Ochel always implies that I will eat, and she'Lo Ochel implies that I will not eat.

Gemara: This is a stringency of Nedarim over Shevu'os.

Gemara: This implies that it is a Neder.

Explanation: Since it taught that Shevu'ah is more stringent than Neder, this implies that there is an Isur also in a Neder, just it is not as stringent as a Shevu'ah.

Gemara: Behold, it taught 'he is permitted'!

Explanation: The Mishnah says, 'I will not eat of yours', he is permitted!

Explanation: Regarding this it is appropriate to say "Shevu'os are more stringent than Nedarim", for [such a Neder,] mid'Rabanan it is a Neder, like Ravina taught above, that Bal Yachel applies mid'Rabanan;

However, the Shevu'ah is more stringent than the Neder, for it is forbidden mid'Oraisa.

The Gemara gave this answer according to Ravina, for his Perush is true. Bal Yachel of the Mishnah means mid'Rabanan.

Implied question: Why don't we infer also regarding "Nedarim are more stringent than Shevu'os", that there is a Shevu'ah [to be Mevatel a Mitzvah]?

Answer: Indeed, it is a Shevu'ah, and one is lashed for it for a vain oath, just it does not take effect to nullify the Mitzvah.

Gemara: However, he profanes for Shamayim's desires.

Explanation: If his Shevu'ah entails Bitul of Shamayim's desires, he profanes his Shevu'ah.

Gemara: "La'Shem Lo Yachel Devaro."

Explanation: Even if there is in his Neder Bitul of Shamayim's desires, he does not profane [it].

Gemara: Also Shevu'ah, it is written "Oh Hishava"!

Explanation: "La'Shem" applies also to "Hishava Shevu'ah."

Explanation: It is logical that "la'Shem" does not refer to Shevu'ah, rather, to "Ki Yidor Neder", because it is proper that a Neder take effect on a Devar Mitzvah, because he forbids Hana'ah of the Sukah to himself;

The expression of a Neder is like this (he forbids Hana'ah of an object to himself), and we do not feed to a person something forbidden to him;

However, the expression of a Shevu'ah is "I will not sit in a Sukah." One may not uproot himself from the Mitzvah of Sukah, which he is commanded in!

Gemara: Rava said, are Mitzvos for Hana'ah?!

Explanation: Rava does not challenge Abaye's reason, for surely Abaye said properly;

Rather, [he challenges Abaye's] wording. If he said 'benefit from a Sukah is Alai', he may sit in it for the Mitzvah, for Mitzvos are not for Hana'ah.

Question: Even when he said Yeshivas Sukah Alai, what does this do? This is intangible! (It is not a Neder.)

Answer #1: The case is, he said Konam is a Sukah for me to sit in;

Rava was concerned only to fix the expression of Hana'ah that Abaye said, but indeed, the case is, he said [Konam is] a Sukah for sitting in it.

Answer #2 (Tosfos): Even if he said Konam Yeshivas Sukah Alai, it helps. It is called intangible only when he does not mention the object he forbids to himself, e.g. "that I sleep, or that I speak."

However, when he mentions the object forbidden, this is tangible.

Implied question: In Kesuvos (58b) and below (85b) regarding one who was Makdish his wife's Ma'aseh Yadayim (earnings), we establish the case that he said "my hands are Kodesh to their Maker"! (According to Tosfos, there was no need to do so, since he mentioned the hands!)

Note: The text in a Kesav Yad says your hands. This is unlike it says below (85b). The Rashash fixes the text to say that she said this, like below (85b) and in Kesuvos 59a. If so, in the next line he must change four words to the feminine, i.e. b'Omeres, Na'asis, k'Omeres and she'Hizkirah. Perhaps the Ran was not particular about who said so. He just asks why it did not suffice that the vow mentioned hands. (PF)

Answer: He did not truly say so. Rather, it means that it is as if he said so, since he mentioned the hands!

Question: Even when he said "sitting in a Sukah is Alai", why is he forbidden to sit for a Mitzvah? Since Mitzvos Lav Leihanos Nitnu, he does not benefit from the Sukah at all!

Answer (Tosfos): In any case, since he forbade to himself sitting, even though he has no Hana'ah from it, it takes effect.

Consequence: If so, if he said "Konam throwing a rock to the sea", it is forbidden to him, even though he has no Hana'ah from throwing.

Limitation: This is only if he specified sitting in a Sukah or throwing a rock;

However, if he said Konam Sukah Alai, or Konam this rock Alai, he may sit in it for a Mitzvah, or throw that rock, that was forbidden to him, to the sea, if he wants. Presumably, he forbade to himself only Hana'ah.

Source: One who was Makdish his animal forbade it to the entire world, and even so, there is no Isur to touch it;

Also here, Stam Isur connotes eating and Hana'ah, but anyone who specified to forbid to himself even touching, it takes effect.