Nedarim - Chapter 9

The Rambam's rationale is that since everything depends on the person's intent, it is logical to assume that the meaning of his statements follows the usage common at that time and place. See also Halachah 13.
One might ask: If so, why in the halachot that follow does the Rambam set out guidelines with regard to vows. The Radbaz (in his gloss to Halachah 13) explains that these guidelines should be followed only in places where there is no clarity regarding the expressions commonly used.

I.e., boiled without spices (Rav Avraham MinHaHar).

Although the Rambam’s ruling runs contrary to the statements of the Mishnah (Nedarim 6:2), the Rambam relies on the principle that the determinant factor in values is the meaning attached to the terms used by people at that time and in that place. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 217:3) follows the Rambam’s approach.

Here too, the Rambam’s ruling runs contrary to the statements of the Mishnah (Nedarim 6:2), because he relies on the principle that the determinant factor in values is the meaning attached to the terms used by people at that time and in that place. The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 217:3) again follows the Rambam’s approach.

Since there is a possibility that a prohibition is involved, we must rule stringently.

For corporal punishment is inflicted only when we are certain that a prohibition has been violated.

I.e., he is not certain whether the principal’s intent when telling him to buy meat was to buy fish or not.

For in that locale, it is possible that it is referred to as “meat.”

For they are generally referred to as meat.

For they are not. In the present age, this principle also applies to fish. The Rama (Yoreh De ‘ah 217:8) goes further and states that even fowl is not usually implied by the term “meat.”

The commentaries have noted that the Rambam’s ruling is not entirely identical with that of his source (Nedarim 54a). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Chui/in 8:1), the Rambam explains this difficulty, stating that the meanings of terms used today are different than the meanings used for the same terms in the Talmudic period.

See the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 6:1).

This is the implication of the Hebrew term used by the Rambam [Bayit Chadash (Yoreh De’ah 217)].

E.g., porridge (the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.). See also Hilchot Berachot 3:4 which discusses these terms.

See the Rambam’s Commentary to the. Mishnah (Nedarim 6:3).

In the Talmudic and Rabbinic era, most hard cheeses were salted to preserve them.

The term chittim is plural, implying many kernels of grain. Chitah is singular, referring not to a single kernel, but rather to· a single entity made from wheat flour (Rabbenu Nissim, as cited by the Kessef Mishneh).

I.e., wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt. Other grains, e.g., rice and millet, are not included.

For in Talmudic terminology, the term green vegetable refers to vegetables that are eaten raw and squash must be cooked.

Since these two species of vegetables are similar, but not identical, the Rambam feels it necessary to make this clarification. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 5:7), he uses the same Arabic term to define the two species but explains that the latter is more commonly grown in Eretz Yisrael.

For through the cooking ,process, it takes on the flavor of the food (see Berachat 39a; Hi/chat Berachat 8:4). In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 5:8), the Rambam maintains that this is the meaning of the first clause of that mishnah. Rashi and others, while accepting this principle, interpret that clause differently.

For there is obviously a difference between the food and the liquid in which it was cooked.

I.e., ground beans (the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, loc. cit.).

For it has the flavor of the groats.

Not only vegetables, but fruit as well [Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 217:23)].

Our Rabbis explain that the terms refer to species that have little botanical difference between them. The first term refers to those mushrooms which grow on the earth and the second, to those which grow in trees. The rationale is that, as the Rambam states, these fungi do not have roots. Thus they do not derive their nurture from the earth, but from the atmosphere (see Nedarim 55b; Hi/chat Ma ‘aser Sheni 7:4).

The Hebrew word peirot can also be interpreted as: “benefit accruing from.” Thus these entities could be included in the term. Nevertheless, since this is not the popular usage, they are not included.

The Siftei Cohen 217:31 explains that this applies only when it is possible for a person to abide by this prohibition. If, however, the vow prevents him from eating enough to maintain his wellbeing, it is nullified.

The term kayitz has a specific meaning “fruit harvested by hand,” rather than cut from the tree with a knife. Therefore, it refers to the fig harvest alone (Nedarim 61b).

As stated in Halachah 1. The Radbaz explains that the only reason the Rambam mentioned all the principles in the above and following halachot is to clarify the guidelines set forth by our Sages. They should be followed only in places where there is no clarity regarding the expressions commonly used.

Even though the wine tastes the same as grapes, since it is called by a different name, it is not considered in the same category (Siftei Cohen 216:27). This principle is reflected in all the rulings of this halachah: As long as an entity has a different name, even if its flavor is the same as another entity and even their substance is fundamentally the same, they are considered as different entities with regard to vows.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 6:6), the Rambam explains that these grapes are not fit to be eaten and instead, are used to produce vinegar.

The substances produced by the fruit are considered as being different from the fruit itself.

Although the Torah uses the term honey to refer to date-honey, in common usage, everyone understands the term as referring to bee honey (Siftei Cohen 217:22).

The Siftei Cohen 21 7: 15 states that in the present age, people do not make such a distinction when referring to these vegetables.

I.e., they are not referred to by the name of the substance as it is used without a modifier.

This term refers to a weave from goat’s hair (the Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Nedarim 7:3).

This translation is taken from the above source.

This translation is also taken from the above source. The rationale is that none of these fabrics are considered as garments.

A small bed that is placed before a larger bed to use as a stepstool for the larger bed (the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Nedarim 7:4).

The area 2000 cubits around the city. See Hilchot Shabbat 27:1-2.

This term refers to homes that are located within 70 cubits of each other on the perimeter of the city. As long as they are within that distance of another home, they are considered as part of the city itself (Hilchot Shabbat 28:1; the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah, Nedarim, loc. cit.).

Note the parallel to Hilchot Shechenim 6:5 which states that a person who lives in a city for twelve months becomes obligated to pay all the city’s levies.

See the Rama (Yoreh De’ah 217:32) and the Siftei Cohen 217:37 who emphasize that if the common terminology used at present is different, the laws are dependent on the current usages.

This term refers to people who set out on extended journeys, not on short jaunts.

For they do not remain on an ocean journey forever and ultimately, return home.

Even though they cannot see the sun.

For this term is generally used to refer to men, even if they do not have dark hair.

For they are referred to as being “covered-haired” (Rabbeinu Nissim).

For they are referred to as being “uncovered-haired” (ibid.).

This term refers to the people brought by the Assyrians to settle in Samaria after they exiled the Ten Tribes. At first, they converted and observed the rudiments of Judaism. Afterwards, however, they became like gentiles entirely.

In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 3:8), the Rambam explains that the Samaritans despise Jerusalem and make their pilgrimages to Mount Gerizim instead. The Merkevat HaMishnah explains that since the Samaritans are converts, they do not have a right to a portion in Eretz Yisrael. Hence they are not obligated to ascend to Jerusalem for the pilgrimage festivals (see Hilchot Ma ‘aser Sheni 11: 15).

Although the Jews are also of Noah’s descendants, they are not popularly referred to with that term.

Although actually, both of these nations descended from Abraham, Yishmael being Abraham’s son and Esau, Isaac’s.

The Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh De’ah 217:40) states that this includes converts.

Thus excluding Yishmael and his descendants.

Thus excluding Esau and his descendants. In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Nedarim 3:11), the Rambam adds another point. In the covenant God made with Abraham bein habetarim, he was told that his descendants would be “strangers in a foreign land” and only Jacob’s descendants - not those of Esau or Yishmael - were subjected to this decree.

This includes both gentiles who circumcise themselves for health reasons and those - like the Arabs - who circumcise themselves for religious reasons. The rationale is that the majority of gentiles are uncircumcised and the person made his statements with the intent of referring to the majority. See the Commentary of Rav Ovadiah of Bartenura to Nedarim, lac. cit.

For when the term Israelite is used, it refers to the entire Jewish people as a collective. As Yoma 66a states: “Are not the priests part of Your nation Israel?”

Even though the Torah at times identifies the priests as Levites (Deuteronomy 17:9, et al), we follow the wording used by people at large (Radbaz).

Although Yevamot 62b states that grandchildren are considered as children, that is not the meaning employed by people at large (Radbaz) .