1 … AS THE LAMB, AS THE TEMPLE SHEDS etc. It was taught: A lamb, for a lamb, as a lamb; [or] sheds, for sheds, as sheds; [or] wood, for wood, as wood; [or] fire, for fire, as fire; [or] the altar, for the altar, as the altar; [or] the temple, for the temple, as the temple; or Jerusalem, for Jerusalem, as Jerusalem, — in all these cases, [if he says,] 'what I might eat of yours,' he is forbidden; 'what I might not eat of yours,' he is permitted. Now which Tanna do we know draws no distinction between a lamb, for a lamb and as a lamb? — R. Meir. Then consider the second clause: and in all these cases, [if he says], 'that which I might not eat of yours [be so],' he is permitted. But we learnt: [If one says to his neighbour,] 'That which I might not eat of yours be not for korban, R. Meir forbids [him]. Now R. Abba commented thereon: It is as though he said, 'Let it [i.e., your food] be for korban, therefore I may not eat of yours'? — This is no difficulty: in the one case he said, 'lo le-imra'; in the other he said, 'le-imra'. MISHNAH. IF ONE SAYS [TO HIS NEIGHBOUR], 'THAT WHICH I MIGHT EAT OF YOURS BE KORBAN', [OR]' A BURNT-OFFERING', [OR] 'A MEAL-OFFERING', [OR]' A SIN-OFFERING [OR] 'A THANKSGIVING-OFFERING', [OR]' A PEACE-OFFERING, — HE IS FORBIDDEN. R. JUDAH PERMITTED [HIM]. [IF HE SAYS,] 'THE KORBAN,' [OR] 'AS A KORBAN,' [OR]' KORBAN, BE THAT WHICH I MIGHT EAT OF YOURS,' HE IS FORBIDDEN. IF HE SAYS: THAT WHICH I MIGHT NOT EAT OF YOURS BE FOR A KORBAN,' R. MEIR FORBIDS [HIM]. GEMARA. Now, the Mishnah teaches, [IF HE SAYS.] 'THE KORBAN,' [OR] 'AS KORBAN,' [OR] 'A KORBAN BE THAT WHICH I MIGHT EAT OF YOURS,' HE IS FORBIDDEN. Thus, it is anonymously taught as R. Meir, who recognises no distinction between 'it sheep' and 'for a sheep'. But if so, then as to what he [the Tanna] teaches: 'THE KORBAN … [BE] THAT WHICH I MIGHT EAT OF YOURS,' HE IS FORBIDDEN. But it was taught: The Sages concede to R. Judah that if one says, 'Oh, korban,' or 'Oh, burnt-offering,' 'Oh, meal-offering,' 'Oh, sin-offering, what I will eat this of thine,' he is permitted, because he merely vowed by the life of the korban! —ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏ
2 MISHNAH. IF ONE SAYS TO HIS NEIGHBOUR, 'KONAM BE MY MOUTH SPEAKING WITH YOU,' [OR] 'MY HANDS WORKING FOR YOU,' [OR] 'MY FEET WALKING WITH YOU,' HE IS FORBIDDEN. GEMARA. But a contradiction is shown: There is greater stringency in oaths than in vows, and greater stringency in vows than in oaths. There is greater stringency in vows, for vows apply to obligatory as to optional matters, which is not so in the case of oaths. And there is greater stringency in oaths, for oaths are valid with respect to things both abstract and concrete, but vows are not so? — Said Rab Judah: It means that he says, 'let my mouth be forbidden in respect of my speech,' or 'my hands in respect of their work', or 'my feet in respect of their walking'. This may be inferred too, for he [the Tanna] teaches: 'MY MOUTH SPEAKING WITH YOU,' not, ['konam] if I speak with you'. MISHNAH. NOW THESE ARE PERMITTED: [HE WHO SAYS,] WHAT I MIGHT EAT OF YOURS BE HULLIN,' 'AS THE FLESH OF THE SWINE, AS THE OBJECT OF IDOLATROUS WORSHIP,' AS PERFORATED HIDES,' 'AS NEBELOTH AND TEREFOTH', AS ABOMINATIONS AND REPTILES, AS AARON'S DOUGH OR HIS TERUMAH', — [IN ALL THESE CASES] HE IS PERMITTED. IF ONE SAYS TO HIS WIFE, 'BEHOLD! THOU ART UNTO ME AS MY MOTHER,' HE MUST BE GIVEN AN OPENING ON OTHER GROUNDS, IN ORDER THAT HE SHOULD NOT ACT FRIVOLOUSLY IN SUCH MATTERS. GEMARA. Now, the reason is because he said, 'WHAT I MIGHT EAT OF YOURS BE HULLIN'; but if he said, 'What I might eat of yours be lehullin,' it would imply: let it not be hullin but a korban. Whose view is taught in our Mishnah? If R. Meir's, but he does not hold ˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃ