Nedarim

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