1) If someone makes a Neder from vegetables unqualified, everyone agrees that he’s permitted to eat gourds since they’re not called vegetables {Ran: since they’re not vegetables, but fruit. Others explain the reason: since average vegetables are eaten raw, not cooked.} Even if he says “vegetables that are eaten in a pot,” he’s still permitted with gourds according to everyone {Ran: since it only includes items that gives taste into a stew, like onions and garlic. According to the other explanation: it only includes items that are eaten raw and cooked.}

2) However, if he says “vegetables that are cooked in a pot,” R’ Akiva says that it comes to include gourds, {Ran: since there’s extra words. According to the other explanation, it includes vegetables that are eaten cooked although it can’t be eaten raw, and this is despite that gourds are not true vegetables.} This is because: if you send an agent to buy vegetables, and there are no true vegetables to be had, the agent will return to confer with the sender if he wants gourds. Thus, in this case {Ran: when we have extra words of “vegetables cooked in a pot” to include it}, it’s included to be a vegetable. This excludes beans since the agent won’t even confer to buy beans (since they’re not included in ‘vegetables’ in any circumstance). However, the Tanna Kama says: since he needs to confer with the sender to buy gourds, it’s a proof that it’s not actually a vegetable, and thus, cannot be included when saying a vegetable.

3) R’ Akiva agrees that he doesn’t get Malkos for eating the gourd {Ran: since it’s only a Safeik.}

4) This, that we’re taught by Meila; if a house-owner commands his agent to give meat (that was Kodesh) to the guests, and he gave liver, or vice versa; the agent did Meila and not the house owner; we originally think that this is not like R’ Akiva. After all, he says that anything that the agent will confer to buy instead of the commanded item is considered as the same type as the commanded item, and someone would confer to buy liver instead of meat {Ran: and R’ Akiva only held it’s a Safeik when you need extra words to describe the item like “vegetables cooked in a pot,” but here, even with an unqualified ‘meat,’ an agent will confer to buy liver} the house-owner should be obligated {Ran: and we don’t say, like usual that there’s no agency to do a sin, since it’s a Gezeiras Hakasuv that there is by Meila.} However, the Gemara concludes that it could be like R’ Akiva. After all, you can’t consider that the agent fulfilled his agency since you can’t exchange meat for liver without conferring with the house-owner, which he never did.

5) If someone made a Neder from meat; R’ Akiva says that he’s forbidden with all types of meat, and thus, forbidden with the head and feet, windpipe, liver, heart, fowl and, regularly, fish. However, it’s not included when he just let blood, when fish is detrimental to him (and also fowl, salted meats, cheese and horsebeans); {Ran: and he doesn’t have in mind but to forbid items that is fit for him if it wasn’t for the Neder.} However, fowl is always forbidden, despite also being detrimental after blood letting; since it’s only detrimental without overcooking it, but overcooked fowl are not detrimental and is considered something fit for him to eat that day.

6) Also, if he has an eye ache, he’s permitted with fish since it’s detrimental (at the beginning of the ailment, but it’s a medicine at the end of the ailment).

7) R’ Shimon b. Gamliel says that, if you make a Neder from meat, he’s permitted with the head and feet, windpipe, liver, heart, fowl and fish, since they’re only included after conferring with the sender. This is like the opinion of the Tanna Kama (who argues with R’ Akiva) who holds items are only included if they’re automatically included in the definition without having to confer.

8) However, grasshoppers are permitted in all cases since agents won’t even confer to buy grasshoppers instead of meat.

9) {Ran says that the Halacha is like R’ Akiva since he’s more stringent. Also, since the one arguing with him is an individual, R’ Shimon b. Gamliel, and the Halacha is like R’ Akiva when he argues with one of his colleagues. However, this is only in places that people would confer with the sender if they can substitute fowl and fish for meat, but if they wouldn’t confer in that place, it’s permitted. This is not like the Rambam who says that this is only true by fish, but fowl is forbidden even if they wouldn’t confer in that place.}

10) {Ran quotes Rashba: regarding blood letting; fish aren’t included only if he made a Neder for the day, but if he made the Neder for longer, it does include fish since they only refrain from eating it on the day of the blood letting. However, by the case of an eye ache, since it will last for an indefinite time, it doesn’t matter how long he made a Neder for, it doesn’t include fish. However, the Ran himself held that he’s only permitted with fish if the Neder was for one day since that’s the only time that we know that he’ll refrain from fish, but more than that, we have no proof that he would refrain from it.}

11) {Ran says: we only allow fish on the day of blood letting, but not salted meat even though it’s also detrimental and he doesn’t plan to eat it that day anyhow, but the Neder takes effect on it since it’s actually defined as meat, and not like fish that it’s only considered meat after conferring with the sender.}

12) If someone makes a Neder from vegetables, it includes fresh Egyptian beans, but not dried out ones {Ran since it’s normal to make piles from them when they’re dried, so they’re not like vegetables.}

13) Everyone holds: if you make a Neder from ‘Tevuah,’ you’re only forbidden with the five types of grain, (But if you say Tevuah of the field, it includes all that grow there). If you make a Neder from ‘Dagan;’ Chachumim say that it only includes the five grains. However, R’ Meir says that it includes all items you make piles from like dry Egyptian beans, but you’re permitted with tree fruits and vegetables.

14) If you make a Neder from ‘Allalasa’ {Ran: which is the Targum of Tevuah}; you’re forbidden with all that grows {Ran: since it implies that it something that grows, gathered and improves.} However, there’s an inquiry whether rent from houses or boats are included. After all, it doesn’t improve the house or boat, but make them depreciate, or do we say that the depreciation is so small to notice since it only depreciates a little at a time, the rent money makes it considered an improvement, and thus considered ‘Allalasa.’ {Ran says: since the inquiry is unresolved, we should be stringent. Thus, it’s forbidden by a Neder, but when given all his Allalasa as a gift, he doesn’t need to give over the rent since the collector needs to prove that he should collect.}

15) If he made a Neder from “the Daga,” even R’ Meir agrees that he’s permitted with rice and Chilka, Targis and Tisgni {Ran defines: grains cut into half, thirds or fourths}.

16) If he makes a Neder from “fruit of the year,” he’s forbidden with all fruits, but are permitted with born goats, sheep, and doves, milk and eggs. However, if he says “fruit of the year is upon me,” they’re all forbidden. {Ran: it’s only if he made a Neder for a set time that it’s possible to keep, but if it’s forever, since it’s impossible to keep, the Neder can’t take effect.}

17) If he makes a Neder from “fruit of the ground,” he’s forbidden with all fruit besides mushrooms and truffles. However, if one makes a vow not to eat what grows from the ground, he’s forbidden to eat mushrooms and truffles; since they grow from the dampness of the ground, although they don't absorb nutrients from the ground; and thus, their Bracha is Shehakol.

18) {Ran brings down a Tosefta that if someone makes a Neder from ‘Tirosh,’ he’s permitted with wine and forbidden with all other sweet items. Although the Torah calls wine Tirosh, but by Nedarim, we follow the definition of how people refer to them. The Ran concludes: nowadays when people don’t speak Hebrew, but other languages, therefore, if we make a Neder from Tirosh, our intent is to forbid like the Torah’s definition, so we would be forbidden with wine and permitted with other sweet items.}

19) {Ran says: If someone makes an oath from 'Mazon,' he's permitted with salt and water. However, he can't have any other food since it's considered Mazon. According to Rav and Shmuel who say that you only make a Mezonos on things made of the five grains (and not everything is considered Mazon), we must say that they have the text "anyone that made an oath from 'Zon.'}

20) If someone makes a Neder from clothes, he’s permitted with sack, curtains and Chamila (although one may go out on Shabbos wearing sack).

21) If one makes a Neder from wool, he may cover himself in fleece {Ran: since he only intend to forbid clothing.} The same applies to those who made a Neder from linen; they’re permitted to cover themselves with flax fibers.

22) R’ Yehuda says that it all follows the context of the one who made the Neder. Therefore, if he’s carrying piles of flax and its ‘sweating’ liquid, which creates a bad smell, and he makes a Neder from linen, his only intent is on the load, so he’s only forbidden to carry it, but is permitted to wear it.

23) However, a Braisa adds that R’ Yehuda says that if he’s wearing wool and he’s sweating and it pains him and makes a Neder from wool, he only intends to forbid wearing, but not carrying. {Ran says: this Braisa argues with the Mishna that seems that an unqualified Neder is only on wearing and not carrying, but the Braisa held that you need some proof to permit carrying, and besides that, it will be forbidden to wear and carry. The Halacha is like our Mishna, and not like the Rambam who doesn’t write this.}

24) If you make a Neder from a house; R’ Meir says that it doesn’t include a second floor, since the second floor apartment is not considered a house. The Rabanan say that the second floor is forbidden since it’s considered as a house. However, everyone agrees that a house is not a second floor apartment, and if you make a Neder from a second floor apartment, he’s not forbidden with the ground floor house.

25) That, which we need a Drasha by Tzaras to include a second floor apartment, and it’s not automatically included in what the Torah calls a house; R’ Chisda says that it’s only according to R’ Meir that a house doesn’t mean a second floor apartment. Abaya answers: it might be even according to the Rabanan since I might have thought it’s not included with the definition of “a house on the land of your inheritance,” that the house needs to be attached to the ground; so we’re taught otherwise.

26) (We also learn from a Drasha to include a porch, that it can get Tzaras. {Ran says that there are those who don’t have it in the text, since the Tosefta excludes a porch. However, R’ Moshe b. Shneur has the text to include a painted house, since dyed clothes can’t have Tzaras, as we have a Drasha comparing it to linen that wasn’t changed; the same might be true by houses, so we’re taught otherwise.}

27) This, that Ulla says: if someone sells “a house from among my houses,” he may give a second floor apartment {Ran: although it’s less desirable than a regular house}; we don’t need to say that it’s like R’ Meir who holds that an unqualified house doesn’t refer to a second floor apartment (and thus, only included when you add “from among my houses”; but even according to the Rabanan, and the ‘Aliya’ that you give is not a second floor apartment but the best type of house, so we’re taught otherwise. {Ran brings the Gemara in Menachos that this is not the Gemara’s conclusion, but they rejected this answer since it says that if someone sells a house among my houses, and one house collapses, he can give him the collapsed house. Also, when he sells a slave among my slaves, and one slave dies, he can give the dead slave. However, if it only means the best one, we should check out which one died. Rather, we must say that, since the buyer’s has the lower hand, so he can be given any. This would seem to infer that Ulla held like R’ Meir, and that should be the Halacha. However, the Ramban answers the Sugya in Menachos that it’s according to the Rabanan, and it’s saying that, we don’t need to say that when selling a house, he can give a second floor apartment, but even by selling “a house among my house,” which I might say means to give the best type of house, still he can give a second floor apartment. According to this, the Halacha is like the Rabanan, and that’s also the P’sak of the Rambam.}

28) If you make a Neder from a bed; R’ Meir says that it doesn’t include a Dargush bed, since it is not considered a bed. The Rabanan say that a Dargush bed is forbidden since it’s considered as a bed. However, everyone agrees that a bed is not a Dargush bed, and if you make a Neder from a Dargush bed, he’s not forbidden with a bed.

29) The Dargush bed is a leather sheet that’s suspended between the bed posts by sticking the hooks into loops. Regular beds are hooked into holes in the post itself. However, in both cases the spread didn’t cover the whole post, and that’s why the posts don’t become susceptible to Tumah until they’re sanded down by fish skins.

30) By a mourner: they need to overturn all the beds in the house, but not ones that are only made to hold utensils. The Tanna Kama says that one doesn't need to overturn the Dargush bed, but it just needs to be stood up (on its side). (Ran explains: since the post doesn’t extend above the bed, the leather spread would be on the dirt floor and would get ruined through the moisture in the ground.} R' Shimon b. Gamliel says to undo the knots that combines the spreading to the bedposts and let the spreading fall to the ground, and that's the Halacha.

31) If a bed has two pole sticking out of it {Ran: one by the head of the bed, and one at the foot of the bed and you spread a canopy over it} and it can't be turned over (and rest on those poles), it just needs to be stood up (on its side), and it's fine.

32) If he makes a Neder from a city, he’s allowed in the T’chum since it’s not included in the city, but he’s forbidden with the outskirts (the first seventy and two thirds Amah).

33) If he makes a Neder from a house, he’s forbidden from the threshold {Ran: where the door slams on} and inside. Although we say by the closing up of a house with Tzaras, where the Kohein needs to leave the house first, that we say that he needs to L’chatchila leave from under the whole lintel of the doorway (even if it’s past the threshold), (but B’dieved it’s closed off wherever the Kohein is standing); we must say that there is different since it says there “he goes out of the house {Ran: an extra time, that he needs to go out further than regular, from out of being under the whole threshold.}

34) {Ran says: the same if he swore to stand inside a house, he’s permitted to stand from the threshold and inside, but forbidden from the threshold and outside.}

35) If someone says that “these fruits are upon me” (or “on my mouth” or “to my mouth”) he’s forbidden with what they’re exchanged for them and what grew from them. {Ran says: this is only because he picked out the fruit saying ‘these’ (and the same if he picked them saying “Ploni’s fruit” or “from a certain place”). It’s as if he said that they’re like Hekdesh that has the Halacha that what they’re exchanged for and what grew from them is forbidden. However, if he made a Neder from unqualified fruit, only the actual fruit is forbidden. Although we had an inquiry before if the reason you can forbid on the exchanged object and what grew was because it’s only forbidden to the one who made the Neder since he can make something that’s not his forbidden on himself, he can also make something that doesn’t exist yet forbidden, but, it won’t forbid if someone else made the Neder on him, or do we say that this is forbidden on all things that are forbidden to have pleasure from. We must say that we need ‘these’ here to forbid even if he didn’t do the exchange. After all, before the inquiry was why, when we say ‘these,’ the exchange is forbidden? Is it because he had it in mind to forbid, and thus it’s forbidden if someone else exchanges it, and if he didn’t say ‘these;’ it’s only forbidden to the one who made the Neder when he exchanges it, but not when the Neder was made on someone else. Or do we say that we need ‘these’ to forbid it on the one who made the Neder even when others exchange it, but not when the Neder was made on someone else, but without ‘these,’ it’s only forbidden when the one who who’s forbidden exchanges it.}

36) However, if he says a Konam from fruit that I’ll eat or taste, he’s permitted with the exchange and growth {Ran: since he’s not eating the fruit.}

37) {Ran: this that we permit what grows when he says “that I’ll eat,” and what grows from what grows when he says “Konam to my mouth”} that’s only when the seed is destroyed in the germination, but when the seed doesn’t get destroyed, it’s always forbidden, even what grows from what grows {Ran: since there’s a very small part of the prohibited seed there, and Nederim is considered a Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirin which is not Batul even in a thousand.}

38) An onion that grew on Shvious ,and then you replant it after Shvious and it grew more {Ran: as much that it could Mevatel the original Shvious prohibition} there’s a question whether it Mevatels the prohibition or not {Ran: for, perhaps, whatever extends and grows from the original bulb is Batul to the bulb and it becomes a prohibition like the bulb itself, or do we say that it’s not just an extension of the original bulb and is not prohibited, so it can Mevatel the original bulb.} R’ Yitzchok Nafcha wants to prove it from R’ Yanai’s statement that an onion of Trumah that was planted and grew more than it was originally, the Trumah is Batul. Therefore, we see, what grows in Heter can Mevatel the original bulb that was prohibited.

39) R’ Yirmiya, and other say R’ Zrika, rejects this since, to go against this statement, we have two other statements that forbid. As R’ Yochanan says: if you graft a young branch (that’s Arlah that has a fruit already growing on it) onto an old tree {Ran: where regularly we say the young branch is Batul to the old tree and what grows on it from now on doesn’t have the status of Arlah on it}, it remains forbidden even if the fruit grows afterwards so much that there’s two hundred more than the original fruit since the growth is Batul to the original fruit. Also, we see R’ Yahonason says that, if you plant an onion in a vineyard, even if you uproot the vineyard {Ran: and it grew enough to Mevatel what grew with the vineyard. This proves that we say that, whatever grows from the original forbidden bulb, has the same status as the bulb.}

40) Although we see that R’ Yochanan holds that, if you plant onions that you already took off Trumah and Maasar on and it grew more, you need to separate Trumah and Maasar on the whole onion {Ran: against the original bulb and what grew on afterwards}, it’s not a proof that what grows Mevatel the original bulb {Ran: and that’s why you need to separate Maasar from the whole onion}. After all, it could be only a stringency. {Ran explains: from the main Halacha, it’s not Batul, but on the contrary, the growth is Batul to the bulb. Therefore, we can’t say that it’s really a stringency that will lead to a problematic leniency that you might be taking off Maasar from the part that was Batul and exempt on what grew that’s obligated, or that you might be separating a larger ratio from the obligated part that grew that is really a tenth of what’s obligated, which makes it ruined (since Tevel is mixed in). After all, the main Halacha is that none of it is really obligated in Maasar.}

41) This, that we consider Shvious a Davar Shayeish Lo Matirin regarding Biur {Ran: since you can eat it all in a permitted fashion before the Biur}, but after the Biur it’s Batul {Ran: implying whether it’s mixed with Heter or if it grew on Shvious a little on what mostly grew on the sixth year. So, we see what grows afterwards is forbidden and we don’t say that it’s just an extension of the original Heter bulb}, we can also say that it’s only a stringency {Ran: despite being two stringencies, that we consider the growth not being part of the original bulb and that we treat it like a Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin and is not Batul in a thousand.}

42) Although we see that what grows from the onion after Shvious can Mevatel what you planted that originally grew on Shvious; we must say that you planted a smashed up onion {Ran: that’s inferior and we don’t say that what grows from it is just an extension.} (We also say that a sixth year onion that grew on Shvious, what grows is forbidden. So, the Tanna Kama says: if the leaves are dark, it’s forbidden {Ran: since it’s a sign that it grew} and permitted if it’s lighter [Ran: I.e., and wilted, which is a sign that it didn’t grow}. R’ Chanina b. Atignos says that the sign whether it grew or not if you can grab it by the leaves and can’t pull it out, or not.)

43) Although we permit onions, garlic, etc. on Moitzei Shvious that grew in a field of a Jew that’s suspected of not keeping Shvious {Ran: and thus we don’t even assume that he bothered to smash up the onion beforehand to permit what grows}, since what grew afterwards is Mevatel what grew originally on Shvious; we only say that by Shvious since it’s a prohibition that’s dependent on the land {Ran: as it says “the land shall rest.”} Therefore, we say that the onion is Batul to the ground after Shvious and is Mevatel the Shvious prohibition. {Ran explains: this excludes Arlah that it’s prohibition is dependent on the lack of passing time, and excludes Klayim that the prohibition depends on the mixture of seed.}

44) Although planting a Maasar onion that is still Tevel since you didn’t separate Trumas Maasar from it; what grows from it is obligated in Trumah and Maasar, or is forbidden because of Shvious, and you need to separate Trumas Maasar for the amount that was planted from other produce {Ran: but not from the onion itself, since you might be separating from what grew afterwards that doesn’t have the obligation of Trumas Maasar}; Maasar is different since it’s not caused by the land (to say it’s Batul to the land) but the obligation comes by making it into a pile.

45) It’s not a proof what we said earlier that when the seed doesn’t get destroyed, it’s always forbidden, even what grows from what grows that we hold that what grows is Batul to the original bulb. Rather, it’s because you have the ability to ask a Chachum to permit it, and it’s even a Mitzvah to ask the Chachum {Ran: so we consider it as if you asked the Chachum to permit it}, as we say “all who vow is as if he constructed a Bama, and if he fulfills it, and doesn’t ask a Chachum to permit it, it’s as if he brought a Korban on it.” There’s a very small part of the prohibited seed there, and Nederim is considered a Davar Sheyesh Lo Matirin which is not Batul even in a thousand. This doesn’t include Trumah, although you have the ability to ask a Chachum to undo the Trumah (before the Trumah reaches the Kohein’s hand), but there’s no Mitzvah to ask a Chachum to undo it.

46) This, which we said that R’ Yochanan holds that, if you plant onions that you already took off Trumah and Maasar on and it grew more, you need to separate Trumah and Maasar on the whole onion; R’ Chisda has an issue with it, as he says “what happened to the Heter part of the onion?” {Ran explains: I can understand prohibitions can become Batul since it only forbids when it gives taste, even if we consider it existing. However, regarding Maasar, you can only separate according to the amount of Tevel that exists.}

47) That, which rain fell on onions and they grew on Shvious, that R’ Shimon b. Gamliel says that only what grows is forbidden and not the original bulb {Ran: thus, if you sell it, only the money of what grows gets the Kedusha of Shvious, but not the worth of the original bulb}; we can reconcile this with R’ Yochanan that it’s only there where he didn’t bother to plant it, but it grew on its own {Ran explains: even though we said earlier if the bulb isn’t Batul to the growth, then the growth should be Batul to the original bulb; we must say that here is different since we usually don’t say that Heter is Batul in Issur, plus he didn’t put effort in to plant it to get Batul.}

48) This, that we say planting a Maasar onion that is still Tevel since you didn’t separate Trumas Maasar from it; what grows from it is obligated in Trumah and Maasar, and you need to separate Trumas Maasar for the amount that was planted from other produce, and we don’t say that, since you bothered to plant it, the bulb should be Batel and you don’t need to separate Trumas Maaasar; since Maasar is different since the Pasuk says a double Lashon of “you shall certainly separate Maasar.” {Ran explains: when referring to Maasar, it refers to seeds that are Heter, since it says “your seed,” and by planting them, the Heter turns into Issur of Tevel. However, when you plant some Issur like Tevel, that’s not “your seed,” it doesn’t turn into regular Tevel. We need to say that these are all Asmachtos, since we refer to produce that the seed is not destroyed when planted, and there’s no such produce that’s obligated from the Torah in Trumah and Maasar. Rather, the real reason they decided that it should not be Batul, since the growth is the same food as the bulb, plus they’re both forbidden for being Tevel, one Issur can’t Mevatel another Issur the same way that Heter can’t Mevatel Heter, as we explained earlier about Davar Sheyeish Lo Matirin.}

49) Although R’ Yanai says that an onion of Trumah that was planted and grew more than it was originally, the Trumah is Batul; that’s only what grows from what grows from the Trumah, but not the first growth from the Trumah.

50) Also, that’s only when the seed is destroyed in the germination, but when the seed doesn’t get destroyed, it’s always forbidden, even what grows from what grows unless it grows more than the original bulb to Mevatel it.

51) If someone tells his wife that “what you make should be a Konam to my mouth,” he’s forbidden also with what’s exchanged for them, or what grows from them {Ran: since he designates the items that he’s forbidden, it’s like saying ‘these fruit.’ We must say that he said “Konam your hands for what they make,” or “Konam your work after you make it.” Otherwise, it would be making a Neder on something that’s not of substance. R’ Yona explains: if the woman grinds the wheat and bakes the bread with the husband’s produce; he can sell the bread and keep the amount of the worth of his wheat, since only the improvement of the grinding and baking is forbidden to him.}