Yerushalmi Megillah 1:7 ירושלמי מגילה א׳:ז׳

MISHNAH: The only difference between one who is under a vow {not to have} usufruct from another²²¹Mishnah Nedarim 4:1. A is restricted in that B made a vow that A may have no usufruct from him. (If A makes a vow that B may have no usufruct of him, the active mode is used.) and one who is under a vow about use of food is passing through his real estate²²²Setting his foot on the other’s property. and vessels that cannot be used to prepare food. The only difference between vows and voluntary gifts²²³Dedications of animals as Temple sacrifices. is that for vows one is responsible if they died or were lost, and for voluntary gifts one is not responsible if they died or were lost.

HALAKHAH: ²²⁴This is copied from Nedarim 4:1 (Notes 5–12, נ) since it refers to parts of Mishnah Nedarim 4:1 not repeated in Megillah 1:9. Cf. Babli Nedarim 33a. Therefore vessels used to prepare food are forbidden. But did he not make the vow about food? Rebbi Simeon ben Laqish: so is the Mishnah: The only difference between one who is under a vow {not to have} usufruct from another and one who is under a vow about use for food. In the House of Rebbi it was stated thus: “One who is under a vow about use²²⁵This is the text of Mishnah Nedarim 4:1 in the Yerushalmi; in the Babli “use for” is missing. It indicates that the original Yerushalmi Mishnah was the same as the Babli. of food should not borrow from him a fine or coarse sieve, a grindstone, or an oven.” It was stated: But he may borrow from him cups and bowls and fruit bowls, since these are not used to prepare food, only to serve food. Pans²²⁶Greek λοπάς. and pots are forbidden. To mill grain and to press grapes is forbidden. Harvesting grain is a problem, harvesting grapes is a problem. What kind of usufruct of food? It was stated: But he may borrow an axe from him. We wanted to say, an axe to split. Explain it by a hatchet for weeding, and you cannot infer anything. Rebbi Abuna said, that zwsta²²⁷Neither the form given in Megillah nor that in Nedarim are satisfactorily explained. since one removes and separates the bran from flour with it, it is like a sieve.

²²⁸His obligation is extinguished only by the offering of a qualified animal as sacrifice, irrespective of other circumstances.“What is the vow about which they spoke? He who says, on me is the obligation for an elevation offering²²⁹His obligation is limited to this particular animal. If it dies or develops a disqualifying blemish, his obligation is terminated.. What is the voluntary gift about which they spoke? He who says, this one is for an elevation offering.”²³⁰Mishnah Qinnim 1:1. Babli 8a, Roš Haššanah 6a, Ḥulin 139a. Rebbi Ḥama the colleague of the rabbis asked, if he said, “on me is the obligation”, and came back and said, “this one is”²³¹Is this a new obligation or is it a dedication of a specific animal intended to fulfill its prior general obligation? It is presumed that the second statement immediately follows the first.? Rebbi Ḥinena asked, would it not be reasonable if he said, “this one is”, and came back and said, “on me is the obligation”? A severe prohibition falls one a simple prohibition but a simple prohibition does not fall on a severe prohibition²³²In the second case, the voluntary gift is transformed into a vow. In the first case, the vow is not transformed into a voluntary gift..