Explanation: There are two kinds of Nedarim. One is Nidrei Hekdesh, in which he is Makdish to Bedek ha'Bayis (funds of the Mikdash) or the Mizbe'ach.

In this way, one can be Makdish only what is his. This Isur includes (applies to) everyone.

Explanation (cont.): The other is Nidrei Isur, in which one forbids to himself permitted things.

In this way, one can forbid even another's property to himself, and the Isur does not apply to everyone.

Explanation (cont.): This Maseches pertains to Nidrei Isur.

Implied question: Why does our Mishnah say "[Kinuyim of] Charamim are like Charamim"? (Charamim are like Nidrei Hekdesh!)

Answer: This is because "Cherem", just like it includes Charamim of (Hekdesh) Bedek ha'Bayis, includes also Nidrei Isur, like the Mishnah below (47b);

Citation (47b - Mishnah): [If one said] 'I am Cherem to you', the Mudar (one who was forbidden) is forbidden [to benefit from the Madir, i.e. the one who vowed. If he said] 'you are Cherem to me', the Madir is forbidden.

Due to this kind, the Tana taught Charamim here. Chermei Bedek ha'Bayis do not apply to this Maseches, rather, to Seder Kodshim.

Explanation: There are three ways of [making] Nidrei Isur - the primary Neder, its Kinuyim, and Yados;

The primary Neder is when one says "this is forbidden to me", whether he was Matfis in (attributed its Isur to) something else, or he was not Matfis. This is the Neder mentioned in the Torah;

However, when one was Matfis, he must be Matfis in Davar ha'Nadur (something forbidden due to a vow), and not in Devar ha'Asur (something forbidden not due to a vow), like it says in Shevu'os (20b);

Citation (20b) Rhetorical question: What is the reason? It says "Ki Yidor Neder" - he must vow in something vowed.

Explanation: Even though a vow takes effect without Hatfasah, even so, if one was Matfis, we require that he is Matfis in Davar ha'Nadur, and not in Davar ha'Asur, like I wrote there with Hash-m's help.

Conclusion: Therefore, when one was Matfis, and said "this loaf is like a Korban to me", the Neder takes effect, and this is a primary Neder.

Explanation: Its Kinuy is in place of "Korban", to say Konam, Konach, or Konas. Anyone who says so, it is as if he said "this loaf is like a Korban to me."

This is what our Mishnah teaches "all Kinuyei Nedarim are like Nedarim." R. Yochanan and Reish Lakish argue about these Kinuyim in the Gemara;

R. Yochanan says that they are words that Nochrim use [in place of "Korban"]. Reish Lakish says that Chachamim made them up for people to vow with [in place of "Korban"].

According to R. Yochanan, who says that they are Nochri words, surely one who vows with them is like one who vows in the primary Korban, for vows may be said in any language;

Even according to Reish Lakish, who says that Chachamim made them up, it is a full Neder mid'Oraisa, for all languages are merely the consensus of every nation;

Chachamim's consensus is no worse than their consensus. Therefore, it is mid'Oraisa.

Support: At the beginning of Maseches Nazir, we challenged our Mishnah "it began with Kinuyim, and explains Yados!", and answered that the Tana began with the primary Korban, and then explains Yados, which come from a Drashah;

Inference: All agree that Kinuyim are mid'Oraisa, to be liable a Korban for them.

If according to Reish Lakish one [who vowed via a Kinuy] were not liable a Korban, it should have said there "this is fine according to the opinion that Kinuyim are Nochri words. However, according to the opinion that Chachamim made them up, how can we answer?", like it says in our Sugya here.

Conclusion: Surely, this implies that all agree that Kinuyim are mid'Oraisa.

Question: According to R. Yochanan, who says that Kinuyim are Nochri words, why did it explain these words Konam, Konach, and Konas, more than other words?

It should have said "one who vows in any language, his vow is a vow"!

Answer: The best answer I saw is from the great Chacham R. Yehudah bar Chasdai. The Mishnah teaches a bigger Chidush;

Not only Nochri expressions, which are proper words, one who vows using them, it is a vow;

Rather, even with words that are not proper, like these, Konam, Konach, which are Lashon ha'Kodesh, but they were garbled [it is a vow].

One might have thought that one who vows in them, it is not a Neder, since it is not a proper expression by itself;

[The Mishnah] teaches that this is not so. Since Nochrim speak with these words, even though they are not the primary words, rather, they say a distortion, it is a full vow, and all the more so other Nochri expressions.

Support: The Yerushalmi proves like this. Also, this is why they are called Kinuyim. I.e. they are from an expression of Neder, but it is a nickname, like one who makes a nickname for his friend. These are Kinuy Nedarim.

Explanation: Yados Nedarim is beginning to say a vow, but he does not finish it;

The part that he says is as if he vows the entire text. He is like one who holds a Kli by the handle, and moves the entire Kli. Therefore, the vow takes effect;

Below, [the Mishnah] explains Yados.

Mishnah: And [all Kinuyim for] Charamim are like Charamim.

Explanation: I.e. one who says 'this property is upon him Cherek, Cherech or Cheref', it is as if he said 'this property is upon him Cherem', and it is forbidden to him.

Explanation: A Kinuy for a Shevu'ah is like a Shevu'ah, and it takes effect.

Inference: This shows that a Shevu'ah does not require Hash-m's name. Rather, since he said 'Shevu'ah", or "Shevusah (which is its Kinuy,) that I will not eat this loaf', he may not eat it, for our Mishnah discusses such a case;

If he said Hash-m's name, why is the Kinuy relevant? It suffices due to mention of His name. Even without "Shevu'ah" or a Kinuy, it is a Shevu'ah!

Proof #1: It says in Avodah Zarah (28a) "to Elokei Yisrael, I will not reveal this", like is brought there (this was considered a Shevu'ah).

Proof #2: It says below (22b) "Master of everything, I will not eat" [and he was forbidden due to this].

Proof #3: According to the opinion that Kinuyim are expressions that Chachamim made up, they enacted them for Shevu'os, lest people say "Shevu'ah la'Shem." This is clear from the Gemara;

Inference: Anyone who mentions "Shevu'ah" or a Kinuy for it, even without saying Hash-m's name, it works.

Question: We say in Shevu'os (35b) that Shevu'as ha'Edus requires Hash-m's name. We learn from "Alah-Alah" from Sotah!

Answer #1 (R. Tam): That is only when others are Mashbi'a (impose a Shevu'ah on) someone, for we learn from Sotah, in which the Kohen is Mashbi'a her. However, one who says a Shevu'ah himself does not need Hash-m's name.

Question #1: How could the holy mouth [of R. Tam] say so?! It says in Shevu'os (29b) one who says Amen after a Shevu'ah, it is as if he said the Shevu'ah!

We learn this from Sotah. It says "the woman will say Amen Amen", i.e. it is as if she herself swore, like Rashi explained there and in Shevu'os 36a (DH v'Amrah).

If you would not say so, she would not even sworn via others.

This is the reason for the Mishnah there, which says that even though one is exempt for Shevu'as Bituy imposed through others, [however,] if he answered Amen, he is liable.

Since we learn from Sotah, we should say that even one who says a Shevu'ah himself should need Hash-m's name!

Conclusion: I do not understand R. Tam's opinion. (Bach - R. Tam refers only to Shevu'as ha'Edus and Shevu'as ha'Dayanim, which are imposed on a person against his will, like Sotah. One who willingly forbids himself does not need Hash-m's name or a Kinuy, also when he hears a Shevu'ah and answers Amen. Korban Nesan'el and Machaneh Efrayim - one who says Amen is like one who said the Shevu'ah only if he heard a Shevu'ah with Hash-m's name. Chasam Sofer - one who says a Shevu'ah intends for the Shevu'ah in the Torah, which is with Hash-m's name. Answering Amen affirms the words that he heard, but not his intent, even if the one who said it intended for the Shevu'ah in the Torah with Hash-m's name. Shalmei Nedarim citing the Netziv - a Shevu'ah without Hash-m's name is like a Yad. Yados help only for one who says a Shevu'ah himself. Normally, it is better to say the oath himself than to answer Amen. Sotah is different; this is a Gezeras ha'Kasuv.)

Question #2 (against R. Tam): There, it connotes that even when others are Mashbi'a him, we do not need Hash-m's name, for the Mishnah (Shevu'os 35a) teaches that [if one said] "I am Mashbi'a you" or "I forbid you"..., they are liable. Abaye concludes that it means "I am Mashbi'a you with a Shevu'ah."

Inference: The word "Shevu'ah" itself suffices!

Answer: Rashi explained there that Abaye discusses when he mentioned Hash-m's name.

Rebuttal: The words connote unlike this.

Answer #2: Rather, the primary Perush is that we say there that Shevu'as ha'Edus needs Hash-m's name, this is like R. Chanina bar Idi, who learns "Alah-Alah" from Sotah;

However, Rabanan do not require Hash-m's name or a Kinuy, like is proven from our Mishnah.

Note: Here, Kinuyim are words that allude to Hash-m. They are unlike Kinuyim in our Mishnah.

Implied question: The Mishnah there says that [if they swore] with any Kinuy, they are liable. (This implies that Hash-m's name or a Kinuy is needed!)

Answer: We do not need Hash-m's name or a Kinuy. Rather, this teaches that one who is Mashbi'a with a Kinuy is like one who is Mashbi'a Stam, and it takes effect;

It is unlike one who is Mashbi'a with Shamayim and Aretz. The Mishnah exempts [the witnesses in this case].

Distinction: However, the Ra'avad says that regarding lashes, one is lashed only if he mentioned Hash-m's name.

Source: All of the Lavim of Shevu'ah mention Hash-m's name - "Lo Sisa Es Shem Hash-m [Elokecha la'Shav]", "Lo Sishbe'u bi'Shmi";

However, regarding Isur, there is [an Isur] even without Hash-m's name.

Mishnah: And [all Kinuyim for] Nezirus are like Nezirus.

Explanation: I.e. one who says 'behold, I am Nazik [or] Pazi'ach' is like one who says 'behold, I am a Nazir.'

Mishnah: One who says to his friend 'I am Mudar from you'...

Explanation: The Gemara explains, these are Yados. We also explain that it teaches, 'I am Mudar from you that I will eat from you'; 'I am Mudar from you that I will taste from you.' The same applies to Mufrashni and Meruchakni.

They are Yados, because he did not conclude his words to say 'Korban', or because he did not explicitly say 'Isur.'

Mishnah: That I will eat and that I will taste.

Remark: Some texts say so (she'Ani), without a Yud, and some say she'Eini, with a Yud. This will be explained in the Gemara (4a DH Ela), with help from Shamayim.

Gemara: Why is it different regarding Nedarim, that all of them (matters for which Kinuyim work) were taught?

Distinction: Whereas in Maseches Nazir, it taught only 'all Kinuyim for Nezirus are like Nezirus.'

Gemara: Neder and Shevu'ah are written by each other.

Explanation: It says "Ki Yidor Neder la'Shem Oh Hishava Shevu'ah."

Explanation: He forbids the loaf to himself and says "eating this loaf is Alai (forbidden to me)";

This excludes a Shevu'ah, in which he forbids himself from the object, i.e. he says "Shevu'ah, I will not eat this loaf."

Inference: There is no Shevu'ah in an expression of a Neder, and no Neder in an expression of a Shevu'ah.

Consequence: Therefore, whenever one switches one with the other, his words have no effect.

Question #1 (Beraisa, 12a): What is the Isar said in the Torah? 'Behold, it is Alai that I will not eat meat.'

Inference: There is a Neder in an expression of a Shevu'ah, for he said "I will not eat"!

Question #2: Shevu'os (22a) connotes that there is a Shevu'ah in an expression of a Neder!

Citation (22a): The case is, he says "eating from both of them is Alai Shevu'ah."

This is an expression of a Neder, and he said it regarding a Shevu'ah. This shows that it helps!

Answer: These expressions are not precise;

The case of the Isar said in the Torah comes only to teach how Isar takes effect through Hatfasah. Therefore, [the Tana] was not meticulous about the wording. Really, he said it in an expression of a Neder!

Also in the case of "eating from both of them is Alai Shevu'ah", he did not say precisely this. Rather, he said "Shevu'ah that I will not eat both of them";

There, since above it taught "eating from both of them is Alai Konam", which is precise, for it is a Neder, he said also "eating from both of them is Alai Shevu'ah", and this is not precise.

Support: Also R. Chananel and the Ri mi'Gash hold like this, and the Rashba agreed.

The Yerushalmi's opinion: The Yerushalmi brings an argument about this law;

Citation (Yerushalmi): R. Yudan and R. Muna hold that there is no Neder in an expression of a Shevu'ah, and no Shevu'ah in an expression of a Neder. R. Yosi argues with them.

Inference: We hold like the majority (the first opinion).

The Ramban's opinion: However, the Ramban wrote in his Hilchos Nedarim (on the Rif, 5b) that we should not alter the text of those Sugyos and say that they are not precise. Surely, a Neder said in an expression of a Shevu'ah, and a Shevu'ah in an expression of a Neder, help;

However, they are not the primary Neder and Shevu'ah, for our Sugya says that Neder and Shevu'ah have different expressions. Rather, they work due to Yados;

A Neder said in an expression of a Shevu'ah, since his mouth and heart agree to forbid on himself through a Neder, even though he did not say a precise expression, in any case it is a Yad;

Similarly, a Shevu'ah that he said "Shevu'ah this loaf Alai", since his mouth and heart agree to forbid eating from this loaf with a Shevu'ah, it helps due to a Yad.

However, here in our Sugya we discuss the primary expressions of a Neder and of a Shevu'ah.

Explanation: It seems that this means as follows. Surely, the Tana began with Kinuyim;

Even if you will say that our Mishnah is abbreviated, the Reisha is not abbreviated, for one does not omit from his initial words, rather, in the middle.

Since you are forced to say that he began with Kinuyim, even if the Tana taught also Yados, he should have explained first what he began with.

Also, did he forget Yados? He did not mention them initially, [which he should have done] in order to [proceed to] explain them!

Explanation (cont.): He [first] answers the latter question, and says that he discusses them, i.e. our Mishnah is abbreviated.

Gemara: He should explain Kinuyim first!

Explanation: Even though you answered the latter question, the first is still difficult.

The Gemara answers that the Tana often explains first the matter that he ended with, like the Mishnah 'with what may we light (Neros Shabbos)...?

Gemara: Does [the Tana] never begin to explain the first matter taught?!

Explanation: We are thinking that when we answered that the matter taught last, he explains it first, this is precise (uniform);

If there were no adamancy about it, the Tana should teach all of them in one way. This is why we ask.

Gemara (Mishnah): Some [relatives] inherit [from] and bequeath [to each other].

Explanation: I.e. a father to and from his sons.

Gemara (Mishnah): Some inherit, but do not bequeath.

Explanation: A man [inherits] his mother (but does not bequeath to her).

Gemara (Mishnah): [Some women] are permitted to their husbands and forbidden to their Yevamim.

Explanation: It explains in Yevamos (84a) - a Kohen Hedyot who married a widow, and he has a brother who is a Kohen Gadol.

Gemara (Mishnah): Some are permitted to their Yevamim and forbidden to their husbands.

Explanation: A Kohen Gadol who was Mekadesh a widow, and he has a brother who is a Kohen Hedyot.

Gemara (Mishnah): [Some Menachos] require oil and Levonah.

Explanation: It explains in Menachos (59a), Minchah of Soles, Machavas and Marcheshes.

Gemara (Mishnah): [Some Menachos require] oil but not Levonah.

Explanation: Minchas Nesachim.

Gemara (Mishnah): Some [Kodshim] require Hagashah.

Explanation: The Kohen brings the Minchah to the southwest corner [of the Mizbe'ach] - "Zos Toras ha'Minchah Hakrev Osah Bnei Aharon Lifnei Hash-m";

It explains in Sotah (14b) that this is the southwest corner.

Gemara: Tenufah.

Explanation: The Kohen puts his hand under the owner's hand, and waves.

Gemara (Mishnah): Some require Hagashah, but not Tenufah.

Explanation: This is Minchas Chotei.

Gemara (Mishnah): Tenufah, but not Hagashah.

Explanation: The Log of oil of a Metzora, and his Asham, and Bikurim.