Explanation: There are two kinds of Nedarim. One is Nidrei Hekdesh, which 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 "[Kinuyei of] Cheramim are like Cheramim"? (Cheramim are like Nidrei Hekdesh!)

Answer: This is because "Cherem", just like it includes Cheramim 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 Cheramim 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, 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 primary Neder mentioned in the Torah;

However, when one was Matfis, we require that he 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 Shevuos (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: 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: In Nazir, we asked against 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 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.

Conclusion: This connotes 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 use them, 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.

Explanation: Kinuyei Shevu'os are like Shevu'os, and they take 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 the Mishnah discusses such a case;

If he said Hash-m's name, why is [the Shevu'ah] due to the Kinuy? 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 #2: According to the opinion that Kinuyim are expressions that Chachamim made up, they enacted them for Shevu'os, so people will not 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 Shevuos (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, the Shevu'ah imposed on her through others would not be [valid].

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.

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: A Beraisa below (12a) says "what is the Isar said in the Torah? '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: Shevuos (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 Kinuyin;

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

Since you are forced to say that he began with Kinuyin, 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.