MISHNA: The mishna continues to explain the rules of intimations of vows. If an individual states that he accepts an obligation upon himself like the vows of the wicked, he has vowed with regard to becoming a nazirite, or bringing an offering, or taking an oath. This is considered a real formulation of a vow, just as the wicked customarily take vows. If he says: Like the vows of the virtuous, he has not said anything, because virtuous people do not generally take vows. If he says: Like their gift offerings, he has vowed with regard to becoming a nazirite or bringing an offering.

GEMARA: The Gemara asks a question with regard to the first clause of the mishna. And perhaps this is what he is saying: I am not making a vow like the vows of the wicked, in which case he does not intend to take a vow. Shmuel said: It is referring to one who said: Like the vows of the wicked I am hereby, or: I accept upon myself, or: From it. If he says: I am hereby, he is referring to his acceptance of naziriteship. If he says: I accept upon myself, he is referring to an offering. If he says: From it, he means to restrict himself from a particular activity through an oath.

The Gemara challenges this explanation: If he says: I am hereby, does he necessarily intend to accept naziriteship? Perhaps he is saying: I am hereby accepting upon myself to fast. Shmuel said: This is not a case where he simply said: I am hereby like the vows of the wicked; rather, it is a case where a nazirite was passing in front of him, and the meaning of his statement is understood based on that context.

Shmuel had also stated that if he says: I accept upon myself, he is referring to an offering, and if he says: From it, he means to restrict himself by means of an oath. The Gemara asks: If he says: From it, does he necessarily mean to restrict himself through an oath? Perhaps he is saying: I will eat from this loaf, rather than: I will not eat from it. Rava said: The case is where he said: I will not eat from it.

The Gemara asks: If so, he has explicitly clarified his intent, so what is the purpose of stating that this statement constitutes an oath? The Gemara answers: Lest you say that since he did not utter the term oath from his mouth the oath does not take effect, this teaches us that this is nevertheless considered a valid intimation of an oath.

§ It was taught in the mishna that if one states that he accepts an obligation upon himself like the vows of the virtuous, he has not said anything. However, if he says: Like their gift offerings, he has vowed with regard to becoming a nazirite and bringing an offering. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna according to whom there is a difference between a vow and a gift offering? Shall we say that this is not the opinion of Rabbi Meir and not the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda either?

This is as it is taught in a baraita with regard to the verse “Better that you should not vow, than that you should vow and not pay” (Ecclesiastes 5:4), that better than both this and that is one who does not take a vow at all. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says: Better than both this and that is one who vows and pays. Consequently, Rabbi Meir advocates abstaining from all vows and Rabbi Yehuda advocates making vows and fulfilling them, but neither of them distinguishes between vows and gift offerings. The mishna, however, indicates that virtuous people do not make vows but do bring gift offerings.

The Gemara answers: You can even say that it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir.