Taylor, in Nedarim 3:2 this is just a fictional situation, not an exclusive list of all those not forbidden to eat figs. It could have just as well been, “Suppose his mother and sisters were found in the crowd…” The point is that they are family, not that the ruling only pertains only to male family members.

Besides, as I said above, the quote of the commandment actually is in Nedarim 9:1 – R. Eliezer says, “They unloose a vow for a person by [reference to] the honor of his father or mother.”

It’s possible that Jesus actually influenced Jewish thought of his day and that what we read in the Mishnah shows that influence.

Good answer, David. Thanks.

Corban means dedicated and is part of halacha (Jewish law). It is more than a curse. It was a form of a legal, biding vow in which a person pledged something for G-d. Once the pledge was made – whatever was pledged, money, a animal fit for sacrifice etc. – could not be used for any other purpose. The discussions in Talmud deal with rash or harmful vows. If they were rash or harmful, they could, through a court, be annulled. So the examples given here are demonstrating that a vow that would harm family members is not valid. But if the person made it, it would still have to be legally annulled.

Was the word “Corban” always used this way?

I would like to send us your study materials about the tracts because I have orphans club in my country with 20 children.Our postal address following,

Paul orphanage and welfare club,
p.o.box 1195
Cape Coast,
Ghana West African.