Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 29, 2015 | 讬状讗 讘住讬讜谉 转砖注状讛

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Nedarim 5

Study Guide Nedarim 5


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗讘诇 讗诪专 诪讜讚专谞讬 讛讬诪讱 诇讞讜讚讬讛 砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讜讚专谞讬 讛讬诪讱 砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉

However, if he said only: I am avowed from you, they are both prohibited from deriving benefit from one another. This is like that which Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: If one says: I am avowed from you, they are both prohibited.

转谞谉 讛专讬谞讬 注诇讬讱 讞专诐 讛诪讜讚专 讗住讜专 讗讘诇 诪讚讬专 诇讗 讻讙讜谉 讚驻专讬砖 讜讗转 注诇讬 诇讗

The Gemara asks: We learned in a mishna (47b) that if one says to another: I am hereby to you like an item dedicated to the Temple, the one to whom the vow was said is prohibited from deriving benefit from the one who made the vow, but the one who made the vow is not prohibited from deriving benefit from the one with regard to whom the vow was said. However, according to Shmuel, both should be prohibited. The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where he specified this by saying: And you are not like an item dedicated to the Temple for me.

讗转 注诇讬 讞专诐 讛谞讜讚专 讗住讜专 讗讘诇 诪讜讚专 诇讗 讻讙讜谉 讚驻专讬砖 讜讗谞讗 注诇讱 诇讗

The Gemara asks: That mishna also taught that if one says: You are to me like an item dedicated to the Temple, the one who makes the vow is prohibited to derive benefit from the other, but the one to whom the vow was said is not prohibited from deriving benefit from the one who makes the vow. However, according to Shmuel, both should be prohibited. The Gemara answers: Here too, it is referring to a case where he specified this by saying: And I am not like an item dedicated to the Temple for you.

讗讘诇 住转诪讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬诐 讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛专讬谞讬 注诇讬讱 讜讗转 注诇讬 砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬诐 讛讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚砖谞讬讛诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讛讗 住转诪讗 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讜讞讘专讜 诪讜转专

The Gemara asks: But if he stated his vow in an unspecified manner, what, are they both prohibited from deriving benefit from each other? From the fact that it teaches in the latter clause that if one says to another: I am hereby to you, and you are to me, like an item dedicated to the Temple, they are both prohibited from deriving benefit from each other, it can be derived that it is in this case both are prohibited, but if one stated his vow in an unspecified manner, he is prohibited from deriving benefit from the other individual and the other is permitted to derive benefit from him. This is not in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 讗转诪专 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讜讚专 讗谞讬 诇讱 砖谞讬讛诐 讗住讜专讬谉 诪讜讚专谞讬 讛讬诪讱 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讜讞讘专讜 诪讜转专

Rather, this is how the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, was stated: If one said to another: I am avowed to you, they are both prohibited from deriving benefit from one another. However, if he says: I am avowed from you, he is prohibited from deriving benefit from the other person and the other is permitted to derive benefit from him.

讜讛讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 讛讬诪讱 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讘讻讜诇谉 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诇讱 讜砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讜讞讘专讜 诪讜转专 讗讘诇 讘诪讜讚专谞讬 讛讬诪讱 砖谞讬讛诐 讗住讜专讬谉

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 the mishna teach a case of one who declared: I am avowed from you, and yet we established the mishna, according to Shmuel, as teaching that in all these cases it is only if he says: That which I taste of yours, or: That which I eat of yours, that he is prohibited from deriving benefit from the other person, and the other is permitted? However, if he merely says: I am avowed from you, they are both prohibited. Consequently, Shmuel does not distinguish between the expressions: I am avowed from you, and: I am avowed to you.

讗诇讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讜砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诇讱 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谉 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讛讗 诪讜讚专谞讬 诪诪讱 讗住讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讛谞讗讛

Rather, this is how the opinion of Shmuel was originally stated: The reason is that he said: That which I eat of yours, or: That which I taste of yours. It is for this reason that he is prohibited only from eating anything belonging to the other person. However, if he said: I am avowed from you, without further specification, he is prohibited even from deriving any form of benefit from the other.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬诪讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讜讗诐 诇讗 讗诪专 讗诇讗 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讜砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诇讱 讗讬谉 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讘讗讻讬诇讛

The Gemara asks: If so, let Shmuel say as follows: And if he said only: That which I eat of yours, or: That which I taste of yours, he is prohibited only from eating an item belonging to his fellow, but he is permitted to derive benefit from it.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讜砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诇讱 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诪讜讚专谞讬 讛讬诪讱 诇讗 诪砖诪注 讚讗诪专 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讜讚专 讗谞讬 诪诪讱 诇讗 诪砖转注讬谞讗 讘讛讚讱 诪砖诪注 诪讜驻专砖谞讬 诪诪讱 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚谞讗 注诪讱 诪砖讗 讜诪转谉 诪砖诪注 诪专讜讞拽谞讬 诪诪讱 讚诇讗 拽讗讬诪谞讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚讬诇讱 诪砖诪注

Rather, this is how Shmuel鈥檚 opinion was stated: The reason is that he said: That which I eat of yours, or: That which I taste of yours; it is in these cases that he is prohibited from eating any item belonging to his fellow. However, if he said simply: I am avowed from you, that statement does not indicate that he said he is prohibited from eating an item belonging to his fellow. What is the reason for this? The statement: I am avowed from you, indicates: I am not speaking with you. Similarly, the statement: I am separated from you, indicates: I am not doing business with you. The statement: I am distanced from you, indicates that I will not stand within four cubits of you.

诇讬诪讗 拽住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜讻讬讞讜转 诇讗 讛讜讜讬讬谉 讬讚讬诐 讗讬谉 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讬讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜讻讬讞讜转 诇讗 讛讜讜讬讬谉 讬讚讬诐

The Gemara asks: If so, shall we say that Shmuel holds that ambiguous intimations are not intimations, i.e., if one employs an incomplete expression to declare a vow and the expression does not state clearly what his intention is, it does not produce a vow? The Gemara answers: Yes, Shmuel establishes the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: Ambiguous intimations are not intimations.

讚转谞谉 讙讜驻讜 砖诇 讙讟 讛专讬 讗转 诪讜转专转 诇讻诇 讗讚诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讜讚讬谉 讚讬讛讜讬 诇讬讻讬 诪讬谞讗讬 住驻专 转讬专讜讻讬谉 讜讗讬讙专转 砖讘讜拽讬谉

As we learned in a mishna (Gittin 85a鈥揵): The essence of a bill of divorce is the sentence: You are hereby permitted to marry any man. Rabbi Yehuda says there is an additional statement that is an essential part of the divorce document: And this shall be to you from me a document of divorce [teirukhin] and a letter of dismissal. This demonstrates that according to Rabbi Yehuda, the wording of the bill of divorce itself must clarify that the husband is divorcing his wife through the bill of divorce.

讗诪讗讬 讚讞讬拽 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗讜拽讜诪讛 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讜拽诪讛 讻专讘谞谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬谉 讬讚讬诐 诪讜讻讬讞讜转

The Gemara asks: Why does Shmuel strain to establish the mishna as being in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, which is a minority opinion? Let him establish it as being in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that although there are no obvious intimations in one鈥檚 statements, they are still considered vows. Consequently, if one said: I am avowed to you, even if he did not add: With regard to that which I eat, the vow takes effect.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽砖讬转讬讛 讗诪讗讬 转讗谞讬 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诇讱 诇讬转谞讬 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注讬谞谉 讬讚讬诐 诪讜讻讬讞讜转

Rava said: The mishna was difficult for him. Why does it teach the cases where one adds: That which I eat of yours, and: That which I taste of yours? Let it teach: That which I eat, and: That which I taste, without the additional phrase: Of yours. Since the one taking the vow is addressing another individual, it is clear to whom he is referring even without this phrase. Conclude from this that we require obvious intimations, i.e., the intent of the individual taking the vow must be indicated by his verbal statement and not merely by the context of his statement.

讗讬转诪专 讬讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜讻讬讞讜转 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讛讜讜讬讬谉 讬讚讬诐 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜讜讬讬谉 讬讚讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬 讗讬讚讬 讗住讘专讗 诇讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 谞讝讬专 诇讛讝讬专 诇讛壮 诪拽讬砖 讬讚讜转 谞讝讬专讜转 诇谞讝讬专讜转 诪讛 谞讝讬专讜转 讘讛驻诇讗讛 讗祝 讬讚讜转 谞讝讬专讜转 讘讛驻诇讗讛

搂 The Gemara addresses more fully the issue mentioned in passing in the previous discussion. It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to ambiguous intimations. Abaye said: They are valid intimations, and Rava said: They are not valid intimations. Rava said: Rabbi Idi explained to me the source of this ruling. The verse states: 鈥淭he vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself [nazir lehazir] to the Lord鈥 (Numbers 6:2). The verse juxtaposes intimations of naziriteship, derived earlier (3a) from the doubled term 鈥nazir lehazir,鈥 to naziriteship. This indicates that just as accepting nazirite-ship must be expressed with a distinct articulation, so too, intimations of naziriteship must be expressed with a distinct articulation as opposed to ambiguous intimations.

诇讬诪讗 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞谉 讙讜驻讜 砖诇 讙讟 讛专讬 讗转 诪讜转专转 诇讻诇 讗讚诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讜讚讬谉 讚讬讛讜讬 诇讬讻讬 诪讬谞讗讬 住驻专 转讬专讜讻讬谉 讜讙讟 驻讟讜专讬谉 讜讗讬讙专转 砖讘讜拽讬谉 讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讻专讘谞谉 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara proposes: Let us say that these amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to the tannaitic dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna (Gittin 85a鈥揵): The essence of a bill of divorce is the sentence: You are hereby permitted to marry any man. Rabbi Yehuda says that there is an additional statement that is an essential part of the divorce document: And this shall be to you from me a document of divorce, a bill of release, and a letter of dismissal. One could suggest that Abaye, who holds that ambiguous intimations are valid intimations, said his statement in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and Rava, who holds that ambiguous intimations are not valid intimations, said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诪专 诇讱 讗讘讬讬 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘注讬谞谉 讬讚讬诐 诪讜讻讬讞讜转 讗诇讗 讙讘讬 讙讟 讚讘注讬谞谉 讻专讬转讜转 讜诇讬讻讗 讗讘诇 讘注诇诪讗 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛

The Gemara responds: Abaye could have said to you: I say my statement even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda says that we require obvious intimations only with regard to a bill of divorce, as we require full severance of the relationship, and there is not full severance unless the bill of divorce clearly states that the husband is divorcing his wife through that document. However, did you hear him state generally that ambiguous intimations are not valid intimations?

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讬讚讬诐 诪讜讻讬讞讜转 讗诇讗 讙讘讬 讙讟

And Rava could have said: I say my statement even in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Rabbis say that we do not require obvious intimations only with regard to a bill of divorce,

  • This month's learning is dedicated by Debbie and Yossi Gevir to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Zoom group for their kindness, support, and care during a medically challenging year.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Nedarim 5

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 5

讗讘诇 讗诪专 诪讜讚专谞讬 讛讬诪讱 诇讞讜讚讬讛 砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉 讻讬 讛讗 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讜讚专谞讬 讛讬诪讱 砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬谉

However, if he said only: I am avowed from you, they are both prohibited from deriving benefit from one another. This is like that which Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, said: If one says: I am avowed from you, they are both prohibited.

转谞谉 讛专讬谞讬 注诇讬讱 讞专诐 讛诪讜讚专 讗住讜专 讗讘诇 诪讚讬专 诇讗 讻讙讜谉 讚驻专讬砖 讜讗转 注诇讬 诇讗

The Gemara asks: We learned in a mishna (47b) that if one says to another: I am hereby to you like an item dedicated to the Temple, the one to whom the vow was said is prohibited from deriving benefit from the one who made the vow, but the one who made the vow is not prohibited from deriving benefit from the one with regard to whom the vow was said. However, according to Shmuel, both should be prohibited. The Gemara answers: It is referring to a case where he specified this by saying: And you are not like an item dedicated to the Temple for me.

讗转 注诇讬 讞专诐 讛谞讜讚专 讗住讜专 讗讘诇 诪讜讚专 诇讗 讻讙讜谉 讚驻专讬砖 讜讗谞讗 注诇讱 诇讗

The Gemara asks: That mishna also taught that if one says: You are to me like an item dedicated to the Temple, the one who makes the vow is prohibited to derive benefit from the other, but the one to whom the vow was said is not prohibited from deriving benefit from the one who makes the vow. However, according to Shmuel, both should be prohibited. The Gemara answers: Here too, it is referring to a case where he specified this by saying: And I am not like an item dedicated to the Temple for you.

讗讘诇 住转诪讗 诪讗讬 砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬诐 讛讗 诪讚拽转谞讬 住讬驻讗 讛专讬谞讬 注诇讬讱 讜讗转 注诇讬 砖谞讬讛谉 讗住讜专讬诐 讛讚讬谉 讛讜讗 讚砖谞讬讛诐 讗住讜专讬谉 讛讗 住转诪讗 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讜讞讘专讜 诪讜转专

The Gemara asks: But if he stated his vow in an unspecified manner, what, are they both prohibited from deriving benefit from each other? From the fact that it teaches in the latter clause that if one says to another: I am hereby to you, and you are to me, like an item dedicated to the Temple, they are both prohibited from deriving benefit from each other, it can be derived that it is in this case both are prohibited, but if one stated his vow in an unspecified manner, he is prohibited from deriving benefit from the other individual and the other is permitted to derive benefit from him. This is not in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 讗转诪专 讚专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讘专讘讬 讞谞讬谞讗 诪讜讚专 讗谞讬 诇讱 砖谞讬讛诐 讗住讜专讬谉 诪讜讚专谞讬 讛讬诪讱 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讜讞讘专讜 诪讜转专

Rather, this is how the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi 岣nina, was stated: If one said to another: I am avowed to you, they are both prohibited from deriving benefit from one another. However, if he says: I am avowed from you, he is prohibited from deriving benefit from the other person and the other is permitted to derive benefit from him.

讜讛讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 讚拽转谞讬 讛讬诪讱 讜讗讜拽讬诪谞讗 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 诇砖诪讜讗诇 讘讻讜诇谉 注讚 砖讬讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诇讱 讜砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讜讞讘专讜 诪讜转专 讗讘诇 讘诪讜讚专谞讬 讛讬诪讱 砖谞讬讛诐 讗住讜专讬谉

The Gemara asks: But didn鈥檛 the mishna teach a case of one who declared: I am avowed from you, and yet we established the mishna, according to Shmuel, as teaching that in all these cases it is only if he says: That which I taste of yours, or: That which I eat of yours, that he is prohibited from deriving benefit from the other person, and the other is permitted? However, if he merely says: I am avowed from you, they are both prohibited. Consequently, Shmuel does not distinguish between the expressions: I am avowed from you, and: I am avowed to you.

讗诇讗 诪注讬拽专讗 讚砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讜砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诇讱 讛讜讗 讚讗讬谉 讛讜讗 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讘讗讻讬诇讛 讛讗 诪讜讚专谞讬 诪诪讱 讗住讜专 讗驻讬诇讜 讘讛谞讗讛

Rather, this is how the opinion of Shmuel was originally stated: The reason is that he said: That which I eat of yours, or: That which I taste of yours. It is for this reason that he is prohibited only from eating anything belonging to the other person. However, if he said: I am avowed from you, without further specification, he is prohibited even from deriving any form of benefit from the other.

讗讬 讛讻讬 诇讬诪讗 砖诪讜讗诇 讛讻讬 讜讗诐 诇讗 讗诪专 讗诇讗 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讜砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诇讱 讗讬谉 讗住讜专 讗诇讗 讘讗讻讬诇讛

The Gemara asks: If so, let Shmuel say as follows: And if he said only: That which I eat of yours, or: That which I taste of yours, he is prohibited only from eating an item belonging to his fellow, but he is permitted to derive benefit from it.

讗诇讗 讛讻讬 讗讬转诪专 讟注诪讗 讚讗诪专 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 讜砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诇讱 讛讜讗 讚讗住讜专 讗讘诇 讗诪专 诪讜讚专谞讬 讛讬诪讱 诇讗 诪砖诪注 讚讗诪专 讗住讜专 诪讗讬 讟注诪讗 诪讜讚专 讗谞讬 诪诪讱 诇讗 诪砖转注讬谞讗 讘讛讚讱 诪砖诪注 诪讜驻专砖谞讬 诪诪讱 讚诇讗 注讘讬讚谞讗 注诪讱 诪砖讗 讜诪转谉 诪砖诪注 诪专讜讞拽谞讬 诪诪讱 讚诇讗 拽讗讬诪谞讗 讘讗专讘注 讗诪讜转 讚讬诇讱 诪砖诪注

Rather, this is how Shmuel鈥檚 opinion was stated: The reason is that he said: That which I eat of yours, or: That which I taste of yours; it is in these cases that he is prohibited from eating any item belonging to his fellow. However, if he said simply: I am avowed from you, that statement does not indicate that he said he is prohibited from eating an item belonging to his fellow. What is the reason for this? The statement: I am avowed from you, indicates: I am not speaking with you. Similarly, the statement: I am separated from you, indicates: I am not doing business with you. The statement: I am distanced from you, indicates that I will not stand within four cubits of you.

诇讬诪讗 拽住讘专 砖诪讜讗诇 讬讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜讻讬讞讜转 诇讗 讛讜讜讬讬谉 讬讚讬诐 讗讬谉 砖诪讜讗诇 诪讜拽讬诐 诇讛 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讚讗诪专 讬讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜讻讬讞讜转 诇讗 讛讜讜讬讬谉 讬讚讬诐

The Gemara asks: If so, shall we say that Shmuel holds that ambiguous intimations are not intimations, i.e., if one employs an incomplete expression to declare a vow and the expression does not state clearly what his intention is, it does not produce a vow? The Gemara answers: Yes, Shmuel establishes the mishna in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who said: Ambiguous intimations are not intimations.

讚转谞谉 讙讜驻讜 砖诇 讙讟 讛专讬 讗转 诪讜转专转 诇讻诇 讗讚诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讜讚讬谉 讚讬讛讜讬 诇讬讻讬 诪讬谞讗讬 住驻专 转讬专讜讻讬谉 讜讗讬讙专转 砖讘讜拽讬谉

As we learned in a mishna (Gittin 85a鈥揵): The essence of a bill of divorce is the sentence: You are hereby permitted to marry any man. Rabbi Yehuda says there is an additional statement that is an essential part of the divorce document: And this shall be to you from me a document of divorce [teirukhin] and a letter of dismissal. This demonstrates that according to Rabbi Yehuda, the wording of the bill of divorce itself must clarify that the husband is divorcing his wife through the bill of divorce.

讗诪讗讬 讚讞讬拽 砖诪讜讗诇 诇讗讜拽讜诪讛 诇诪转谞讬转讬谉 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 诇讜拽诪讛 讻专讘谞谉 讗祝 注诇 讙讘 讚讗讬谉 讬讚讬诐 诪讜讻讬讞讜转

The Gemara asks: Why does Shmuel strain to establish the mishna as being in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, which is a minority opinion? Let him establish it as being in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis that although there are no obvious intimations in one鈥檚 statements, they are still considered vows. Consequently, if one said: I am avowed to you, even if he did not add: With regard to that which I eat, the vow takes effect.

讗诪专 专讘讗 诪转谞讬转讬谉 拽砖讬转讬讛 讗诪讗讬 转讗谞讬 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 诇讱 砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 诇讱 诇讬转谞讬 砖讗谞讬 讗讜讻诇 砖讗谞讬 讟讜注诐 砖诪注 诪讬谞讛 讘注讬谞谉 讬讚讬诐 诪讜讻讬讞讜转

Rava said: The mishna was difficult for him. Why does it teach the cases where one adds: That which I eat of yours, and: That which I taste of yours? Let it teach: That which I eat, and: That which I taste, without the additional phrase: Of yours. Since the one taking the vow is addressing another individual, it is clear to whom he is referring even without this phrase. Conclude from this that we require obvious intimations, i.e., the intent of the individual taking the vow must be indicated by his verbal statement and not merely by the context of his statement.

讗讬转诪专 讬讚讬诐 砖讗讬谉 诪讜讻讬讞讜转 讗讘讬讬 讗诪专 讛讜讜讬讬谉 讬讚讬诐 讜专讘讗 讗诪专 诇讗 讛讜讜讬讬谉 讬讚讬诐 讗诪专 专讘讗 专讘讬 讗讬讚讬 讗住讘专讗 诇讬 讗诪专 拽专讗 谞讝讬专 诇讛讝讬专 诇讛壮 诪拽讬砖 讬讚讜转 谞讝讬专讜转 诇谞讝讬专讜转 诪讛 谞讝讬专讜转 讘讛驻诇讗讛 讗祝 讬讚讜转 谞讝讬专讜转 讘讛驻诇讗讛

搂 The Gemara addresses more fully the issue mentioned in passing in the previous discussion. It was stated that the amora鈥檌m disagreed with regard to ambiguous intimations. Abaye said: They are valid intimations, and Rava said: They are not valid intimations. Rava said: Rabbi Idi explained to me the source of this ruling. The verse states: 鈥淭he vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself [nazir lehazir] to the Lord鈥 (Numbers 6:2). The verse juxtaposes intimations of naziriteship, derived earlier (3a) from the doubled term 鈥nazir lehazir,鈥 to naziriteship. This indicates that just as accepting nazirite-ship must be expressed with a distinct articulation, so too, intimations of naziriteship must be expressed with a distinct articulation as opposed to ambiguous intimations.

诇讬诪讗 讘驻诇讜讙转讗 讚专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讜专讘谞谉 拽诪讬驻诇讙讬 讚转谞谉 讙讜驻讜 砖诇 讙讟 讛专讬 讗转 诪讜转专转 诇讻诇 讗讚诐 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讗讜诪专 讜讚讬谉 讚讬讛讜讬 诇讬讻讬 诪讬谞讗讬 住驻专 转讬专讜讻讬谉 讜讙讟 驻讟讜专讬谉 讜讗讬讙专转 砖讘讜拽讬谉 讗讘讬讬 讚讗诪专 讻专讘谞谉 讜专讘讗 讚讗诪专 讻专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛

The Gemara proposes: Let us say that these amora鈥檌m disagree with regard to the tannaitic dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna (Gittin 85a鈥揵): The essence of a bill of divorce is the sentence: You are hereby permitted to marry any man. Rabbi Yehuda says that there is an additional statement that is an essential part of the divorce document: And this shall be to you from me a document of divorce, a bill of release, and a letter of dismissal. One could suggest that Abaye, who holds that ambiguous intimations are valid intimations, said his statement in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and Rava, who holds that ambiguous intimations are not valid intimations, said his statement in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

讗诪专 诇讱 讗讘讬讬 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讛讜讚讛 讘注讬谞谉 讬讚讬诐 诪讜讻讬讞讜转 讗诇讗 讙讘讬 讙讟 讚讘注讬谞谉 讻专讬转讜转 讜诇讬讻讗 讗讘诇 讘注诇诪讗 诪讬 砖诪注转 诇讬讛

The Gemara responds: Abaye could have said to you: I say my statement even in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yehuda says that we require obvious intimations only with regard to a bill of divorce, as we require full severance of the relationship, and there is not full severance unless the bill of divorce clearly states that the husband is divorcing his wife through that document. However, did you hear him state generally that ambiguous intimations are not valid intimations?

讜专讘讗 讗诪专 讗谞讗 讚讗诪专讬 讗驻讬诇讜 诇专讘谞谉 注讚 讻讗谉 诇讗 拽讗诪专讬 专讘谞谉 讚诇讗 讘注讬谞谉 讬讚讬诐 诪讜讻讬讞讜转 讗诇讗 讙讘讬 讙讟

And Rava could have said: I say my statement even in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. The Rabbis say that we do not require obvious intimations only with regard to a bill of divorce,

Scroll To Top