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

Today's Daf Yomi

October 30, 2022 | ื”ืณ ื‘ืžืจื—ืฉื•ื•ืŸ ืชืฉืคืดื’

  • This month's learningย is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory ofย her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Batย Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

Nedarim 5

Today’s daf is sponsored by Eden Prywes:ย  “In honor of my wife Adele Druck and her mother Susan Fishbein.”ย 
Today’s daf is sponsored by Naomi Cohen for the refuah shleima of Chava bat Ilana Shoshana.
Shumel explained the cases in the Mishna of “I am avowed from you” and “That I will eat of yours” as needing to be combined in order to be effective. However, after a difficulty was raised with this explanation, the Gemara suggests three other possibilities of how to understand Shmuel. Only the last one remains without difficulties. The conclusion is that Shmuel holds like Rabbi Yehuda that a statement that can be understood in more than one way (ambiguous) is not a valid statement. Therefore the vow would not be effective unless one said “I am avowed to you that which I eat of yours.” Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion relates to a man who gives a get to his wife in which it is written “You are permitted to all men.” Since it wasn’t clear whether he intended his words to permit her and the get was just documenting what he did or did he mean the document to effect the get, this is ineffective. According to Rabbi Yehuda, he needs to write that the document is effecting the get. The rabbis disagree with Rabbi Yehuda. What motivated Shmuel to understand our Mishna in line with Rabbi Yehuda and not the rabbis? Rava and Abaye also disagree about yadot that are ambiguous. The Gemara tries to line up their opinions with Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis, however, this is rejected as there are reasons to distinguish in this area between get and vows.

ืื‘ืœ ืืžืจ ืžื•ื“ืจื ื™ ื”ื™ืžืš ืœื—ื•ื“ื™ื” ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืžื•ื“ืจื ื™ ื”ื™ืžืš ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ


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 แธคanina, said: If one says: I am avowed from you, they are both prohibited.


ืชื ืŸ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ืขืœื™ืš ื—ืจื ื”ืžื•ื“ืจ ืืกื•ืจ ืื‘ืœ ืžื“ื™ืจ ืœื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืคืจื™ืฉ ื•ืืช ืขืœื™ ืœื


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.


ืืช ืขืœื™ ื—ืจื ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืืกื•ืจ ืื‘ืœ ืžื•ื“ืจ ืœื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืคืจื™ืฉ ื•ืื ื ืขืœืš ืœื


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.


ืื‘ืœ ืกืชืžื ืžืื™ ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ืืกื•ืจื™ื ื”ื ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ืขืœื™ืš ื•ืืช ืขืœื™ ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ืืกื•ืจื™ื ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ื”ื ืกืชืžื ื”ื•ื ืืกื•ืจ ื•ื—ื‘ืจื• ืžื•ืชืจ


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.


ืืœื ื”ื›ื™ ืืชืžืจ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืžื•ื“ืจ ืื ื™ ืœืš ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ืžื•ื“ืจื ื™ ื”ื™ืžืš ื”ื•ื ืืกื•ืจ ื•ื—ื‘ืจื• ืžื•ืชืจ


Rather, this is how the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, 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.


ื•ื”ื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื”ื™ืžืš ื•ืื•ืงื™ืžื ื ืœืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืืžืจ ืฉืื ื™ ื˜ื•ืขื ืœืš ื•ืฉืื ื™ ืื•ื›ืœ ืœืš ื”ื•ื ื“ืืกื•ืจ ื•ื—ื‘ืจื• ืžื•ืชืจ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืžื•ื“ืจื ื™ ื”ื™ืžืš ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ


The Gemara asks: But didnโ€™t 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.


ืืœื ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืื ื™ ืื•ื›ืœ ืœืš ื•ืฉืื ื™ ื˜ื•ืขื ืœืš ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืืกื•ืจ ืืœื ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื” ื”ื ืžื•ื“ืจื ื™ ืžืžืš ืืกื•ืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื”ื ืื”


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.


ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืœื™ืžื ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ื›ื™ ื•ืื ืœื ืืžืจ ืืœื ืฉืื ื™ ืื•ื›ืœ ืœืš ื•ืฉืื ื™ ื˜ื•ืขื ืœืš ืื™ืŸ ืืกื•ืจ ืืœื ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื”


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.


ืืœื ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืื ื™ ืื•ื›ืœ ืœืš ื•ืฉืื ื™ ื˜ื•ืขื ืœืš ื”ื•ื ื“ืืกื•ืจ ืื‘ืœ ืืžืจ ืžื•ื“ืจื ื™ ื”ื™ืžืš ืœื ืžืฉืžืข ื“ืืžืจ ืืกื•ืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืžื•ื“ืจ ืื ื™ ืžืžืš ืœื ืžืฉืชืขื™ื ื ื‘ื”ื“ืš ืžืฉืžืข ืžื•ืคืจืฉื ื™ ืžืžืš ื“ืœื ืขื‘ื™ื“ื ื ืขืžืš ืžืฉื ื•ืžืชืŸ ืžืฉืžืข ืžืจื•ื—ืงื ื™ ืžืžืš ื“ืœื ืงืื™ืžื ื ื‘ืืจื‘ืข ืืžื•ืช ื“ื™ืœืš ืžืฉืžืข


Rather, this is how Shmuelโ€™s 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.


ืœื™ืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื™ื“ื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื›ื™ื—ื•ืช ืœื ื”ื•ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื™ื“ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžื•ืงื™ื ืœื” ืœืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืืžืจ ื™ื“ื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื›ื™ื—ื•ืช ืœื ื”ื•ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื™ื“ื™ื


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.


ื“ืชื ืŸ ื’ื•ืคื• ืฉืœ ื’ื˜ ื”ืจื™ ืืช ืžื•ืชืจืช ืœื›ืœ ืื“ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื“ื™ืŸ ื“ื™ื”ื•ื™ ืœื™ื›ื™ ืžื™ื ืื™ ืกืคืจ ืชื™ืจื•ื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ื’ืจืช ืฉื‘ื•ืงื™ืŸ


As we learned in a mishna (Gittin 85aโ€“b): 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.


ืืžืื™ ื“ื—ื™ืง ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœืื•ืงื•ืžื” ืœืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื•ืงืžื” ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืื™ืŸ ื™ื“ื™ื ืžื•ื›ื™ื—ื•ืช


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 oneโ€™s 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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืงืฉื™ืชื™ื” ืืžืื™ ืชืื ื™ ืฉืื ื™ ืื•ื›ืœ ืœืš ืฉืื ื™ ื˜ื•ืขื ืœืš ืœื™ืชื ื™ ืฉืื ื™ ืื•ื›ืœ ืฉืื ื™ ื˜ื•ืขื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื™ื“ื™ื ืžื•ื›ื™ื—ื•ืช


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.


ืื™ืชืžืจ ื™ื“ื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื›ื™ื—ื•ืช ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ื”ื•ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื ื”ื•ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื™ื“ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืจื‘ื™ ืื™ื“ื™ ืืกื‘ืจื ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ืณ ืžืงื™ืฉ ื™ื“ื•ืช ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืœื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืžื” ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื‘ื”ืคืœืื” ืืฃ ื™ื“ื•ืช ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื‘ื”ืคืœืื”


ยง The Gemara addresses more fully the issue mentioned in passing in the previous discussion. It was stated that the amoraโ€™im 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: โ€œThe vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself [nazir lehazir] to the Lordโ€ (Numbers 6:2). The verse juxtaposes intimations of naziriteship, derived earlier (3a) from the doubled term โ€œnazir lehazir,โ€ to naziriteship. This indicates that just as accepting naziriteship must be expressed with a distinct articulation, so too, intimations of naziriteship must be expressed with a distinct articulation as opposed to ambiguous intimations.


ืœื™ืžื ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื’ื•ืคื• ืฉืœ ื’ื˜ ื”ืจื™ ืืช ืžื•ืชืจืช ืœื›ืœ ืื“ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื“ื™ืŸ ื“ื™ื”ื•ื™ ืœื™ื›ื™ ืžื™ื ืื™ ืกืคืจ ืชื™ืจื•ื›ื™ืŸ ื•ื’ื˜ ืคื˜ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ื’ืจืช ืฉื‘ื•ืงื™ืŸ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”


The Gemara proposes: Let us say that these amoraโ€™im disagree with regard to the tannaitic dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna (Gittin 85aโ€“b): 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.


ืืžืจ ืœืš ืื‘ื™ื™ ืื ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื™ื“ื™ื ืžื•ื›ื™ื—ื•ืช ืืœื ื’ื‘ื™ ื’ื˜ ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื›ืจื™ืชื•ืช ื•ืœื™ื›ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืขืœืžื ืžื™ ืฉืžืขืช ืœื™ื”


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?


ื•ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืื ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื™ื“ื™ื ืžื•ื›ื™ื—ื•ืช ืืœื ื’ื‘ื™ ื’ื˜


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 learningย is sponsored by Leah Goldford in loving memory ofย her grandmothers, Tzipporah bat Yechezkiel, Rivka Yoda Batย Dovide Tzvi, Bracha Bayla bat Beryl, her father-in-law, Chaim Gershon ben Tzvi Aryeh, her mother, Devorah Rivkah bat Tuvia Hacohen, her cousins, Avrum Baer ben Mordechai, and Sharon bat Yaakov.

  • Masechet Nedarim is sponsored by Aviva and Benny Adler in honor of our mother Lorraine Kahane and in loving memory of our parents Joseph Kahane z"l, Miriam and Ari Adler z"l.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

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

learn daf yomi one week at a time with tamara spitz

Nedarim: 2-7 – Daf Yomi One Week at a Time

This week we will learn what a Neder (vow) is and how one can obligate or prohibit something to themselves....
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 6: Partial-statement Marriage

More on Abaye and Rava on ambiguous statements, when they're binding, and how potential consecration results in much more stringent...
talking talmud_square

Nedarim 5: When Are Inconclusive, Ambiguous Statements Valid?

First, Shmuel's understanding of the mishnah. Also, partial declarations, and when they count as binding and when they don't, especially...
intro

Introduction to Nedarim

ย ืœืข"ื ย  ืžืจืช ืื™ื™ื“ืœ ื‘ืŸ ื ืชืŸ ื•ืฉืจื” ืข"ื”   There are two types of nedarim (commonly translated as vows[1]) found in...

Nedarim 5

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Nedarim 5

ืื‘ืœ ืืžืจ ืžื•ื“ืจื ื™ ื”ื™ืžืš ืœื—ื•ื“ื™ื” ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ื›ื™ ื”ื ื“ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืžื•ื“ืจื ื™ ื”ื™ืžืš ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ


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 แธคanina, said: If one says: I am avowed from you, they are both prohibited.


ืชื ืŸ ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ืขืœื™ืš ื—ืจื ื”ืžื•ื“ืจ ืืกื•ืจ ืื‘ืœ ืžื“ื™ืจ ืœื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืคืจื™ืฉ ื•ืืช ืขืœื™ ืœื


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.


ืืช ืขืœื™ ื—ืจื ื”ื ื•ื“ืจ ืืกื•ืจ ืื‘ืœ ืžื•ื“ืจ ืœื ื›ื’ื•ืŸ ื“ืคืจื™ืฉ ื•ืื ื ืขืœืš ืœื


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.


ืื‘ืœ ืกืชืžื ืžืื™ ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ืืกื•ืจื™ื ื”ื ืžื“ืงืชื ื™ ืกื™ืคื ื”ืจื™ื ื™ ืขืœื™ืš ื•ืืช ืขืœื™ ืฉื ื™ื”ืŸ ืืกื•ืจื™ื ื”ื“ื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ื“ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ื”ื ืกืชืžื ื”ื•ื ืืกื•ืจ ื•ื—ื‘ืจื• ืžื•ืชืจ


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.


ืืœื ื”ื›ื™ ืืชืžืจ ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืกื™ ื‘ืจื‘ื™ ื—ื ื™ื ื ืžื•ื“ืจ ืื ื™ ืœืš ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ ืžื•ื“ืจื ื™ ื”ื™ืžืš ื”ื•ื ืืกื•ืจ ื•ื—ื‘ืจื• ืžื•ืชืจ


Rather, this is how the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi แธคanina, 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.


ื•ื”ื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื“ืงืชื ื™ ื”ื™ืžืš ื•ืื•ืงื™ืžื ื ืœืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืœืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ื›ื•ืœืŸ ืขื“ ืฉื™ืืžืจ ืฉืื ื™ ื˜ื•ืขื ืœืš ื•ืฉืื ื™ ืื•ื›ืœ ืœืš ื”ื•ื ื“ืืกื•ืจ ื•ื—ื‘ืจื• ืžื•ืชืจ ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืžื•ื“ืจื ื™ ื”ื™ืžืš ืฉื ื™ื”ื ืืกื•ืจื™ืŸ


The Gemara asks: But didnโ€™t 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.


ืืœื ืžืขื™ืงืจื ื“ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืื ื™ ืื•ื›ืœ ืœืš ื•ืฉืื ื™ ื˜ื•ืขื ืœืš ื”ื•ื ื“ืื™ืŸ ื”ื•ื ืืกื•ืจ ืืœื ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื” ื”ื ืžื•ื“ืจื ื™ ืžืžืš ืืกื•ืจ ืืคื™ืœื• ื‘ื”ื ืื”


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.


ืื™ ื”ื›ื™ ืœื™ืžื ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื”ื›ื™ ื•ืื ืœื ืืžืจ ืืœื ืฉืื ื™ ืื•ื›ืœ ืœืš ื•ืฉืื ื™ ื˜ื•ืขื ืœืš ืื™ืŸ ืืกื•ืจ ืืœื ื‘ืื›ื™ืœื”


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.


ืืœื ื”ื›ื™ ืื™ืชืžืจ ื˜ืขืžื ื“ืืžืจ ืฉืื ื™ ืื•ื›ืœ ืœืš ื•ืฉืื ื™ ื˜ื•ืขื ืœืš ื”ื•ื ื“ืืกื•ืจ ืื‘ืœ ืืžืจ ืžื•ื“ืจื ื™ ื”ื™ืžืš ืœื ืžืฉืžืข ื“ืืžืจ ืืกื•ืจ ืžืื™ ื˜ืขืžื ืžื•ื“ืจ ืื ื™ ืžืžืš ืœื ืžืฉืชืขื™ื ื ื‘ื”ื“ืš ืžืฉืžืข ืžื•ืคืจืฉื ื™ ืžืžืš ื“ืœื ืขื‘ื™ื“ื ื ืขืžืš ืžืฉื ื•ืžืชืŸ ืžืฉืžืข ืžืจื•ื—ืงื ื™ ืžืžืš ื“ืœื ืงืื™ืžื ื ื‘ืืจื‘ืข ืืžื•ืช ื“ื™ืœืš ืžืฉืžืข


Rather, this is how Shmuelโ€™s 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.


ืœื™ืžื ืงืกื‘ืจ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื™ื“ื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื›ื™ื—ื•ืช ืœื ื”ื•ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื™ื“ื™ื ืื™ืŸ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืžื•ืงื™ื ืœื” ืœืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื“ืืžืจ ื™ื“ื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื›ื™ื—ื•ืช ืœื ื”ื•ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื™ื“ื™ื


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.


ื“ืชื ืŸ ื’ื•ืคื• ืฉืœ ื’ื˜ ื”ืจื™ ืืช ืžื•ืชืจืช ืœื›ืœ ืื“ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื“ื™ืŸ ื“ื™ื”ื•ื™ ืœื™ื›ื™ ืžื™ื ืื™ ืกืคืจ ืชื™ืจื•ื›ื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ื’ืจืช ืฉื‘ื•ืงื™ืŸ


As we learned in a mishna (Gittin 85aโ€“b): 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.


ืืžืื™ ื“ื—ื™ืง ืฉืžื•ืืœ ืœืื•ืงื•ืžื” ืœืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืœื•ืงืžื” ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืืฃ ืขืœ ื’ื‘ ื“ืื™ืŸ ื™ื“ื™ื ืžื•ื›ื™ื—ื•ืช


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 oneโ€™s 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.


ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืžืชื ื™ืชื™ืŸ ืงืฉื™ืชื™ื” ืืžืื™ ืชืื ื™ ืฉืื ื™ ืื•ื›ืœ ืœืš ืฉืื ื™ ื˜ื•ืขื ืœืš ืœื™ืชื ื™ ืฉืื ื™ ืื•ื›ืœ ืฉืื ื™ ื˜ื•ืขื ืฉืžืข ืžื™ื ื” ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื™ื“ื™ื ืžื•ื›ื™ื—ื•ืช


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.


ืื™ืชืžืจ ื™ื“ื™ื ืฉืื™ืŸ ืžื•ื›ื™ื—ื•ืช ืื‘ื™ื™ ืืžืจ ื”ื•ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื™ื“ื™ื ื•ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืœื ื”ื•ื•ื™ื™ืŸ ื™ื“ื™ื ืืžืจ ืจื‘ื ืจื‘ื™ ืื™ื“ื™ ืืกื‘ืจื ืœื™ ืืžืจ ืงืจื ื ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ื–ื™ืจ ืœื”ืณ ืžืงื™ืฉ ื™ื“ื•ืช ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืœื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ืžื” ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื‘ื”ืคืœืื” ืืฃ ื™ื“ื•ืช ื ื–ื™ืจื•ืช ื‘ื”ืคืœืื”


ยง The Gemara addresses more fully the issue mentioned in passing in the previous discussion. It was stated that the amoraโ€™im 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: โ€œThe vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself [nazir lehazir] to the Lordโ€ (Numbers 6:2). The verse juxtaposes intimations of naziriteship, derived earlier (3a) from the doubled term โ€œnazir lehazir,โ€ to naziriteship. This indicates that just as accepting naziriteship must be expressed with a distinct articulation, so too, intimations of naziriteship must be expressed with a distinct articulation as opposed to ambiguous intimations.


ืœื™ืžื ื‘ืคืœื•ื’ืชื ื“ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื•ืจื‘ื ืŸ ืงืžื™ืคืœื’ื™ ื“ืชื ืŸ ื’ื•ืคื• ืฉืœ ื’ื˜ ื”ืจื™ ืืช ืžื•ืชืจืช ืœื›ืœ ืื“ื ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืื•ืžืจ ื•ื“ื™ืŸ ื“ื™ื”ื•ื™ ืœื™ื›ื™ ืžื™ื ืื™ ืกืคืจ ืชื™ืจื•ื›ื™ืŸ ื•ื’ื˜ ืคื˜ื•ืจื™ืŸ ื•ืื™ื’ืจืช ืฉื‘ื•ืงื™ืŸ ืื‘ื™ื™ ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื•ืจื‘ื ื“ืืžืจ ื›ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”


The Gemara proposes: Let us say that these amoraโ€™im disagree with regard to the tannaitic dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis. As we learned in a mishna (Gittin 85aโ€“b): 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.


ืืžืจ ืœืš ืื‘ื™ื™ ืื ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจ ืจื‘ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื™ื“ื™ื ืžื•ื›ื™ื—ื•ืช ืืœื ื’ื‘ื™ ื’ื˜ ื“ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื›ืจื™ืชื•ืช ื•ืœื™ื›ื ืื‘ืœ ื‘ืขืœืžื ืžื™ ืฉืžืขืช ืœื™ื”


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?


ื•ืจื‘ื ืืžืจ ืื ื ื“ืืžืจื™ ืืคื™ืœื• ืœืจื‘ื ืŸ ืขื“ ื›ืืŸ ืœื ืงืืžืจื™ ืจื‘ื ืŸ ื“ืœื ื‘ืขื™ื ืŸ ื™ื“ื™ื ืžื•ื›ื™ื—ื•ืช ืืœื ื’ื‘ื™ ื’ื˜


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