Nedarim 5a — the Talmud in English

But

if

he said,

“I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you alone”—

both of them are forbidden!

It is forbidden for the one who imposes the vow to derive benefit from the one forbidden by the vow, and it is forbidden for the one forbidden by the vow to derive benefit from the one who imposed the vow, because this expression means a prohibition of benefit for both sides.

And necessarily this is how our Mishna must be established. For if we divide it into two matters, into “I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you” and “that I eat from you,” it is not possible to say only one “forbidden” with regard to both matters! For when he says only “I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you,” both of them become forbidden to one another, whereas when he says “that I eat from you,” only the one who imposes the vow becomes forbidden to derive benefit from his fellow, but his fellow does not become forbidden to derive benefit from him. And it follows that these are two prohibitions which take effect differently, and it is impossible to include them under one “forbidden.”

For this is like that which Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina said:

one who says,

“I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you”—

both of them are forbidden

to derive benefit, one from the other.

For the meaning of “I am forbidden by vow” is: I and my property are forbidden by vow

from you and from your property.

And since a person’s property cannot be forbidden from deriving benefit from his fellow, for property in itself is not capable of benefit and does not “derive benefit” from his fellow, and a person cannot forbid his property from deriving benefit from his fellow, necessarily the meaning of his words when he says “I am forbidden by vow” is to forbid his fellow from deriving benefit from his property, in addition to forbidding himself from deriving benefit from his fellow and from his property.

But the Gemara raises an objection to the assumption that the expression “I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you” means “I and my property are forbidden by vow from you and from your property”:

This

we learned

below [47b]: One who says,

“I am to you as a herem”,

which is an expression similar in its meaning to “I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you,” except that here he says it in the opposite form, forbidding himself to his fellow.

And if we say that with “I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you” he forbids himself and his property to his fellow and to his fellow’s property, then likewise in the opposite case, when he says “I am to you as a herem,” he forbids himself and his property to his fellow and to his fellow’s property.

And since he cannot forbid his property to his fellow’s property, the meaning of his words is that he forbids his fellow from deriving benefit from him and from his property, and he forbids himself from deriving benefit from his fellow and from his fellow’s property.

And nevertheless we learned there:

Only

the one forbidden by the vow is forbidden

to derive benefit from the one who imposed the vow.

But the one who imposed the vow is not

forbidden to derive benefit from the one forbidden by the vow! Rather, he is permitted to derive benefit from the one forbidden by the vow!

And we answer: This Mishna is speaking

in a case where he specified,

the one who imposed the vow specifying his words and adding,

“and I to you”—

not

forbidden.

And the Gemara further raises an objection from what we learned in that same Mishna:

One who says,

“You are to me as a herem”—

only

the one who makes the vow

[the one who imposes the vow]

is forbidden

to his fellow,

but the one forbidden by the vow is not

forbidden to the one who imposed the vow! And we answer: Here it is speaking

in a case where he specified

and said,

“And I to you”—

I am not

forbidden.

And the Gemara infers:

But when he speaks without specification,

if he did not specify and add, but merely said, “You are to me as a herem,”

what?

According to your statement, it must be said that

both of them are forbidden

to derive benefit from one another.

But it is impossible to say so, because—

as from what the latter clause teaches:

“I am to you

as a herem

and you to me

as a herem”—

both of them are forbidden,

it is proven that

the law

is that only with this expression

are both of them forbidden,

since he specified the prohibition for both sides.

But when

he says

without specification,

“You are to me as a herem”—only

he,

the one who imposed the vow,

is forbidden

to the one forbidden by the vow,

whereas

the other

is permitted

to him!

And on the basis of this difficulty, it is necessary to establish the words of Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina differently—

Rather, this is how it was stated:

This

which

said

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina:

One who says to his fellow:

“I am forbidden by vow to you”—

both of them are forbidden.

For the meaning of his words is, “I and my property are forbidden to you and to your property,” and his intention is to forbid both himself and his property to his fellow, and his fellow and his property to himself.

But if he said to him:

“I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you”—

he is forbidden and his fellow is permitted.

Since he said “from you,” the meaning of his words is to forbid only himself from his fellow and from his property.

And we raise an objection:

But our Mishna,

our Mishna

which teaches

in it

“from you,”

and we established our Mishna according to Shmuel,

for this is what it teaches in it:

“In all of them, until he says

‘that I eat from you, and that I taste from you’”—

it is he who is forbidden and his fellow is permitted.

But with “I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you”

alone—

both of them are forbidden!

And therefore the Gemara retracts and explains Shmuel’s words differently:

Rather, from the outset,

this

which

said

Shmuel—

this is how it was stated:

The reason is that he said

“that I eat from you and that I taste from you”—

it is he who is forbidden only with regard to eating.

But

if he said,

“I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you”—

he is forbidden even with regard to benefit.

For “incomplete formulations that are not conclusive” are considered by Shmuel to be formulations, and therefore he is forbidden even with regard to benefit, although he did not say this explicitly, and his speech does not prove that this is his intention.

And we refute this:

If so,

if this is Shmuel’s explanation of the words of our Mishna, how did Shmuel say, “In all of them—until he says ‘that I eat from you’”?

But in light of this, Shmuel should have said the opposite!

Let us say:

Let

Shmuel say this: The statement of our Mishna, “I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you,” is forbidden both with regard to eating and with regard to benefit.

And if he said only

“that I eat from you and that I taste from you”—

there is no prohibition except with regard to eating!

And on the basis of this difficulty, the Gemara retracts and establishes Shmuel’s words as it established them at the beginning:

Rather, this is how it was stated

in Shmuel’s words:

The reason is that he said, in addition to “I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you,”

“that I eat from you”

and “

that I taste from you”—

it is forbidden.

But

if

he said

“I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you”

alone—

it does not indicate

at all from his words

that he said, “It is forbidden.”

That is to say, the statement “I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you” is not a statement that proves that his intention is a vow, as the Gemara will explain, and since it is not a conclusive statement, it is an “incomplete formulation that is not conclusive,” and Shmuel holds that incomplete formulations that are not conclusive are not formulations!

And the Gemara explains why Shmuel said that without the addition “that I eat from you,” the statement “I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you” is considered an incomplete formulation that is not conclusive.

What is the reason

that “I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you” alone is not considered a conclusive formulation for a vow?—

For it is possible that his saying

“I am forbidden by vow from you”—

“I will not speak with you”,

that I will not speak with you,

is what it means.

And this is not a vow at all.

And likewise, it is possible that his saying

“I am separated from you”—

“for I do not act,

that I will not conduct

business dealings with you, is what it means.”

And this too is not a vow.

And likewise it is possible that his saying

“I am distanced from you”—

that I do not

stand

that I will not stand

within your four cubits

of yours,

is what it means.

And there is no vow in his words.

And since there is uncertainty regarding the meaning of his expression, whether it is an expression of a vow or an expression that is not a vow, it is considered an “incomplete formulation that is not conclusive,” and according to Shmuel, incomplete formulations that are not conclusive are not formulations!