Nedarim 5a (ה.) — the Talmud in English

But

if

he said “

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

both are forbidden!

The one who imposed the prohibition is forbidden to derive benefit from the one who is the object of the vow, and the one who is the object of the vow is forbidden to derive benefit from the one who imposed it, because this wording signifies a prohibition of benefit for both parties.

It is necessarily so that our Mishna must be explained in this manner. For if we divide it into two matters, “I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you” and “that I eat from you,” it is impossible to say merely “forbidden” once with regard to both matters. For when one says only “I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you,” both parties become forbidden to one another, whereas when one says “that I eat from you,” only the one who imposed the prohibition is forbidden with regard to his fellow, but his fellow is not forbidden with regard to him. Thus, these are two prohibitions that take effect in different ways, and it is impossible to include them under a single statement that they are “forbidden.”

As in that which Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said:

one who says

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

both are forbidden

to derive benefit from one another.

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

to you and to your property.

And since a person’s property cannot be prohibited from deriving benefit from another person—for property itself is not capable of deriving benefit, and it does not “benefit” from another person, and a person cannot prohibit his property from deriving benefit from another person—it necessarily follows that when he says, “I am forbidden by vow,” his words mean that he prohibits his fellow from deriving benefit from his property, in addition to prohibiting himself from deriving benefit from his fellow and from his fellow’s property.

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

This

we learned below [47b]:

one who says

“I am to you as a forbidden offering”,

which is wording similar in meaning to “I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you,” except that here he expresses it in the opposite manner, prohibiting himself with regard to his fellow.

And if we say that by “I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you” he prohibits himself and his property with regard to his fellow and his fellow’s property, then the same should apply in the reverse case: when he says, “I am to you as a forbidden offering,” he prohibits himself and his property with regard to his fellow and his fellow’s property.

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

Nevertheless, we learned there:

Only

the one who is the object of the vow is forbidden

to derive benefit from the one who imposed the prohibition.

But the one who imposed the prohibition is not

forbidden to derive benefit from the one who is the object of the vow; rather, he is permitted to derive benefit from the one who is the object of the vow!

And we answer: This Mishna is speaking

in a case where he specified

his words, and added: “

And you are upon me” —

not

forbidden.

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

One who says, “

You are to me as a forbidden offering” —

only

the one who made the vow

[the one who imposed the prohibition]

is forbidden

with regard to his fellow,

but the one who is the object of the vow is not

forbidden with regard to the one who imposed the prohibition! And we answer: Here, it is speaking

in a case where he specified

and said, “

And I am upon you” —

I am not

forbidden.

And the Gemara infers:

But if he said it without specification,

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

what is the law?

According to your statement, one must say that

both are forbidden

to derive benefit from one another.

But this cannot be said, because—

As, from the latter clause, we learn: “

I am to you

as a

forbidden offering, and you are to me

as a forbidden offering” —

both are forbidden;

this proves that

the law

applies

only when both are forbidden,

since he specified the prohibition with regard to both sides.

But if

he said

without specification, “You are to me as a forbidden offering” — only

he,

the one

who imposed the prohibition,

is forbidden

with regard to the one who is the object of the vow,

while

his fellow

is permitted

with regard to him!

And because of this difficulty, Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina’s statement must be explained differently—

Rather, this is how it was stated:

This

that

said

Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina:

One who says to his fellow:

“I am forbidden by vow to you” —

both are forbidden.

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

But if he said to him:

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

he is forbidden, but his fellow is permitted.

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

And we raise an objection:

But our Mishna,

our Mishna,

which teaches

in it

“from you,”

and we established the Mishna according to Shmuel,

for this is what it teaches:

In all of them, until he says “

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

he is forbidden, but his fellow is permitted.

But when he says, “I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you,”

alone —

both are forbidden!

Therefore, the Gemara retracts this explanation and explains Shmuel’s statement differently:

Rather, initially, this

that

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” —

he 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 to derive benefit.

For according to Shmuel, “incomplete expressions that do not clearly demonstrate” the intended vow are nevertheless considered valid expressions; therefore, he is forbidden even to derive benefit, although he did not state this explicitly and his words do not demonstrate that this was his intention.

And we refute this:

If so,

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

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

Let us say

that

Shmuel should have said as follows: The statement of our Mishna, “I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you,” is prohibited both with regard to eating and with regard to deriving benefit.

And if he said only, “

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

the prohibition applies only to eating!

And because of this difficulty, the Gemara retracts its explanation and establishes Shmuel’s statement as it established it initially:

Rather, this is how it was stated

in Shmuel’s statement:

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” —

this is what renders him forbidden.

But

if

he said, “

I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you”

alone —

it does not mean

anything in his words

that he said, “I am forbidden.”

That is to say, the expression “I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you” is not an expression that demonstrates that his intention is to make a vow, as the Gemara will explain. Since it is not a demonstrative expression, it is an “incomplete expression that does not clearly demonstrate,” and Shmuel maintains that such expressions are not considered valid expressions.

The Gemara explains why Shmuel said that without the addition “that I eat from you,” the expression “I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you” is an incomplete expression that does not clearly demonstrate.

What is the reason

that “I am forbidden by vow to derive benefit from you” alone is not considered a demonstrative expression with regard to a vow? —

For it is possible that when he says, “

I am forbidden by vow from you,”

it means, “I will not speak with you,”

so that I will not speak with you,

is what he means.

And this is not a vow at all.

Similarly, it is possible that when he says, “

I am separated from you,” it means

“I will not do,”

so that I will not conduct

business dealings with you, is what he means.

This too is not a vow.

Likewise, it is possible that when he says, “

I am distanced from you,” it means

that I will not

stand

so that I will not stand

within your four cubits,

which are yours,

is what he means.

There is no vow in his words.

And since there is uncertainty concerning the meaning of his language—whether it is the language of a vow or language that does not constitute a vow—it is considered an “incomplete expression that does not clearly demonstrate,” and according to Shmuel, such expressions are not considered valid expressions!